papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Does anyone have any experience with the Canon 77 Circular Polarizer Filter PL-CB? How does this compare to the other top brands? I am not looking for advice about another brand to buy. Thanks in advance.

Lazy J Loc: Pacific Northwest

Surprisingly to me, the coating on mine did not hold up very well, and with relatively little use. You state you do not want other brand recommendations so I will not give mine, but I would think twice about buying the one you reference.

My two cents worth, keep the change!

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Thanks for the response. I currently have this filter and it seems to work ok. Just wondering if it compared to any of the other brands.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

I have Canon's Protect Filter and the CPL-CB. I use these on my 24-105 f4 L. I also have had and do have the D500 & D250.

Non of the above were purchased at retail and I think that they are over priced. I have found them of very high quality. I have used the CPL-CB many times. I always pull the Protective filter before attaching the CPL-CB. I am almost certain that they are manufactured by third party. They seem to be out of stock a lot.

J. R.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Thanks for the response.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Canon does not appear to make their own filters and at full retail they are extremely over-priced. They appear to outsource filters from another manufacturer. Who that is, I don't know... probably Hoya/Kenko or Tiffen. Canon filters are okay, but nothing special using unknown glass, a standard density polarizer in plain aluminum frames with NO multi-coatings. $195 is an AWFULLY HIGH PRICE for a 77mm, uncoated, rather average quality C-Pol.

For a lot less money, a far better quality filter such as B+W XS-Pro Kaesemann High Transmissive, German Schott glass in a slim brass mount, with 16-layer Nano multi-coatings are available in the same size for $110.

You ask for opinions and comparison... but not advice. I don't see how anyone can give you the feedback you want without it appearing to be advice.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

I simply asked for other people's experience, not opionions, with this filter and how it compared with other brands. As I stated, I was not asking for recommendations. Your first two paragraphs answered my question but your condescending third paragraph was uncalled for.

Haydon

Short of lab results you aren't going to get anything but opinions. You really should revise your statement about Alan. He is one of the premier contributors here and is extremely knowledgeable. He goes out of his way to offer long dissertations that are extremely beneficial. Look up his profile, review his thread contributions. I'm sure you will see things more clearly.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

As I said in my original post, I was looking for other peoples experiences with the filter. I was not looking for the scientific evidence about the filter or lab testing results. Simply other photographers experience. His first two paragraphs addressed the question completely and for that I am grateful. However, he may know a lot about the issue but his last paragraph, in a round-about way, said my question was stupid as posted and that was uncalled for.

Bipod

Exactly!

Forget about the brand name on the filter. There are only two things that matter in a circular polarizing filter:
the degree of polarization and the coating. (All modern filters are made with reasonable flat, transparent materials.)

Look at the front surface in reflected light: if it reflects like ordinary window glass, it's uncoated.
If the reflected image is somewhat dim, but basically gray, it's single coated.
If the reflected image is greeen or magenta, it's multi-coated.

Single coated is way better than uncoated. And multi-coated can be better still--to a point.

Now do the same thing for the back surface. If both are single coated, then it's "fully single-coated".
If both are multi-coated, then it's "fully multicoated".

To find the degree of polarization, you will need a good polarizing filter. Place the circular polarizer
on the linear polarizer, and hold it up to a lamp. No mater how you rotate the ciruclar polarizer
relative to the linear polarizer, it will look dark. That tells you it's working.

Or...you can buy the one that says "Canon" or "Gucci" on it---there's even a chance that it really
was licensed by those companies. Or you can buy the one that claims to contain "11 secret herbs
and spices". It's up to you, the Consumer.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'm sorry you felt part of my previous response was condescending. It wasn't intended that way. I was simply stating a fact... That the experiences we state to make comparisons are bound to involve mentioning other brands and our opinions of them vs the Canon, so are going to end up sounding an awful lot like recommendations. I really don't see how that can be avoided (or why anyone would want to avoid informed recommendations, for that matter).

I HAVE but no longer use a 77mm Canon C-Pol... it was okay. It's uncoated, standard strength polarizer, mounted in a pretty standard brass frame. Being uncoated, it was fine for indoor use or when very well shaded mounted on a telephoto with a deep lens hood (which is rare usage for me). But being uncoated it was more susceptible to flare when not as well shaded, such as on a wide angle lens. Plus it was seriously overpriced (even some years ago). I bought it anyway thinking it would somehow be better. It wasn't. I doubt Canon even made it. Probably outsourced it from Kenko/Hoya or some other manufacturer. There are C-Pol of the same quality, materials and specs at 1/3 or 1/4 the price. Or much better ones that cost less. My 77mm Canon C-Pol got scratched and damaged. I stopped using it, but it's still around here somewhere (I have a hard time trashing something I paid that much for!).

In general, the camera manufacturers' branded filters are not a good deal. They often don't make the filters themselves and are usually way overpriced for their features and quality.

I also HAVE and use a Canon Drop-In C-Pol for a couple lenses that require that type filter. It's the same quality as the 77mm, but the lack of coatings doesn't matter with a drop-in, since it's fully enclosed inside the rear barrel of the lens, not subject oblique light and such, the way a filter mounted on the front of a lens is.

