OhD Loc: West Richland, WA

At the short end of the zoom range a CPL will have different effects on different parts of the sky, depending on the angle of the polarizer and the angle of the sun relative to the axis of the camera. The result can be part of the sky is darkened considerably while the rest is unaffected.

There are things a polarizer can do with no more effort than putting it on and twirling the ring while observing the result that would take hours and serious skills in post - reducing glare off reflective surfaces in a scene with both specular and diffuse highlights for example.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I have always thought that Hoya was the best value brand. I especially like my ten-stop ND Hoya filter.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

CHG_CANON is correct about the B+W XS-Pro Kaesemann. It is expensive but more than worth it. The polarizing grating is sealed with the Kaesemann design while others are not. This allows you to shoot in high humidity and rain without fearing eventual damage to the polarizer. Also, the Kaesemann design allows slightly more light transmission with the same polarizing effect as other polarizers. Unless one drops it and breaks it, or manages to ruin the multicoating, it is usually a one time cost and purchase. Again, CHG_CANON is correct and has my full agreement too.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The best bang for your buck are B+W F-Pro and XS-Pro Circular Polarizers. In 82mm size they sell for $137 and $155, respectively (prices from B&H Photo or Adorama). These are top quality filters at the price of "mid-grade".

The most comparable among other brands include Heliopan High Transmission (82mm $242), Sony T* ($228), Hoya HD3 ($224), Heliopan SH-PMC ($219), Zeiss T* ($203), Rodenstock HR $200), Marumi DHG ($200), Canon Multicoated ($199), Benro Master ($180), Nikon "II" ($178), Breakthrough X4 ($159)... but most of these don't have all the features found in the B+W filters (the Heliopan High Trans are the most similar to XS-Pro). There certainly are other filters that cost less than B+W, but they tend to lack even more features and be of lower quality.

B+W filters all use German Schott glass, which is some of the best available. They also all use brass frames, which are less prone to getting stuck on lenses than aluminum and other materials. (Won't be a problem with a Canon 24-70mm because their lenses use plastic filter threads that largely prevent filters getting stuck). Among the other brands, I know Heliopan and the Breakthrough X4 use Schott glass. Some K&F Concept (mentioned below), do too. AFAIK, only the Heliopan use brass frames, too.

Both the F-Pro and the XS-Pro also are "High Transmission" C-Pols. These are a lighter gray than C-Pol have traditionally been. This allows a little more light to pass through. Where the original C-Pol cuts approx. 1.5 to 2.5 stops of light (depending upon how strong the setting)... the high transmissive type block roughly .75 to 1.5 stops. The extra stop of light the high trans filters allow can be handy at times.

Both the F-Pro and XS-Pro also are Kaesemann designs. This is exclusive to B+W filters as they own the rights to the design. Kaesemann C-Pol use a finer polarizing foil and are edge sealed for weather resistance.

The difference between the two B+W filters is the less expensive F-Pro uses a standard size frame and has 8-layer multicoatings. The more expensive XS-Pro has a slim frame and 16-layer "Nano" multicoatings which are bit more dust, oil and water resistant, as well as a little tougher.

You won't need a "slim" filter on that lens. There's no danger of vignetting with the F-Pro, if that's what you choose, because even B+W's "standard" filter frames are quite low profile.

There also is a B+W "MRC" that's 8-layer multicoated similar to the F-Pro, but not a high transmissive filter... it's usually not much cheaper, though. And there's a B+W "SC" which is the same as the MRC except even less expensive because it doesn't have multicoatings. That might be okay for indoor, studio work where lighting is highly controlled, but I would recommend at least 8-layer multi-coating for outdoors and general usage.

I've used B+W filters for many years and find them quite good. They typically rank among the top few in various tests and reviews. Right up with the most expensive filters listed above.

All that said, I recently bought a couple K&F Concepts C-Pol filters to try out. These are Chinese-made and downright cheap, but their top-of-the-line "Green" C-Pol version claims to use the same Schott glass, are high transissive and have "Nano" multicoatings. In 82mm size this sells for $50 in the US! I have only used the ones I bought a few times and they seem fine. I have read some people having trouble with the rotation being too stiff or too loose and trouble getting them stuck on lenses. They use aluminum frames, I'm sure... though I'm not concerned because I'm using them on Canon lenses with the plastic filter threads. And I'd rather a C-Pol's adjusting ring be a little stiff than sloppy. I bet it will loosen up over time, with use. (Note: There also is a K&F C-Pol "Fader" or polarizer and variable neutral density combo filter... that is NOT what I bought.)

