What's the best one you've used? and the worst?What's the minimum amount to spend, and when would you be spending too much?How much of an improvement did you see in your photography when you started using one? Did you get better results, subjectively speaking?Picrel is the uber-shiny ultra D-LUX filter from Hoya and I don't know if I need it. I know I need one of these filters, though. My landscapes have very hazy skies and are overall somewhat low-contrast.
>>4508426Hoya have been the best filters I've used, but I hear good things about Tiffen too. The only two filters I ever use are ND and Polarising, but I want to add a Mist filter at some point. What pisses me off is that my favorite lens has a 82mm filter thread and that shit is expensive.
>>4508426Got 7 artisans nd 1000 and vnd 2-5 stops after watching some vnd comparisons on ytGot a fake hoya cpl that does the job in removing glare but build quality is shity.Also some hoya uv filter that i belive is fake also but i did some tests and could not find any image sharpness loss even at 800% pixel peeping
>>4508426the hoya cpls are nice.i shoot outdoors in the snow a lot
>>4508426I have K&F Concept, Platinum (Best Buy), Hoya, Polar ProBest I have is polar pro. Silky. No cross-fade or X patterns. I really want Polar Pro's new Split Diopter filter. I wanted one once I did research on Star Trek the Original Motion Picture and some of the split diopter stuff they did in the film. Really cool shots. K&F is my go-to because they're fairly cheap, but you can kind of feel its not as smooth to turn. I dont' really notice any X patterns from them.I don't have CPL's of Hoya but I love their 1B Skylight filters, I have multiple in different sizes.I bout some UV filters from Best buy. they're a filter. Then I bought 1 HGX Prime Promaster filter. Unfortunately a 44.5mm that fits a kit lens (the first one I bought ever with my first camera - i didn't know what I was doing). So overpriced. But it feels solid I guess.
>>4508513So how blurry are your images?
>>4508513>Polar ProMaybe they're brilliant as you say but they don't have any filters of the thread size I'm looking for (52mm). I've been considering K&F Concept ones because they're yeah, fairly cheap. You notice any problems with the ones you've used? besides the stiff turning of the filter, I mean image quality, problems there?>>4508483>>4508427I'll keep my eye out for Hoya I guess.
>>4508554>You notice any problems with the ones you've used?No, they're pretty good. Its not stiff turning - just you can "FEEL" the two aluminum bits rubbing against each other. They work just fine. The "White/silver" box are the cheaper ones I buy like that.They do make ones in a "Black Box" - I'm sure those are probably really nice, but they're more expensive.
>>4508520Modern filters designed for Mirrorless cameras take little to no hit on image quality unless you're getting something really fucking bottom barrel from China Unknown Brand. All the shit I use is crystal, even the cheaper name-brand ones.
I have a K&F CPL, it has problems at longer focal lengths. Beyond 50mm the images are noticably blurred. I know I'm being a bit brutal using this at 60MP, but have a look at this 100% center crop at 180mm
>>4508637fucking forgot picrel
>>4508638that looks pretty bad but I don't wanna write off as the fault of the K&F filter without seeing a control pic with the same lens and body.
>>4508597I also have a K&F CPL, it's a nano-K tho with the same issue as yours. I'm wondering on what filter you're using tho, Nano-X, K, C?
>>4508650I have the same issue, on the very long end it gets bad enough to be immediately noticeable in the OVF.
>>4508661Forgot to mention that those test pics are crops (about 5x).
>>4508661I guess that's expected for a Nano-K filter. got mine for about 3000¥ lol. Nano-X might have better resolving power, will buy one sometime.
>>4508661>>4508638is this a real thing? not just an outcome of darker -> longer exposure?i've been using a cheapo nikon linear polarizer on my mirrorless
>>4508677>>4508650It's a real thing. It kinda looks like motion blur, but it's to do with the orientation of the polarising elements (i.e rotating the filter reorients the blur), but here's a comparison I just took at 1/250 f4. Tamron 70-180 at 180mm, A7CR. Stablisation on. And this is just me being lazy and cropping the low quality jpeg.(left: no filter, right: K&F CPL)It also messes with autofocus as well.
