S
sktung
I would like to buy a nice Circular Polarizer,will Contax Circular Polarizer the best choice for Contax lens? I got some suggestion like B+W and Leica instead of Contax.
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
> I would like to buy a nice Circular Polarizer,will Contax Circular> Polarizer the best choice for Contax lens? I got some suggestion like> B+W and Leica instead of Contax.
B&W and Heliopan are just as good [maybe better?] , but often cheaper than the Contax ones . Steve
B&W and Heliopan are just as good [maybe better?] , but often cheaper than the Contax ones . Steve
M
mike_nunan
I can't comment on the quality of the Contax PL-Cs, although I'm sure it will be satisfactory. The other manufacturers can provide you with some further options however. B&W's Kaesemann polarisers are (I believe) unique in that they are hermetically sealed at the edges, and they apparently last longer in harsh environments. B+W also offer warming polarisers which may be useful to those who don't digitally post-process their images. All B&W filters come in brass rings, which don't bind as badly as the aluminium alloy rings used by most other makers. Look here for some further info:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_still_photography/polarizers/
I would also recommend you take a look at the polarisers in Hoya's Pro-1 range, as they have the best coatings in terms of light transmission and flare resistance. Bear in mind that polarisers are constructed out of two optical flats, with a polarising foil sandwiched in between, so they tend to have more impact on quality than mass-dyed correction filters for ex&le. The Hoya Pro-1 polarisers also have very low-profile mounting rings but still have a front thread. Be warned though, like the B&W products, they are scarily expensive, especially in the larger sizes. E.g., my 77mm Pro-1 PL-C was £149 (uk).
HTH
-= mike =-
http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_still_photography/polarizers/
I would also recommend you take a look at the polarisers in Hoya's Pro-1 range, as they have the best coatings in terms of light transmission and flare resistance. Bear in mind that polarisers are constructed out of two optical flats, with a polarising foil sandwiched in between, so they tend to have more impact on quality than mass-dyed correction filters for ex&le. The Hoya Pro-1 polarisers also have very low-profile mounting rings but still have a front thread. Be warned though, like the B&W products, they are scarily expensive, especially in the larger sizes. E.g., my 77mm Pro-1 PL-C was £149 (uk).
HTH
-= mike =-
I must admit I only buy contax filters and the reason for this is that I assume the contax engineers have designed their hoods to be used with their filters and I always use contax's hoods. Of course if all filters are the same depth then this reasoning is invalid but I have noticed that HOYA 46mm filters are slightly thicker than the contax.
On another point, we should remind ourselves that some filters although badged as B+W or heliopan, say, are actually manufactured by somebody else. For ex&le the Softar range are made exclusively by Zeiss.
Regards,
stuart
On another point, we should remind ourselves that some filters although badged as B+W or heliopan, say, are actually manufactured by somebody else. For ex&le the Softar range are made exclusively by Zeiss.
Regards,
stuart
> On another point, we should remind ourselves that some filters> although badged as B+W or heliopan, say, are actually manufactured by> somebody else. For ex&le the Softar range are made exclusively by > Zeiss.
This is the first time I've heard anyone say that B&W or Heliopan outsource the manufacturing of some of their filters - certainly common amongst the cheaper brands , alot of which are made by Hoya [including some or all of the Contax ones allegedly] . The B&W and Heliopan ones also use Schott glass which is also used in the Zeiss lenses of course. Steve
This is the first time I've heard anyone say that B&W or Heliopan outsource the manufacturing of some of their filters - certainly common amongst the cheaper brands , alot of which are made by Hoya [including some or all of the Contax ones allegedly] . The B&W and Heliopan ones also use Schott glass which is also used in the Zeiss lenses of course. Steve
After having used many other brands, including Hoya, I'm now using exclusively B+W polarizers. I never tried the Contax ones, as I found them to be extremely expensive when the B+W (also not really cheap) gave me everything that I was expecting, optically and build-wise. I'm especially fond of their MRC-coating which is, unlike others, really very "scratch-resistant" if you should ever have to clean some dust or dirt from the filter's surface 
Marc
Marc
stephen, i didn't actually say that B+W/heliopan outsource the manufacturing of some of their filters. what they actually do is licence the technology of another company - i.e zeiss. there is a subtle difference.
also, the time of filters is nigh. learn digital imaging.
also, the time of filters is nigh. learn digital imaging.
> stephen, i didn't actually say that B+W/heliopan outsource the> manufacturing of some of their filters. what they actually do is> licence the technology of another company - i.e zeiss. there is a> subtle difference.> also, the time of filters is nigh. learn digital imaging.
Well , if thats what you meant to say you didnt express yourself very well , whatever . I certainly take your point about Zeiss licensing their Softars to other companies , but I doubt anyone is paying royalties on polarisers still . As for digital , to each his own - I do print digitally , but for me photography is still about capturing what I see in the viewfinder . I have no interest in manipulation or changing images after the pic was taken . Steve
Well , if thats what you meant to say you didnt express yourself very well , whatever . I certainly take your point about Zeiss licensing their Softars to other companies , but I doubt anyone is paying royalties on polarisers still . As for digital , to each his own - I do print digitally , but for me photography is still about capturing what I see in the viewfinder . I have no interest in manipulation or changing images after the pic was taken . Steve
stuart,
You are partially correct about filters for the visible spectrum, but film and digital sensors can capture IR and UV, with undesirable results. Digicams have builtin IR filters and some, like my D30, can use even more protection (unless IR photography is the goal). As for the subject at hand (polarizers), these have the same use in digital photography as in film.
Mike,
Thanks for your report. I've ordered the multi-coated B+W linear polarizer. This item is expensive enough without opting for the Kaesemann version, especially since I see no optical benefit.
You are partially correct about filters for the visible spectrum, but film and digital sensors can capture IR and UV, with undesirable results. Digicams have builtin IR filters and some, like my D30, can use even more protection (unless IR photography is the goal). As for the subject at hand (polarizers), these have the same use in digital photography as in film.
Mike,
Thanks for your report. I've ordered the multi-coated B+W linear polarizer. This item is expensive enough without opting for the Kaesemann version, especially since I see no optical benefit.