HikeArizona.COM

I thinking about getting a circular polarizing filter for my Canon 18-55mm kit lens...suggestions? I'm looking at maybe $100 max, but I'd like to keep it under $80.

I'd probably go with Hoya... Canon 18-55 Kit lens isn't the highest quality to begin with so there's no real use putting a high-end filter (B+W, Singh-Ray) in front of it. Just don't go real cheapo with some random brand... Those just tend to make the picture worse.

The only thing would be if you're looking to upgrade lenses anytime soon... Check the filter size of the prospective lens, and if it's the same as the 18-55 then go ahead and get a good filter that's worth keeping around.

Not in this scenario but if you're going to spend $200-500+ on a filter then get the largest you anticipate needing. Then for about $20 get a downsizing ring. It's probably called something different, I forget.

The larger the filter the more expensive it gets. Might as well invest in the best of the largest, no need to get the smaller sizes unless you just have endless resources.

Personally I'm not a fan of filters, especially in a software age. It really doesn't matter how much money you have when you go ultra wide as circ pol just won't work. Filters remind me of auto accessories when you buy your first car. You gotta have it right! As you age you find that Pep Boys isn't a place you care to even browse anymore.

Do people with DSLRs find that they blow the sky out without polarizers? With a point and shoot it is hard not to on my hikes.

If I was to get a DSLR would I get higher quality blown out skies or would the DSLR have the range to capture both the canyon and the sky?

The only thing that does that really well is the human eye

They do a pretty good job. Done right some photos come out amazing with polarizers. It's not a 98% gimmick like putting a magnet on your fuel line. Yet whereas they do "help" they generally aren't a cure for most drastic changes. The majority of published landscape photography is sunrise or sundown. Instead of pouring your hard earned money into something that will only help marginally... get up earlier. Grasp the highlight of the day then enjoy a real hike

It's really simple math...
you gain "two" ego points for carrying better equipment
you loose "two" ego points for not knowing how to make it work without


just so that we're all clear I want a thousand ego points and the baddest mf camera on earth =)

joe bartels wrote:Instead of pouring your hard earned money into something that will only help marginally... get up earlier. Grasp the highlight of the day then enjoy a real hike.

Amen…

Highly contrasted canyon photography on a single exposure is TOUGH no matter what you are carrying. DSLR’s are not magic cameras. The magic is found though experience. The photographer creates a good photo, not the camera.

joe bartels wrote:Personally I'm not a fan of filters, especially in a software age. It really doesn't matter how much money you have when you go ultra wide as circ pol just won't work. Filters remind me of auto accessories when you buy your first car. You gotta have it right! As you age you find that Pep Boys isn't a place you care to even browse anymore.

Good points... I think the only filter really worth having is a polarizer (has an effect in the field that I don't think you could replicate during PP). Grads are pointless when you can blend in photoshop. Just another layer in front of the lens to mess with the sharpness.

As far as polarizer on ultrawide... It can definitely work if used correctly. I think the main situation where it won't work is on an ultrawide horizontal shot with sky. That's when you get the horrible gradient. But, many images oriented vertically and shot with a wide lens can benefit from a polarizer, as well as any wide shots that don't include sky.

http://www.joelhazelton.com/Nature/High ... zWvdE-A-LB
http://www.joelhazelton.com/Nature/High ... JXbHw-A-LB
http://www.joelhazelton.com/Nature/Dese ... uH9pV-A-LB
http://www.joelhazelton.com/Nature/Dese ... PLuHZ-A-LB

^^All at 12mm with a polarizer, and benefited quite a bit from it.

I should clarify, polarize ultra wide on a full frame. The crop cameras cut off the worst. I think that's partially why we are starting to see high end crop cameras. In addition to a multiplied focal length on telephoto you force the choice cut on wide.

Also, I should note that posts I make after midnight come from my drunken sailor side

Good point on the portrait aspect!

joe bartels wrote:Also, I should note that posts I make after midnight come from my drunken sailor side

Huh... I didn't see any "pumpkins", so it couldn't have been too bad

joe bartels wrote:Also, I should note that posts I make after midnight come from my drunken sailor side

They make an alcoholic version of Diet Sierra Mist now.

joe's on his way to becoming a pirate...watch out HPP!

fricknaley wrote:joe's on his way to becoming a pirate...watch out HPP!

ARRRRR! That scurvy dog!

Damn, I started a polarizer frenzy! I'm not really sure when I'll be able to upgrade my lens, so I'll probably go with a middle priced one. I'm pretty happy with my skies thus far, so it's not a huge deal like I think I NEED one to improve my skies, but I'd like to play around with it. I do shoot portrait quite a bit so I probably could utilize it quite a bit. I'd mostly just like to have one in the bad of tricks for special situations, such as I've read that a polarizer can help saturate rainbows and take the glare of reflections, which are much harder to deal with in post-processing compared to making the sky more dramatic. I am having a hard time figuring out which specific filters fit on my lens. Sometimes my google skills just don't cut it and the websites that sell filters explain much.

Shouldn't be too difficult to figure out unless you have a high dome lens?
Simply browse by mm on B&H, Adorama or whatever if I recall correctly, maybe you can't anymore. You're not going to be getting into gel filters I wouldn't think.

If you venture past circ pol you might consider as Preston and Dabreeze use square plate filters. Simply hold them in front of the lens. Dabreeze has a little briefcase of 'em Beyond what I care to carry on a hike but very nice compared to all the fuss of changing filters.

http://www.adorama.com/HY58CPL.html

^Should be a good one. Basically you're looking for circular polarizer, 58mm.

Polarizers also help in reducing the haze in like the Grand canyon and Sedona... Brings out the colors in the rocks... Just try even a pair of polarized sunglasses to see the results. It can't really be done the same with Photoshop. You can take some out with desaturating the blue layer but polarizer works well in that situation too...

ssk44 wrote:Highly contrasted canyon photography on a single exposure is TOUGH no matter what you are carrying. DSLR’s are not magic cameras. The magic is found though experience. The photographer creates a good photo, not the camera.

Sorry DSLR guys... I went off on one of my rants and misinterpreted Joes post. Bad habit...

Just ignore me. ;)

Dschur wrote:Polarizers also help in reducing the haze in like the Grand canyon and Sedona... Brings out the colors in the rocks...

Good to know!

azpride wrote:^Should be a good one. Basically you're looking for circular polarizer, 58mm.

Nice, $40 ain't bad. Got some extra birthday money today, so I'll have figure out some other accessories to play around with. I'm gonna order one of these bad boys for sure: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+Rem ... &cp=1&lp=1

I'd go for the cheapest you can get. A polarizer on a canon is a single-use item.

ssk44 wrote:

ssk44 wrote:Highly contrasted canyon photography on a single exposure is TOUGH no matter what you are carrying. DSLR’s are not magic cameras. The magic is found though experience. The photographer creates a good photo, not the camera.

Sorry DSLR guys... I went off on one of my rants and misinterpreted Joes post. Bad habit...

Just ignore me. ;)

Keep on the rants it keeps the atmosphere energetic If you never smile or get mad you become Bob.
- I agree 100% with sentences 1-3
- Personally I feel sentence 4 is a combined deal

joe bartels wrote:Personally I feel sentence 4 is a combined deal

Que?