I want to purchase a circular polarizer for my 12-24 wide angle zoom. Is it necessary because of extreme wide angle to get a "thin" filter?
Why is it necessary? It takes a 77mm filter.
Rockwell's reviews will typically indicate his finding on whether a thin filter is necessary for any specific wide angel lens model.
jcsnell wrote:
Why is it necessary? It takes a 77mm filter.
Relative to the widest angle of view. Doesn't matter how wide the filter size.
Specs are with NO filter on the lens, simply the lens.
Usually not a problem on telephotos though.
Keep in mind, also, that a polarizing filter can yield some very uneven skies simply because of the angle of view.
Degree of ultra wideness means less than how much the lens filter ring crowds the glass, the actual working optics.
Ive got a 28 that needs a thin filter and a 15 that could stack two filters if need be. Both use 52mm filters. The 28 is a f:1.4 and the glass crowds the filter ring. The 15 is a f:4.5 and has plenty of unused space between the glass and the filter ring.
pendennis wrote:
Keep in mind, also, that a polarizing filter can yield some very uneven skies simply because of the angle of view.
Polarizers are verrrrry useful on ultra wides. The idea that PLs are all about skies is just typically wide spread UHH narrow thinking.
Trye, PLs can make sky tonality vary across the frame. But that is not a fault or problem that needs a "warning label". Que sera sera.
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
jcsnell wrote:
I want to purchase a circular polarizer for my 12-24 wide angle zoom. Is it necessary because of extreme wide angle to get a "thin" filter?
The thinner the polarizer, the less the aberrations will be introduced in the corners of the image. A filter is not a part of the original lens design and will affect wide angle lenses the most. The image coming to the lens from a corner will be at an angle to the camera. That light will hit a flat filter at an angle. That means it will start separating the colors like a prism. The thinner the glass, the less the separation. And the separation will not be much, but it will be more than no filter at all.
As far as the uneven polarization of the sky, don't set the polarization for maximum polarization. Try and even out the unpolarized horizon to both sides of the frame. This will mean that the polarization will not be maximumized for the overall image but will appear more "natural". And if this does not work well enough for what you desire, then just take off the filter and shoot. Polarizers on very wide angle lenses can be very tricky shooting.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Yes, it is necessary in a majority of cases to avoid vignettes. One word of caution, a polarizer in a lens like a wide angle like yours will give full polarization on part of the image only because of the lens wide field of view when photographing the sky. Used with other purposes the polarizer will do fine.
Understand that a polarizer saturates colors, controls non metallic reflections, saturates vivid fall colors and obviously darkens the sky or ocean. Understand also that at full polarization you will lose 2 stops of light.
Thanks for all the replies, especially WDROSS, that is exactly the answer I was looking for.
joecichjr
Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
User ID wrote:
Polarizers are verrrrry useful on ultra wides. The idea that PLs are all about skies is just typically wide spread UHH narrow thinking.
Trye, PLs can make sky tonality vary across the frame. But that is not a fault or problem that needs a "warning label". Que sera sera.
A beautiful shot - whose subject I wouldn't mind driving and showing off ๐งก๐๐๐ค๐๐๐
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.