# Polarizer for ultra-wide angle lens



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 26, 2012)

Hello TPF. I'm looking to purchase a circular polarizer to pair with my ef-s 10-22mm lens. To my understanding, if I buy a normal polarizer it will vignette. So it seems I need to get a "slim polarizer". I've narrowed it down to a couple here, but am open to suggestions:

looks like this "slim line" one has pretty shaky reviews, which is surprising because B+W usually gets very high ratings. From the comments, it doesn't look like the product is the highest of quality:
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: B+W 77mm Slim-Line Circular Polarizer

This one has much better reviews but would cause vignetting:
Amazon.com: B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating: Camera & Photo

Does anyone have any idea how bad the vignetting would be if I went with the second one? Any other ideas or suggestions? Thanks.


----------



## Dao (Oct 26, 2012)

I am now thinking about getting this one for my Sigma 10-20mm
Amazon.com: Marumi DHG Super Circular Polarizer CPL PL.D 77 77mm Filter Japan: Camera & Photo

And their ND8 filter as well.

That is mainly based on reviews on Amazon and this
Polarizing filters test - Results and summary - Lenstip.com


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

Keep in mind its said that with ultra wides (or lenses below 28mm) the sky will be unevenly polarized.  Dunno if that matters to you or not but some scrap the polarizor on wides because of it.

I'm not an expert of course  but you can google it and find a plethora of info =)


----------



## tirediron (Oct 26, 2012)

What he said! ^^  Once you get into the 10-15mm FL, polarizers don't always produce ideal results.  Read those reviews carefully; almost all of them are whining about the B+W lens cap falling off (Slim filters don't have front threads; B+W includes a lens cap with their slim filters).  I use the same filter, and yep the cap won't stay on, but that's easy to fix.  Take the filter off when you're not using it, and use the regular lens cap!  If you're shooting UWA, the regular one will be almost useless; in fact, I would guess you could even start to see vignetting at 20mm; certainly in the 10-12mm range, it's going to be very bad.  

Get the slim one!


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 26, 2012)

Pop for the slim version... you won't be sorry.  Save for the fact the B&W won't have any threads on the subject side of the filter, so you can't put a traditional lens cap on.

However, even when shooting with an ND and a CPL on my 10-24 @ 10mm, I get vignetting. However, I tend to 'overshoot' the scene anyway at these focal lengths so I can correct for the perspective distortion in post... so the vignetting gets cropped out anyway.

But yes.......... the issue of uneven polarizing in the sky is an issue.  But not every shot where you need a polarizer will have sky in it .


----------



## Buckster (Oct 26, 2012)

tirediron said:


> If you're shooting UWA, the regular one will be *almost useless*; in fact, I would guess you could even start to see vignetting at 20mm; certainly in the 10-12mm range, it's going to be *very bad*.
> 
> Get the slim one!


Let's test that theory.

I happen to have all the components in question: A Canon 10-22mm EF-S, a Canon 7D to put it on, and the B+W 77mm Polarizer Pro, regular, *NON-Slim* version, with threads on the front for stacking more filters or attaching a lens cap.  Let's see how it works out...

For the test, I shot in aperture priority, so that it wouldn't change, and chose f/8 as the standard for all shots, for no particular reason.  ISO was at 100 for all shots.  Processing in LR4 consisted of importing the 4 RAW files, then without making any changes, not even enabling Lens Corrections, outputting all 4 to full-size JPGs as is.  I then renamed the JPGs to keep track of what was what and uploaded them to my server.  Here they are:

1. 10mm NO Polarizer:






2. 10mm WITH Polarizer:





*"Almost useless"?  "Very bad"?*

Ummm... I don't think so.

Let's see what happens if we employ the LR4 Lens Correction filter on both, in order to deal with the regular 10mm vignetting, which has nothing to do with, and therefore will not be able to correct, any additional vignetting caused by the thickness of the regular, non-thin 77mm B+W polarizing filter screwed onto the front of the lens:

3. 10mm NO Polarizer WITH LR4 Lens Correction:





4. 10mm WITH Polarizer and WITH LR4 Lens Correction:





*"Almost useless"?  "Very bad"?*

Ummm... I *REALLY* don't think so.

Now then, just for giggles, let's look at the 22mm images...

5. 22mm NO Polarizer:





6. 22mm WITH Polarizer:





*"Almost useless"?  "Very bad"?*

I offer a somewhat different conclusion:

Use info and data and conclusions from sources who use real, actual testing and can show the results.  Internet rumours and opinions spread by people pulling it out of their butts, even when they make it sound as though they actually know what they're talking about, is *almost useless *and *very bad*.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

You have an examples with more significant clouds, like a clear blue sky?  

Thats where I've seen poor results mostly, trying to remove haze from a clear blue sky on a polarized wide angle


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 26, 2012)

Buckster said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > If you're shooting UWA, the regular one will be *almost useless*; in fact, I would guess you could even start to see vignetting at 20mm; certainly in the 10-12mm range, it's going to be *very bad*.
> ...




Helluva lot just to counter someone's "I would* guess*" statement.


----------



## Dao (Oct 26, 2012)

Even if the filter did cause vignetting, I believe it should be a easy fix in post.

As for the how even the polarizing effect is, I guess it depends on the scene.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 26, 2012)

My apologies to the OP; I'm impressed by this example, and while I can, at this time, offer no evidence to support my earlier statements (as the necessary images are buried on HDDs in another location) I do know that when I was using a B+W slim CPOL on an 18-70 on a DX body, vignetting would start to appear at between 19 and 20mm.  With a 12-24, the vignetting was so significant at the wide end, as to, IMO, render the image only fit for the bit-bucket.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 26, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> You have an examples with more significant clouds, like a clear blue sky?  Thats where I've seen poor results mostly, trying to remove haze from a clear blue sky on a polarized wide angle


I was only interested in the vignettes question.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 26, 2012)

I've never really had the vignetting issue tirediron is speaking of.  But you will absolutely get unevenly polarized skies with a polarizer if you're shooting anything much wider than about 20mm on a crop, 35 on a FF.  

ie you'll get a very full, dark blue in areas where the polarization is strongest, and a light blue in areas where it isn't polarizing as much.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 26, 2012)

Thanks everyone for your input. 



