mdougc Loc: Sarver, PA

I think I want to use a CPL filter with my 150-600mm telephoto lens. I do mostly bird/animal photography in many environments. I think it will help take the glare away from white feathers, or snow, or water, etc., and give me better definition where contrast is very high under bright sun.
Do these filters introduce optical problems at high focal lengths? - distortion, focus problems??
For those of you with experience in this area, can you offer some do's and don'ts in this area?
I always shoot RAW, and I always develop using Lightroom.
Thank you.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

The only problems with CPL filters I’ve ever heard of or experienced is with wide angle lenses.

Ps
CPL filters are most effective when the light source is at 90 degrees to the angle you are shooting.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Instead, consider using your Highlights and Whites sliders in LR. That way, you never have to adjust the CPL relative to the light and changing directions as you track a moving subject across the sky.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

Yeah, Mac and Paul provided the big issue with using a CPL during action photography. As you move the camera around the polarizing effect will change as the relationship to the sun changes giving you inconsistent results. For us slow moving landscape folks that isn't much of an issue.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

If you have a general idea of where you might be tracking action you can dial in the effect ahead of time. Chances are you already use some form of automatic exposure control, so that is a non issue.

Higher quality polarizers do not introduce any distortion or other optical effects. Depending on your lens and body, polarizers may push you into higher aperture zones where autofocus slows down.

And yes, reducing sheen and other reflections can really sharpen up an image.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

One thing a CPL will do is remove reflections from water, and leaves etc., something post processing can NOT do

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I don't think you would get the results you desire.

First of all, you will lose between 1.5 and 2 stops of light, and with that you will lose autofocus.

Second, as others have mentioned, unless you are shooting a static subject, it is difficult to be tracking a flying one, manually adjusting focus in a very dark viewfinder.

Third, a CPL only works to diminish some reflections, specular highlights, etc.

Proper exposure control will accomplish what you are looking to do. I use a highlight reading of the brightest area that I want to retain detail in using the camera's spot meter function, then using manual exposure and ISO I add 1.5-2 stops of exposure (raising ISO, opening the lens, an/or slowing the shutter speed. If the scene is particularly high in contrast, this approach will result in a dark capture. Shooting in raw will give you a little headroom for shadows and highlights that will give you the dynamic range expansion, and manipulating curves, or using a software application that has the ability to adjust midtones will work best.

Birds like eagles, egrets and others that have very white plumage are particularly difficult to shoot in bright sunlight.

If you decide to get the polarizer, Sigma has one 105mm, for it's lenses. It costs $320.

This shot of a canvasback shows the result of shooting raw, correct exposure, and a little post processing to rebalance the tonal values.

(Download)

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

A CPL filter will cost you about 2 stops, not worth the trouble, if your worried about white feathers, it will not help with that either. Instead, do what I do, under expose 2 to 4 stops and you will get all the feather detail you can handle. I shoot with the sun coming over my shoulder, shoot with a 200-600 and 600 f4, never had a problem iwth definition, contrast or anything with bright sun.
So some experimentation with exposures before you consider a CPL filter.
The image below was should without a CPL, I just used under exposure to bring out white detail.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

I am a Sony shooter. I have owned the Sigma 150-600mm with MC-11 adapter to Sony. That lens on my Sony a7iii or a7Riv. They did not like a CPL on it. I now have a Sony 200-600G and does better with the CPL but I generally take the CPL off when shooting birds and anything that I need rapid precise focus. I generally recommend a CPL on most of my lenses to my Photo students to enhance color. Like everything. You need to do testing to see how the combination of the CPL with your lenses works on your camera.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Since the angle of view gets smaller with the longer the telephoto lens is, if the filter is thin and optically flat, the filter will have very little affect. It is the wider angle that the light hits the filter at an angle that separates the wavelengths of light like a prism does. Except for the corners of wide angles, a thin filter will have very little affect. Since a filter is not a part of the actual lens design, it will always affect the image, but it will affect the telephoto image the least.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

That's not easy when a reflection comes from water. In that case the CPL is best but to note, you will lose a stop or two. Other than water, adjustments can be done in post and leave thre CPL in your bag.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I have CPL to fit my telephotos... but pretty rarely use them. I find them much more useful on shorter focal lengths.

One of the problems with CPL on telephotos is adjusting them... Some hoods have an opening to allow access to rotate the filter, but many don't so the hood has to be removed for each adjustment. (Wide angle lens hoods are so shallow it's rarely necessary to remove to adjust the filter.)

This isn't a problem with a couple of my teles that use drop-in filters. Those have external dial to allow adjustment. But, a problem is that drop-in CPL filters are quite expensive.

Plus CPL cost some light.... 1 to 2 stops depending upon the setting for the standard type.... maybe 3/4 to 1.5 stops for the newer, high transmissive. So often I'm pushing the limits of exposure settings when using telephotos, can't really afford that extra stop or two of light the filter will block.

An exception where I sometimes use CPL on telephotos is when shooting motor sports. Car windshields and shiny paint jobs can be highly reflective.

For example, I didn't use a CPL for the image below, but if I were trying to get a better look at the driver it probably would have helped:



With other types of sports and wildlife, subjects I often shoot with telephotos, I very rarely use a CPL.

Ollieboy

CPL's will usually reduce 1 to 2 stops of light depending on the quality. That may or may not affect you. Can you afford to lose that light when birding ?

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

I’m assuming that the bird didn’t? dominate the scene? Shooting in the snow it is recommended to use + exposure compensation to fool the meter.

13 Loc: I am only responsible to what I say..not what

Very nice indeed! WOW Nice!