Since the Canon C-Pol, I've bought several other brands that are better quality and higher specification in various ways... for less money. For more general outdoor use (with typical concerns about oblique light causing flare, etc.), I HAVE and use multi-coated C-Pol in 77mm, 72mm, 58mm sizes including Hoya HD2, Hoya Pro1, B+W MRC, B+W Kaesemann and, most recently, B+W XS-Pro Kaesemann High Transmissive (HT).

The Hoya filters are good and have 8-layer multi-coating, but are just standard strength C-Pol made with unknown brand "optical glass" in aluminum frame, and a bit pricey.

All three of the B+W use high quality German Schott glass. They also all use brass frames, which are less likely than aluminum to gall and get stuck on lenses or to each other when filters are stacked.

The B+W MRC and original Kaesemann (which is now discontinued) use 8-layer multi-coatings and are standard strength C-Pol. The difference between them is that the Kaesemann uses finer foils and has added sealing for weather resistance.

The B+W XS-Pro Kaesemann HT is same as the others, except it uses a slim frame, which might be needed to prevent vignetting on an ultrawide lens. It's also the new "high transmissive" type which aren't as dark as traditional C-Pol, so not as much light is lost to the filter. Standard strength C-Pol typically "cost" 1.25 to 2.25 stops of light, depending upon how much of their effect you've dialed in. In comparison, the relatively new HT type are claimed to only cost between .75 and 1/5 stop, approx. So the HT type (now made by a number of manufacturers), might make possible shooting with the filter in slightly more challenging lighting conditions, when you need all the light you can gather. (B+W's "F-Pro" series are much the same, except use a standard size frame instead of the slim type the XS-Pro uses. I think F-Pro are only 8-layer coated, too.)

The B+W XS-Pro also has 16-layer Nano multi-coatings.... These are more scratch, fingerprint, dust and water resistant than other types of coatings or uncoated filters, plus are easier to clean.

There are others with similar specs to the B+W.... Heliopan and Breakthrough Photography X4 are near identical to top-of-the-line B+W.... Hoya HD3, Hoya EVO come to mind as being pretty close in most respects. But they're all significantly more expensive than B+W. Marumi and Formatt/Hi Tech Firecrest are two brands I've noticed that often seem to be priced more similarly to B+W and have fairly similar specs.

There are a lot of other brands that are even cheaper, but I have never used them, haven't seen any reviews or user feedback about them and don't know how they stack up against the filters I use.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c0&setIPP=48&ci=115&fct=fct_circular-sizes_27%7c77mm%2bfct_design_2321%7cmulti-coated&srtclk=itemspp&ipp=48&N=4026728357

Note: Canon doesn't even show up on the list at that link because I narrowed it to only multi-coated filters and the Canon C-Pol is uncoated. If it were on the list, at $195 it would be among the most expensive.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Thank you for the very informative response.

Bipod

I learned a lot from that post. Good summary of features listed by manufactuers.

Just wanted to add for the original poster: if your main use for a polarizer is for landscapes on sunny days,
then probably there is plenty of light and you are using a lens hood. So you may not get much benefit from
the coating on your polarizing filter. Yes, you might lose up to a stop of brightness, but that might get your
from unsharp f/22 down to sharper f/16. In low light, it would be a whole different ball game.

According to Edmund Optics, optical single-coating was invented in 1935 (by Alexander Smakula working at
Carl Zeiss in Jena, Germany), so all prior photography was done without coated lenses or filters. Multi-coated
camera lenses and filters first appeared in the 1970s. So a whole lotta photography was done without them.

Where coating does you the most good is on a lens made with elements in many groups, to avoid losing contrast.
But in high contrast lighting situations, losing contraset may actually be a good thing. When lenses got very contrasty,
so did photos: often too contrasty to print. So it all depends. (I wish all technical questions were black and
white, or more money always meant better results, but that's not how it is.)

Also, most polarizing filters are a glass-plastic-glass sandwich.The company that makes the filter almost certainly
doesn't make the polarizer itself: they buy it in sheets from an optical supply house or directly from Polaroid or
some other manufacture of opitcal materials. I looked it up, and Polaroid polarizers are PVA plastic with iodine
doping.

As for superflat glass: it's a waste of money. I can guarantee that sheet of plastic isn't optically flat! It doesn't matter:
if you can't see a difference when you wave the filter in front of your face, then neither can the lens. The filter is
close to the lens, so even if it's scratched you probably won't be able to detect it in the image.

Windows are made from float glass: it's very uneven but the transmitted image looks fine, as long as the window
is clean and isn't flared by the sun. Even the cheapest glass used in filters is much better than window glass.

I admit: most of my filters are Hoya multi-coated. But my polarizers are from various makers. Since I still use
manual focus cameras sometimes, some of them are linear polarizers. Linear does work better--but can't be
used with AF. Chock that up to "progress" (= convenience).

Reflection (front surface mirrors or beam splitters) is a different story: you need an optical flat that's been laser
tested to some given tolearance. One quick field check is to set a very slightly convex lens on the flat. Illuminated it
from above and on top of the flat and check for Newton's Rings. Nice round concentric rings mean very flat glass.
But as I said, it's irrelevant for a filter.

But if you can find a circular polarizer filter made with 11 secret herbs and spices, snap it up!