Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > What should I pay for a polarizing filter?

Reply
Thread Tools

What should I pay for a polarizing filter?

 
 
Charles E. Hardwidge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012

"Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
> Some things are really difficult to accept. I saw on the Canon site
> their-brand 77mm circular polarizer, and the out-of-stock item is listed
> at $460. Adorama says the item cost $199.95 but is no longer available.
> B&H, same price but "Temporarily out of stock".
>
> I better start looking for the one I bought six or seven years ago for a
> little over a hundred dollars: there is one listed on Amazon, used, for
> $286.92. What in the world could have such an effect in such a short time?


Maybe it's the same as commodity pricing and speculation?

Barclays made a 500 million killing off starving people...

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012
On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 20:01:50 +0100, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: "Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
: >
: > Some things are really difficult to accept. I saw on the Canon site
: > their-brand 77mm circular polarizer, and the out-of-stock item is listed
: > at $460. Adorama says the item cost $199.95 but is no longer available.
: > B&H, same price but "Temporarily out of stock".
: >
: > I better start looking for the one I bought six or seven years ago for
: > a little over a hundred dollars: there is one listed on Amazon, used,
: > for $286.92. What in the world could have such an effect in such a short
: > time?
:
: Maybe it's the same as commodity pricing and speculation?
:
: Barclays made a 500 million killing off starving people...

How did they do that? Selling them short?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charles E. Hardwidge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012
"Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 20:01:50 +0100, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> : Barclays made a 500 million killing off starving people...
>
> How did they do that? Selling them short?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...s-8100011.html

<<Barclays has made as much as half a billion pounds in two years from
speculating on food staples such as wheat and soya, prompting allegations
that banks are profiting handsomely from the global food crisis.>>

This on top of trying to dodge paying 500 million in tax.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-500m-tax.html

<<Barclays was yesterday prevented from using two 'highly abusive'
loopholes to dodge paying 500 million of tax.>>

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012
On 1/09/2012 9:54 a.m., Robert Coe wrote:
> Because of aquisitions over the past couple of years, three of my most-used
> lenses are now 77mm diameter. So imagine my irritation last weekend when I
> reached for a 77mm circular polarizer and realized that I don't have one! My
> largest polarizer is 67mm. :^|
>
> So, off to the B&H Web site to find what I need. But it seems that the prices
> of polarizers can now vary by a factor of five or six ($45 to $275, more or
> less). So can you guys help me sort this out? How much does a serious
> photographer have to spend? In the "old days" I'd have bought the $45
> polarizer without a second thought. Should I reconsider that attitude now? Are
> there actually important differences, or is it all marketing hype?
>
> Bob
>

A lot of comments about flare in this thread.
If you're using a polariser as intended -daylight, outside, and at an
angle to the sun where the sky light is polarised, and with a lens of
normal or telephoto focal length, you don't get flare. With wide or
ultra-wide or ultra-wide I suppose it's possible that you could get
flare, but if you're framimg the shot with the sun close to being in the
frame then the polarising effect/intensity is going to be very uneven
across the frame - not something I like to see, and I'd probably want to
try to keep the scene framed at 90 deg to the sun so at least the sides
were even (IMO it's better to avoid polarisers with w/a, but YMMV)
So generally in situations where flare might be a problem in a shot, you
don't want any filter at all, but perhaps need a protective filter in
which case a multicoated filter makes sense, but for polarisers, save
your money unless you want to leave the filter on the lens all the time
by default, rather than fit it when needed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2012
On 8/31/2012 4:54 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> Because of aquisitions over the past couple of years, three of my most-used
> lenses are now 77mm diameter. So imagine my irritation last weekend when I
> reached for a 77mm circular polarizer and realized that I don't have one! My
> largest polarizer is 67mm. :^|
>
> So, off to the B&H Web site to find what I need. But it seems that the prices
> of polarizers can now vary by a factor of five or six ($45 to $275, more or
> less). So can you guys help me sort this out? How much does a serious
> photographer have to spend? In the "old days" I'd have bought the $45
> polarizer without a second thought. Should I reconsider that attitude now? Are
> there actually important differences, or is it all marketing hype?
>
> Bob
>


Its not marketing hype. If any of your 77 mm lenses are telephoto,
you need to spend big bucks. Say $25 as a minimum. Cheap filters
will result in fuxxy pictures at tele focal lengths. The difference
between $45 and $150 was dramatic at 300 mm. My B+W one at $150
was as sharp as no filter. Blur and flare come from different causes.

Also note that I bought only one polarizer! I bought reducers
to fit all my other lenses except the 10-22 mm one. On a crop frame
camera this always works .

Doug McDonald
 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2012
On 9/1/2012 6:12 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:

>>

>
> Its not marketing hype. If any of your 77 mm lenses are telephoto,
> you need to spend big bucks. Say $25 as a minimum.