>>4508682guess i'll have to get out and shoot some test photos next saturday
I've had good results with B+W but they charge a fair bit
>>4508682>>4508637Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention was how it messes with colour.
I have a cheap $20 Tiffen CPL and it definitely degrades sharpness vs my Z 50mm f/1.8 naked. Especially vs its sharpest apertures like f/4.Polarization is still worth it if the scene benefits from it, but between some softening and the color cast it adds, I would say it's kind of disappointing and not at all "lossless" when in use. If I had a worse lens and lower megapixel body perhaps I would care less but 45MP and a sharp lens definitely shows a degradation.Consider something more expensive but also at the same time don't hesitate to buy a cheap one to play around with before investing in something fancy. At the very least you can always use a cheap polarizer handheld with your naked eye to look at things polarized for fun, without the camera, so getting a cheap polarizer is probably the best cheap one to buy since it can have a second use after you upgrade.I just wish I could adjust the CPL angle more easily with the fucking lens hood on... that is a real pain in the ass I didn't expect until I started using it. Other filters you apply, but polarizers you interact with and have to constantly adjust.
>>4508677>longer exposureNah, the 300mm CPL shot was at 1/250 (vs 1/350 for the other one) and IBIS was on. It's also very obvious in the viewfinder, it feels like you can never get focus right. It gets worse as you go longer, as you can see on the 55mm shot. The filter is perfectly on my normal zoom.
>>4508683Yeah nta but I did some tests on this a while ago and basically just avoid cheap shit. The affects are more pronounced the longer your focal length, but shit glass is a IQ downgrade regardless.
>>4508682So, radial blur?This is a common problem on Sony cameras due to the thick sensor glass.Kolari offers a sensor mod to make Sony full frames work better with older lenses, and I suspect your polarizer is triggering the same problem. If you were using Canon or Nikon you probably wouldn't have this issue or at least not this severe.Do you have any other bodies to test this on?
>>4508703>>4508661 here, those were shot on a KP if that helps
should I use CPL for portraits?
>>4508703No, it's a consistent blur with a linear bias over the entire image. That was cropped right in the center. I'm also not sure why you think something between the sensor and lens would change the behaviour of a CPL like this.
>>4508708Not unless the background calls for it. It won't do anything for your subject and it inherently absorbs a few stops of light so you'll have to compromises on your exposure settings.
Combination of Hoya and Tiffin. I lean towards Hoya for general ND/CP etc and Tiffin for more specialised stuff. Mist filters etc.I hate K+F - I've had too many bad experiences with their filter threads welding up. And because they make the rim ultra thin, getting the filter off when it is welded can be a nightmare.
>>4508724Slightly annoying to carry something extra - but I bought the filter wrenches and they do work superbly well for unsticking locked up filters. I've never had an issue after buying my set.
>>4508638Looks like a texture from an N64 game
>>4508661>>4508682K&F is notorious for the color issues, I don't know why people still bother with them.
>>4508719Lies.For portraits (in uncontrolled lighting) it can help eliminate shine from sweat and oils on the skin and also give a warmer diffused look to the skin. As light penetrates skin and bounces around inside it makes you glow to an extent, polarizers don't affect this but will cut down on external light bouncing off the surface.>>4508708In general, no. It's not typical to use one.Give it a try though you might like it for some situations. Worth figuring out IMO. Can be used nicely for "wet" photography or anything involving water/sweat/oils/etc or body paint and glitter.
B+W
>>4508684>>4508857this
>>4508708are you hosing bitches down?are they leaping out of the pool?
I guess it's a non-issue for poorfags who don't own a 180mm lens, or a 60mp camera
