Polarizer Filter

Hi All

I'm about to purchase a polarizing filter for my 16-45, now do i really need to buy a digital compatible one or will a non digital one do the job as there is a considerable cost difference. I'm looking at the Hoya range but i'm open to other recommendations.

There will be different opinions on this, but there have been advances in recent years in the quality and the coatings used on polarisers.

If you want a neutral grey result, the best image quality and a circular polariser then it will not be cheap in 67mm size.

I would try one of the Jessops clearance stores to see if they have one with 70% off the price. And then go for the best. The one intended for digital cameras may well be the best choice, although not necessary as such in other ways.

I've had one of the Hoya ones in 77mm size for a few years and I've found it pretty good. Any filter is going to increase the chance of flare definitely, as John suggests, getting a decent one will reduce this as they're better coated. It's also worth checking if you can still operate the filter ok when the hood is fitted - I think the newer Pentax hoods have a little segment that slides our to facilitate this although I can't recall if my 16-45 hood has one of those.

I've also got a Cokin 'P' one and it's also pretty decent although, if it's the only filter being used, doesn't handle as well as a normal one.

I consider 'Digital' filters as simply being a marketing ploy, as I don't see how anything in front of the lens could be digital compatible or not. If anything, digital makes it easier to correct any slight colour casts that a filter may impart, although it's obviously better not to have on ein the first place.

I would suggest looking at the Cokin 'P' size filters, or one of the compatables like Kood, or if you can stretch to it, the Lee filter range, as then you only need one polariser for all your lenses, rather than several of different sizes.

I use a Kood P size, and am pleased with it.

Dan

I've seen some Hoya one's that are multi coated would this also be a good choice instead of going for the Pro versions.

I would interpret it as meaning a thin (avoiding vignetting) multicoated circular polariser of high quality. There have been improvements in polarisers in recent years and it just dates it as belonging to the digital era in terms of its design qualities.

The term "Digital Filter" means absolutely nothing and is used to 'reel in' those who are convinced that it means something. Digital Filter = 100% BS (BU*L SH*T).

If a filter were to be advertised as having 'anti-reflective' or 'ghostless' coating, then some of might be willing to try it out, but 'Digital Compatible' ? ? ? . . . get real.

Tell me, why spend . . . lets say £600.00 on a SMCP-FA 31mm Ltd lens . . . and put £10/£20/£30/£40 worth of cheap glass/plastic in front of it to reduce image quality. Why do it ?

I walked into a 'video' store somewhere on holiday in recent years, knowing full well what to expect having been 'enticed' (or so he thought) by a guy in the doorway selling the latest 'Digital' filters. I had an el cheapo Sony cam at the time and decided to play along.

I got to the counter and the 'seller' asked for my camera, which I handed over and he pointed it at me to show me how dull and dark the image was (think backlighting at this point).

"yes" I said,"it does seem dark" (chuckling inside).

"Now see how it looks with our (cheaper than cheap chinese made, framed piece of glass) DIGITAL filter" he said.

Now at this point he screwed the filter in place, checked my camera all over (looking for the backlight button) then turned it on (having selected the backlight function) . . . and wow, the image was much brighter than before.

The salesman went on to tell me the usual price . . . but because I was British . . . blah blah blah . . . I could buy it cheaper.

I said "thank you, but no, I couldn't possibly inflict such an obvious financial misfortune on such a wonderful establishment as yours". then removed the 'digital' (read plain glass) filter, slammed it onto the counter (breaking the filter), exclaimed "oh dear, the backlight switch on my camera seems to have moved", put my camera back in it's bag, and walked out.

'Digital filters' . . . don't exist . . . it's no more than a marketing buzzword. If you want/need a polarizing filter, try a few and buy the one that produces results that you like. Don't be sucked in by marketing BS.

My goodness, you arrived and left in a whirlwind of shattered glass!

That is dramatic.

The Hoya website proclaims:

"Digital Cameras Need Multicoated Filters
Digital camera CCD or CMOS sensors are highly susceptible to reflections - this stray light can ruin your photographs! Don't risk your valuable photos by using bare-glass filters."

What they're doing is using the fact that light can be reflected from the sensor, onto the rear element of a lens, and then back onto the sensor again (hence "susceptible to reflections", in order to justify a "Designed exclusively for Digital Cameras" filter on your lens.

This is so that people either think

"I've got a digital camera, therefore I need one of these digital filters"

or

"I've got a decent filter from when I used film, but that's not going to be good enough for my digital camera".

Both of which are rubbish, so it's all about marketing, or as Mannesty put it so eloquently "Digital Filter = 100% BS (BU*L SH*T)"

I'm not saying multi-coating isn't good, or that these Hoya filters aren't up there with the best, just saying they're lying to sell product to unwary customers.

Dan

Why not contact Hoya, ask them to justify their claims and see what they say?

:

Not quite 'arrived' John, more like 'accosted' in the street by a trader who thought all british tourists were mugs who would buy any piece of junk.

The filter only broke because it was cheap and nasty.

At least that shopkeeper now knows 2 things:-

1: Not all brits are mugs for anything 'digital'.
2: We know that he knows he's selling junk using a somewhat dubious sales technique, as do some internet traders today.

I'd agree with you if this thread was about UV filters but it's not, it's about polarizers and I've found them just as useful with digital as I did with film.

The only filters I use these days are polarizers, ND grads and IR - I've never (with film or digital) found any benefits for slapping UV filters on all lenses (although I did buy a very expensive Pentax multi-coated one when I first bought my FA* lenses).

That quote should of course have just said 'Mannesty wrote'. I whole-heartedly agree with you as regards which filters are useful and which are not.

Dan

Dan - sorry about that, something went wrong with the quoting in my earlier post but I've fixed it now.

No worries!

Dan