O my. I meant $125.

 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2012
On 9/1/2012 9:32 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 09:01:34 -0400, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> : On 9/1/2012 8:49 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
> : > On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:22:51 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> : > : I bought my 77mm CPL a few years ago. It cost me a lot of money but
> : > : has proved to be a wise investment. The brand is B+W, it is made in
> : > : Germany from Schott glass (Carl Zeiss Group), it is multi-coated and
> : > : is sealed at the edges. It is therefore completely waterproof. That
> : > : matters because you can use wet cleaning methods and the water never
> : > : penetrates the polariser matrix between the two sheets of glass. Also,
> : > : no problem using it in adverse weather or high humidity.
> : > :
> : > : The ones with sealed edges are called Kaesemann.
> : > : <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10889-REG/B_W_66_045620_77mm_Kaeseman_Circular_Polarizing.ht ml>
> : > : or
> : > : http://preview.tinyurl.com/9e4l72x
> : > :
> : > : $144.95 from B&H with free shipping. Fine value IMHO.
> : >
> : > Yeah, that one caught my eye on the B&H site yesterday. I had about resigned
> : > myself to buying a couple of them when I noticed that some ostensibly similar
> : > filters were dramatically cheaper and others dramatically more expensive.
> : > Which left me nothing but confused. But so far, everyone seems to be giving me
> : > the same advice, so the B&W Kaesemann is probably what I'll end up with.
> : >
> : > One point: Does that model let you put a lens cap on over it? The reviews I've
> : > read complain that some of the thinner ones don't.
> :
> : Bob,
> : I have a thin Hoya which accepts a lens cap easily. Your real
> : alternatives, are to call B&H tomorrow, they are closed Saturdays, or
> : try Hunts, which is near you. I have found Hunts extremely reliable.
> : Gary Farber is the owner and very responsive.
>
> I'm not in a big hurry. Note that I didn't even realize I didn't have such a
> filter until I was doing landscapes on a hazy day in Maine last week.
>
> Hunt's came up with a Tokina 11-16 after I'd spent several months on the
> waiting list at B&H and Adorama. The big problem with Hunt's is that their
> store in Harvard Square is tiny. Even their larger store out in Melrose is
> tiny by NY standards.
>


Did some shots this morning and a farmer's market in Kenebunk, in
addition to the obligatory harbor shots. There was a slight haze, but
did not see the need for a polarize.
A few nights ago I got some horrific glare when shooting into the sun.
Cured by application of some lens cleaner..


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2012
On 9/1/2012 4:47 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
> "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 20:01:50 +0100, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>> : Barclays made a 500 million killing off starving people...
>>
>> How did they do that? Selling them short?

>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...s-8100011.html
>
>
> <<Barclays has made as much as half a billion pounds in two years from
> speculating on food staples such as wheat and soya, prompting allegations
> that banks are profiting handsomely from the global food crisis.>>
>
> This on top of trying to dodge paying 500 million in tax.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-500m-tax.html
>
>
> <<Barclays was yesterday prevented from using two 'highly abusive'
> loopholes to dodge paying 500 million of tax.>>
>


You and I are able to engage in the same sort of speculation. You may
make a profit if you know what you are doing.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peabody
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2012
Robert Coe says...

> So, off to the B&H Web site to find what I need. But it
> seems that the prices of polarizers can now vary by a
> factor of five or six ($45 to $275, more or less). So
> can you guys help me sort this out? How much does a
> serious photographer have to spend? In the "old days"
> I'd have bought the $45 polarizer without a second
> thought. Should I reconsider that attitude now? Are
> there actually important differences, or is it all
> marketing hype?


I bought one of the ultra-cheap Zeikos CPLs at Amazon for my
18-55 kit lens. It works fine. The reviews indicate it's a
coin flip as to whether you get a usable filter or not.
But, your 77mm CPL would be $8.40.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2012
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 19:14:24 -0500, Doug McDonald <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: On 9/1/2012 6:12 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
:
: >>
: >
: > Its not marketing hype. If any of your 77 mm lenses are telephoto,
: > you need to spend big bucks. Say $25 as a minimum.
:
: O my. I meant $125.

Yeah, jeez. I was starting to think you were making fun of me. ;^)

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wal-Mart's movie download plan: pay and pay again Modemac DVD Video 23 12-08-2006 02:40 PM
The battle moves on from why pay for an OS to why pay for an application(database) thing2 NZ Computing 40 02-18-2006 10:35 PM
polarizing filters Kancil Killer Digital Photography 5 09-09-2003 01:13 AM
polarizing filters mike Digital Photography 6 08-20-2003 10:35 AM



Advertisments