Yodagirl Loc: All Over-Fulltime RV (Originally from NH)

RM-I bought a Nikon 200mm-500mm lens this spring and bought a B+W CPL for it (83mm), along with a set of step-down rings (light as a feather) so I can use it an all my other lenses. It's a toss-up, but carrying the rings is less cumbersome than CPL's in each lens size, and way less glass to keep clean. That coast is stunning-I hope you have a LONG amount of time to take it all in! Stay safe!

juan_uy Loc: Uruguay

Thanks a lot for your comment. I think is the first time I read/hear about this, although it's implicit in the reduction of reflection.
Will keep this in mind in the future :)

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I've had mixed results with a CPL. Although it eliminates glare and reflections it also seems to degrade the image and add noise. To the OP I would recommend taking the same shots with and without the CPL and select the one you like best when you get back.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I would definitely want a CPL available for scenic shots.

Your 18-140mm uses 67mm filters and your 11-16mm uses 77mm and might need a "slim" filter to prevent vignetting at the widest setting.

Don't scrimp on CPL, since it will effect every images shot through it. You spent good money on your camera and lens, don't spoil the image they make by saving a few $ on a filter!

I recommend B+W XS-Pro, F-Pro and MRC CPL filters. They're a very good value.... top quality for a much lower price than some others of equal specification and quality.

For example, a 67mm F-Pro (8-layer multi-coating, standard brass frame) costs $69.50. And a 77mm XS-Pro (16-layer multi-coating, slim brass frame) costs $109.95.

Compare those to Heliopan High Transmissive CPL or Breakthrough X4 CPL filters in the same sizes. Those both use similar quality German Schott glass, are multi-coated and high transmissive, plus use brass frames... all the same as the B+W XS-Pro and F-Pro. High transmissive are a new type of CPL that aren't as dark and don't "cost" as much light lost to the filter, which can be handy when lighting is low. 8-layer multi-coating is very good. 16-layer "Nano" multi-coating is even better because it's more dust/oil/scratch resistant and easier to clean. The brass frames all these use are less prone to getting stuck on lenses.

There are even other brands of filters that don't have as good specifications as B+W, yet cost more than B+W!

I do not recommend using step rings when lenses have different sizes of filter thread, as is the case here. Instead, buy the correct size filter for each lens. The reason is that when you use the step ring you won't be able to use your lens hood, which is always important, but even more so when using a filter in order to protect it from oblique light and accidental bumps. Besides, there are so few filters needed with digital, that it makes little sense to take cost-cutting measures such as using step rings.

I mostly use CPL on wide angle to normal focal lengths.... far less often on telephotos. They just aren't as necessary for a lot of telephoto work, so you might skip getting one for your 150-600mm. I know SIgma's "Contemporary" version of that lens uses big 95mm filters and their "Sport" version of it uses even larger 105mm. Even with B+W, those sizes are substantially more expensive than the 77mm and 67mm sizes. (In fact, I think one 95mm B+W costs more than purchasing both the 77mm and 67mm.)

CPL are by far the most useful filters for digital photography. Even so, there are things to watch for and they need to be used purposefully. I'd never leave one on my lens all the time.

For example, CPL effect varies. The effect is strongest when the light source is 90 degrees from the direction you're shooting. When shooting scenics outdoors, the sun is usually our light source, of course. The following images was shot close to midday, with the sun high overhead and slightly behind me... giving close to maximum possible effect from the filter and very even effect across the entire image. In fact, I dialed it back a little because I wanted to retain some of the reflections of the fishing boats in the water....



But here's another example where the sun was low and off to my left and causes the polarization to be uneven across the clear blue sky (not necessarily a bad thing... in this case I saw it happening in the viewfinder and chose to position the uneven polarization in a way I felt would complement the composition)....



However, here's another example where the sun was similarly low and off to my right, but the uneven effect is largely hidden by the cloud detail...



Finally, do not use a CPL when directly shooting a sunrise or sunset. For one thing, it can all too easily amplify flare issues in images. CPL are worse than some other types of filters because they're made up of multiple layers of glass. But also don't use one to photograph a sunrise/sunset because the filter will have no polarization effect, shooting directly at the sun ("zero degrees" from the light source). For the following image, a third reason I deliberately avoided using a CPL was because I didn't want to reduce the reflections on the wet sand, water and rocks... I felt they were important to the image.



All the above images were made with the same lens and CPL (though they were on different cameras).

So while a CPL is easily one of the most useful filters you can have with you when shooting digital images, there are times not to use one too.

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

A CPL for each lens and Skylight are the only filters I have. Prefer to use post processing for any other effects. Took State 1 from LA to San Francisco once (actually year Princess Diana died). This was b4 went digital. Roads were fine. None are digitized so can't post. I took 3 days. Stayed first night at a resort in the city of San Simeon right on the coast. Went on tour at Hearst Castle next day. Second night at San Jose and toured Winchester house the next day. Both very interesting. The rest of the time was visiting with my father and his wife. Took 99 back home and stopped at Solvang and Kingsberg. Solvang is a Norwegian community, Kingsberg is Swedish. Both are just off of 99.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Good point, since they stop reflections and glass reflects......


But we were talking water and sky because the op is taking a trip up the west coast...... water water water everywhere and sometimes a sky..

henrycrafter Loc: Orem Utah

I customarily use a polaraizer extensively. I go nowhere without mine.

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

Good suggestion!

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

I would buy a CPL filter for each lens I plan to use for daytime landscape shots. You've already invested in the lens, so you might as well get your money's worth out of it when a CPL would make a difference!

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Lots of towns on a road trip. Lots of storefronts and Windows.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

If you are going to buy a Polarizing filter get it to fit your largest lens and use step down rings to make them fit your other lenses. This way you only buy one filter and you can get rings to fit your other lenses.

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

Essential, this time of the year the sun won't be quite as high and on your shoulder for a lot of the time thus maximising the benefits. Check out the lenstip review mentioned by other posters. I'd go middle to top end, cheap not an option. B&W highly rated but there is an American one much favoured by hogs, just can't think of the name at the moment.

Envious of U.K.

russjc001 Loc: South Carolina

. Why not purchase just one very good circular polarizer for the largest lens on hand then purchase step down adapters to for use on your others?

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Yes, many parts of Hwy 1 / 101 can be dangerous right at the Ocean. Especially North of Morro Bay.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

A few, but mostly open space.