I've also heard good things about Formatt HiTech Firecrest and NiSi filters, though I haven't used them. Benro and Urth (formerly Gobe) filters are also said to be pretty good, though I have no experience with them either.

FWIW, B+W is a wholly owned subsidiary of Schneider Kreuznach, which has been making premium lenses since the early 1900s.

Oh, and unfortunately other types of B+W filters are not nearly as competitively priced as their C-Pol. For example their Neutral Density filters are equally in quality to their C-Pols, but priced about the same as other manufacturers' ND filters of similar quality levels.

This was shot using B+W C-Pol on my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L... The filter was used to enrich the colors of the foliage, which was strongly reflecting a bright, overcast sky. You can still see some of the reflection, even though the filter was set to its maximum strength.


The fishing boat image below was done using a B+W C-Pol on a Canon 20mm f/2.8 lens. The sun was above and behind me. I dialed back the filter's effect because I wanted to keep the boat reflections in the image and the sky was plenty darkened:


This lighthouse shot was done using the same filter on the same 20mm lens, but the sun is off to the left and not far from the edge of the image. The sky, in particular, demonstrates how the filter's effect can be uneven. It's usually most noticeable on wide angle lenses and when skies are very clear. The uneven filter effect isn't always a bad thing... the plain blue sky in this image was rather boring:


Another lighthouse shot done with that 20mm lens and filter, this time with the sun off to the right. The uneven effect occurred, but is pretty well hidden in the clouds.


The image below shows a time to NOT use a C-Pol (or any other filter, for that matter). Shooting directly at the light source (or if it is directly behind you), a C-Pol will have no polarizing effect at all. In fact, it is likely to cause increase in flare effects and be more detrimental than helpful. Also, reflections off the water and wet sand are a big part of this image, so even if it was effective, I wouldn't want to polarize those away (polarizers also make rainbows disappear!)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

If you want the best for your money B + W XS-Pro Kaesemann High Transmission Circular Polarizer Filter, Multi-Resistant Nano Coating OB.

It never ceases to amaze me when people purchase a top of line lens and then put a cut-rate filter on it. Once mounted the filter becomes part of the optical system attached to the camera. So, one should want to use the best. B+W is a subsidiary of Schneider Optical and their lenses are top of the line, as well.
--Bob

Miamark Loc: Florida

B+W makes great filters. The Leica store in Miami had a great video on filters a few weeks ago. Polorizers were heavily discussed. Well worth watching.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

My photo efforts are essentially confined to landscape photography and I use a CPL a high percentage of the time. I have researched the internet for CPL testing and ratings and the two Lenstip articles listed in Jerry's post are excellent if a bit out dated, and there are many others that can be found with a google search.

I have personally used cheap brands (forget which ones), and Marumi, Hoya, and B+W, and all three of these are excellent. I would suggest the top of the line model in which ever you buy. A cheap filter ruined the best fall color landscape image I captured that fall a few years ago, and it just wasn't worth it to have a photo like that ruined. So that's my cost vs quality analysis.

repleo Loc: Boston

Another vote for Breakthrough. Excellent quality. Also, I like that the ring has a knurled edge which makes it easier to rotate the filter while the lens hood is on.

For a lower priced alternative look at the filters from Urth.co. I hadn't heard of them until recently and was persuaded by the reviews I came across to give them a try. I didn't try their CPL, but I have been very impressed with the quality of their ND filters - at about half the price of Breakthrough or B+W

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The one filter that one should not go cheap on is the polarizer. All other filters, as long as they are optical flat and multi coated, one can go as cheap as they would like without much difference in function. But I cannot emphasize enough that the Kaesemann design is worth the extra cost. The polarizer is where you should spend your money and go cheaper on any other filter you are willing to. There really are no true substitutes for the best polarizer you can buy. Polarization cannot not even be truly done in post processing. Polarization is a one of a kind process that is worth putting your money on.

Deecee

Agreed! All my filters are by B&W. What's the point of having a 2k lens and then put a cheap piece of glass in front of it? You get what you pay for...