CIRCULAR POLARIZER

The biggest bang for your buck are B+W Circular Polarizers. I believe you need 72mm filters for your AF-P 10-20mm DX lens...

$64.50.... B+W 72mm "MRC" C-Pol, standard 1 to 2 stops light reduction, 8-layer multi-coating, German Schott glass in brass frame.

$68.95.... B+W 72mm "F-Pro" C-Pol, high transmissive (.75-1.5 stops), finer Kaesemann type, edge sealed, otherwise same as the above.

$77.95... B+W 72mm "XS-Pro" C-Pol, same as above, except 16-layer Nano MRS coatings (easier to clean, dust/scratch resistant), and a slimmer frame.

You can find some multi-coated C-Pol that are slightly less expensive, but they aren't the same quality... using "no name" glass, aluminum frames, etc.

Most are a little to a lot more expensive, even though they might not be the same quality (certainly aren't any better). For example...

$129.95.... Hoya 72mm EVO C-Pol... 16-layer multi-coatings... but no-name glass, not not high transmissive, nor Kaesemann type foils, aluminum frame (more likely to get stuck on lenses with metal threads), and not "slim".

$139.95... Tiffen 72mm HT C-Pol... high transmissive and "ColorCore" glass... but unknown coatings, "military grade" and "extra hard" (whatever that means), titanium? frame.

$158.00... Zeiss 72mm T* C-Pol... "quality glass", "T* coating" (singular?), slim

The most comparable to B+W specification...

$139.00... Breakthrough Photography 72mm X4 C-Pol... Schott glass, high transmissive, 15- or 16-layer multi-coatings, brass frame.

$172.70... Heliopan 72mm SH-PMC C-Pol.... almost identical specs as B+W XS-Pro (but Heliopan offers choice of standard or slim mount for same price).

Note: Any circular polarizer will in some situations give an uneven effect on an ultrawide lens like yours. For example, a broad expanse of clear blue sky may darken more in one area than in others. This is because a polarizing filter's effect is strongest 90 degrees from the light source (i.e., the sun), and it gradually diminishes as the angle is closer to 0 or 180 degrees. Ultrawides simply encompass such a broad scene, that you are likely to see this occurring at times. It's not necessarily a bad thing (can even be useful)... just don't be surprised when you see it and rest assured it's not a fault of the lens or the filter. All polarizers do this when used on ultrawides.

NEUTRAL DENSITY FILTER

As to the ND Filter (not "circular" ND... although it's a round filter), well it's not so clear cut.... You'll probably want a fairly strong 8 or 9 stop for "waterfall" effects.

$66.40 (on sale)... Formatt Hitech 72mm ND 2.4 (8 stop)... Schott glass, 15-layer multi-coating, slim frame (aluminum)

B+W offers choice of 10-stop or 6-stop or weaker ND. Instead of a single, strong ND filter such as above, for still photos of moving water (or large apertures in bright light conditions) you might prefer two less strong that can be used separately or combined when stronger effect is wanted. For example...

$97.95... B+W 72mm MRC 106M 6-Stop ND... Schott glass, 8-layer multi-coating, brass frame. And...

$114.00... B+W 72mm MRC 103M 3-Stop ND... same specifications.

(B+W also offers the same in cheaper "SC" or "single coated" and in more expensive "XS-Pro" 16-layer MC, slim versions.)

This can be useful, giving you three different strength ND to work with in different situations. However, I'm not certain if stacked filters would cause vignetting problems at the wider settings of your lens. It's possible they would. You'll almost have to try it and see. "Slim" filters might work, if standard frames don't. However, I usually try to avoid slim unless necessary, because they can be a little more difficult to thread onto and off the lens, and may be more prone to getting stuck.

If you were considering them, I don't recommend Variable ND filters. Those are basically two polarizers stacked on top each other and they often give uneven effects and some even add ugly color casts to images. The "better", multi-coated ones also tend to be very expensive. And a Variable ND isn't really necessary for still photography (might be needed for video, tho, where there are fewer means to adjust exposure).

I don't think you'll see any vignetting problem with any of the B+W C-Pol, using them alone on that lens. Even the "standard" B+W frame is pretty slim. Their "slim" version is just a little more-so.

By the way, a C-Pol can also serve as a "weak ND" or in combination with an ND filter if you need around 1 to 2 stops of light reduction. However, it also will reduce reflections, which may not always be desirable.

