# polarized filters whats the difference? nikon vs $10 one



## Provo (Nov 15, 2009)

What is the difference between 52mm Circular Polarizer II Filter part 2233 $65 opposed to the Sunpak 52mm Circular Polarized Filter  that sells for $10

I am a bit confused on this


----------



## MrRamonG (Nov 15, 2009)

I think the difference in price is because one is coated and one is not.


----------



## KmH (Nov 15, 2009)

Provo said:


> What is the difference between 52mm Circular Polarizer II Filter part 2233 $65 opposed to the Sunpak 52mm Circular Polarized Filter that sells for $10
> 
> I am a bit confused on this


Image quality is the difference and $65 is still pretty cheap for a CPL filter. Here's a good one. Better would be the Singh-Ray brand.

There are also filter holders that attach to your lens that hold 4x6 inch filters rather than screw-on filters.


----------



## Provo (Nov 15, 2009)

KmH said:


> Provo said:
> 
> 
> > What is the difference between 52mm Circular Polarizer II Filter part 2233 $65 opposed to the Sunpak 52mm Circular Polarized Filter that sells for $10
> ...


 
Thank you both for the input do you think the singh-ray brand would fit both the standard lens that came with the camera as well as the 55-200mm


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 15, 2009)

Provo said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Provo said:
> ...


 
For whatever filter size you are using, it will fit any other lens the same size.

For Nikon, both the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm are both 52mm, so one filter would fit both lenses.


----------



## Provo (Nov 15, 2009)

Well I ordered the B+W filter thanks for the tip & I read some reviews on the filter and what Kaeseman means. I ordered it from the BH photostore

I also went to a store in Princeton NJ and purchased a giotto rocket blower and 2 marumi uv filter but I got ripped a new one on the price of the filters each where $49 a piece the same ones I found online ebay and andorama for like $9-15 but too late all sales final oh well looks like I will not be going back to that store again.

anyway thanks again


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 16, 2009)

Provo said:


> Well I ordered the B+W filter thanks for the tip & I read some reviews on the filter and what Kaeseman means. I ordered it from the BH photostore
> 
> I also went to a store in Princeton NJ and purchased a giotto rocket blower and 2 marumi uv filter but I got ripped a new one on the price of the filters each where $49 a piece the same ones I found online ebay and andorama for like $9-15 but too late all sales final oh well looks like I will not be going back to that store again.
> 
> anyway thanks again


 

Good choice on the B+W filter, you will not be dissapointed.

I would be highly be suspect of ANY store that says all sales are final that sold new merchandise.  I can understand maybe on electronics (which I don't agree with) but not things like filters and tripods and normal stuff where opening the box really doesn't matter.


----------



## KmH (Nov 16, 2009)

Provo said:


> Well I ordered the B+W filter thanks for the tip & I read some reviews on the filter and what Kaeseman means. I ordered it from the BH photostore
> 
> I also went to a store in Princeton NJ and purchased a giotto rocket blower and 2 marumi uv filter but I got ripped a new one on the price of the filters each where $49 a piece the same ones I found online ebay and andorama for like $9-15 but too late all sales final oh well looks like I will not be going back to that store again.
> 
> anyway thanks again


The UV filters, imo, were a waste of money. Many photographers use them to 'protect' the front of their lens. On a digital camera they serve no other useful purpose, and with careful camera handeling serve no useful 'protection' function either.


----------



## Provo (Nov 16, 2009)

KmH said:


> Provo said:
> 
> 
> > Well I ordered the B+W filter thanks for the tip & I read some reviews on the filter and what Kaeseman means. I ordered it from the BH photostore
> ...


 
I got it just for protection,I know it did not serve any other purpose it does give me a piece of mind because it is a screw on type and being that I will be taking pictures at the beach and such I rather have sand hit the filter directly then no filter at all and make direct impact with the lens.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 16, 2009)

Provo said:


> I got it just for protection...


 
If you're going to use it just for protection (Which is all it's good for) then I would suggest getting a good quality clear glass filter.  It's relatively inexpensive and will have significantly less impact on your images than a mediocre (at best) quality UV filter.


----------



## Victor_TO (Nov 27, 2009)

Hi to everyone from a newbie just joined today.

I got a very old 58 mm polarized filter made by KENKO model PL. It is very sticky, hard to turn/rotate.
Would you let me know how to clean it or make it less sticky so when I put it on the lenses I can rotate it more easily.
TIA,


----------



## KmH (Nov 27, 2009)

Provo said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Provo said:
> ...


Edit; OK.


----------



## jbylake (Nov 27, 2009)

I haven't read where anyone mentioned that the quality of the glass used, has any affect on the quality of the filter.

Second, I disagree with anyone who says UV lenses are worthless, except for lens protection.  They are great for excess glare, in conditions where you can't control it otherwise.

Example, I'll shoot into a stream of trout with a UV filter.  You shoot into it with nothing.  Let's see if there is a difference.

J.


----------



## Montana (Nov 27, 2009)

I have never seen a UV do anything for glare....do you mean a circular polarizer?


----------



## KmH (Nov 27, 2009)

jbylake said:


> I haven't read where anyone mentioned that the quality of the glass used, has any affect on the quality of the filter.
> 
> Second, I disagree with anyone who says UV lenses are worthless, except for lens protection. They are great for excess glare, in conditions where you can't control it otherwise.
> 
> ...


That's what a circular polarizing filter (CPL) does, not a UV.

Every digital camera has a UV filter (among others) in front of the image sensor, that's why they don't need one on the lens.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 27, 2009)

KmH said:


> Every digital camera has a UV filter (among others) in front of the image sensor, that's why they don't need one on the lens.


 
That's interesting - never knew that!

I've been shooting without "protective" filters for awhile now, only use CPL and ND, sometimes 4 point star filter, but still, when I use camera without filter, makes me kind of uneasy bc of so many years of having been conditioned to think thataway about "needing" a filter to protect the front glass of the lens.


----------



## jbylake (Nov 29, 2009)

KmH said:


> jbylake said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't read where anyone mentioned that the quality of the glass used, has any affect on the quality of the filter.
> ...


Yeah, my bad.  Oh well, when you stick foot in mouth, just try to hop on one leg.  Stick both in, then bounce on ass..:lmao: Oh, and I was thinking film, so no UV filter on "sensor"...

J.:mrgreen:


----------