Hello gwilliams6:

I enjoyed your response. I would think, from your history as a photojournalist, that you might be a fan of W. Eugene Smith. As much as I was awed by the Ansel Adams originals I saw some decades back at the George Eastman House in Rochester, the most impressive photo exhibit I've ever seen was a retrospective of the work of W. Eugene Smith, way back in 1971, in New York City. Smith has long been my favorite of the classic era photographers. At that exhibit I could have bought for only $200, an original print (not by Smith but by his dedicated printmaker) of "The Walk to Paradise Garden." I really wanted two: one to hang and one to save for my retirement. As a struggling student who a month later had to take out an additional bank loan just to graduate, that $200 might just as well been $5000. I can't recall this many years on whether the prints were numbered and/or signed, but they were original photographic prints, not lithos. The story that this was the very first image on the very first roll of film that Smith shot after recovering from his substantial WWII injuries may be apocryphal, but it remains an enormously powerful image. I wonder how much "post processing" was done on his images, beyond the simple basics, as he was the very model of a photojournalist.

Michael

I have a few limited original Ansel Adams Yosemite prints (printed by his son from the original negatives) Yes Ansel shot great images, using the Zone system which manipulates the exposure and film processing to achieve a wide dynamic range of tones. He also did a lot of darkroom manipulation afterwards to get the sky and tones as dark or light as he liked.

There was a recent post of his famed "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" which showed the originally exposed negative (which was fairly flat toned) and the final print with the dramatically darkened and contrast-enhanced sky and foreground. If I can find the web link, I will post it in this thread.

So yes as a longtime pro shooter myself, I can testify that we most often did wonderful darkroom work to get the most out of our B&W film images, akin to what is now done in Photoshop and Lightroom.

I teach photography at the University level, B&W film classes , Photojournalism and Digital Photography classes too. I teach my 35mm B&W film students how to correct and enhance tones etc .in the darkroom, just as I teach my Digital Photography students similar techniques in PS and Lightroom. It is the artists' vision and their right to make the visual statement they choose to make, or not change.

But in my Photojournalism classes, we have a different mantra, non manipulation beyond minor exposure corrections. Why, because a Photojournalist has the burden and iron-clad responsibilty of telling the truth to the public, even if the photographer's work takes an inevitable point-of-view as they tell a story.

Being an Award-winning Photojournalist for four decades, I thank those photo editors that caught me early in my career, submitting over-manipulated news photos ( because I was trying to make the news shot more dramatic or eliminate a distracting part of the image). They made me reprint it to reflect the truth of the scene and subject, as presenting the truth to our readers was paramount to our journalistic integrity.

So I have done it both ways and taught it both ways, I just knew when to separate art and reportage, and I have taught my students the same.

Still means I love my Ansel Adams prints and revere him and others for their stunning B&W work .

Keep shooting what you want, how you want, and processed and manipulated, or not. It is all good. Cheers

Marketing-speak is not fact. Often it is far removed from fact.

Actually I did check my facts, and along with my own experience when I was considering buying one last summer, I found this review that supported my impression of Sony's 5 Axis IBIS on the 6500. Other than the IBIS claims I found very little to complain about with the A6500. It is a great camera.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6500/6

And what's worse for me, the IBIS is less effective on longer focal lengths, which is to be expected. They have yet to resolve the situation when you have a lens with OS and the IBIS simultaneously engaged. All in all, the IBIS is ok, but not even close to the mfgr's hype. The marketing guys talk a good story, but for the rest of us that actually use these cameras, reports from the field trump anything coming out of Sony. There is no way IBIS gives you a 5 stop improvement in stability. I stand by DpReview's and my own experience. To date, no stabilization system provides a 5 stop advantage, though the stabilization in the Tamron 150-600 G2 comes as close as I have yet to see from all manufacturers.

I do understand that the IBIS has been improved with a firmware update, but I have no experience with it.

I don't have a degree in photography, and I only speak from my own experience, supported by reputable reviewers. And you shouldn't take my word for it. My experience with the A6500 was underwhelming as far as the IBIS. This could have been a unique experience, but I would imagine that the Sony Store in Manhattan would have the latest firmware installed on their loaner cameras.

What has your experience been with the A6500? Do you have any image samples that show the effectiveness of the IBIS with short, medium and longer lenses? Was the update as described?