Buckster said:


> *"Almost useless"? "Very bad"?*
> 
> Ummm... I *REALLY* don't think so.
> 
> Use info and data and conclusions from sources who use real, actual testing and can show the results. Internet rumours and opinions spread by people pulling it out of their butts, even when they make it sound as though they actually know what they're talking about, is *almost useless *and *very bad*.



Buckster, although your means are a bit "aggressive", I can't argue with the end result! *Thank you very much *for running this test. This is extremely useful information for me and others who will have the same question in the future. 

Do you recommend the multi-resistant coating, or is single coating adequate? There's a price difference, so I thought I should pose the question here.


----------



## SCraig (Oct 26, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Hello TPF. I'm looking to purchase a circular polarizer to pair with my ef-s 10-22mm lens. To my understanding, if I buy a normal polarizer it will vignette. So it seems I need to get a "slim polarizer". I've narrowed it down to a couple here, but am open to suggestions:
> 
> looks like this "slim line" one has pretty shaky reviews, which is surprising because B+W usually gets very high ratings. From the comments, it doesn't look like the product is the highest of quality:
> Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: B+W 77mm Slim-Line Circular Polarizer
> ...


How about getting a step-up ring and a larger filter?  Don't know what size you need, but perhaps go from a 67mm to a 72mm.  That way you wouldn't have to worry about vignetting.  I haven't tried it, and there may be some vignetting from the step-up ring, but it might work.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 26, 2012)

Hi Scraig, all threads I'd be using this on would be 77mm.


----------



## SCraig (Oct 26, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Hi Scraig, all threads I'd be using this on would be 77mm.



77mm -> 86mm step-up ring and 86mm filter.  Anyone ever tried that?


----------



## Buckster (Oct 26, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Helluva lot


I like to be thorough when I can.



480sparky said:


> just to counter someone's "I would* guess*" statement.


Seriously?  You want to play word games in bold red text now? What, still smarting from the last time you tried to stick a fork in me over having a grip on a body while shooting macros?  Fine.  Let me help you with parsing the _*actual*_ statements made:



tirediron said:


> If you're shooting UWA, the regular one *will be* *almost useless*;


"*Will be*" is quite definitive, especially to someone looking for info.



tirediron said:


> *in fact*, *I would guess* you could even start to see vignetting at 20mm;


"*In fact*" is quite definitive, especially to someone looking for info.  "*I would guess*", the only part you referred to, ignoring everything else as if I wouldn't, is only in reference to "you could even start to see vignetting at 20mm" and, as it turns out, he would, unfortunately, "guess" incorrectly.



tirediron said:


> *certainly* in the 10-12mm range, *it's going to be* *very bad*.


"*Certainly*" isn't ambiguous and "It's", as a contraction, becomes "*it IS*" "*going to be very bad*", which is another very definitive statement.

Overall, the general impression left is that he knows what he's talking about on this subject, and therefore the OP should take his advice and get the thin version.  Then, you reinforce that position by jumping in with a post saying he should choose the thin one as well and, of course, you also leave the impression that you know what you're talking about.

Okay folks!  Case closed!  Two long-time forum members with LOTS and LOTS of knowledge have now weighed in, and the definitive answer has been delivered!  YAY!!!  

Parse words like "guess" all you want, but that's the overall impression delivered, and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know it.

*But* as it turns out, it's *not true* that the Canon 10-22mm EF-S with a regular size B+W polarizer will cause the vignetting problems that he, you or anyone else says it will, as the actual photos I shot and posted prove.  Obviously, that means that anyone saying such things _*isn't*_ speaking from actual experience or knowledge of those actual products that the OP laid out in his question.  They can't be.

Now then, that said, this post as I continue will hopefully answer as to why I seem to be somewhat aggressive in my responses at times, since that has also come up.  See, my focus here isn't really about this particular lens or filter.  It's about something much broader.

Why do some folks answer with such conviction and projected authority when they don't actually know what they're talking about on an issue?  Does it make them feel smarter or superior or something because they think people will follow their advice, or what?  What's it all about?  I just don't get it.  Passing on bad info is a waste of everyone's time who reads it, and a waste of money for anyone who heeds that bad advice.  Then how many more come and read the thread in the future?  The wasted time and money just keeps building, silently, as others who don't know any better find it through searches, take it to heart, and also act upon it without questioning these "experts".

And so it seems to me that when they don't actually know the answer, but pretend they do, the only thing getting satisfied is the ego of whomever is passing out the bad into.  Nobody else actually benefits at all; Just the opposite, in fact.

If they'd bit their tongue instead while waiting for someone WITH actual knowledge to answer, or at least say something like, "I don't know from first hand experience, but I've heard_____", it doesn't mean they don't know anything at all, just that they don't know this one thing.  There's no shame in that. We should all be able to freely and honestly admit that there are FAR more things each of us doesn't know than there are things we DO know.  Again, there's no shame in it at all, so no reason to lie about it or try to pretend we're more knowledgeable than we really are.

But usually, once they've committed to a position, even a wrong one, if you point it out or have a different opinion, they'll dig in to the ends of the Earth defending their "guess" anyway, and usually push even harder as though they're the expert and you just don't know what you're talking about.

So I posted the big, fat photos in this thread in the hopes that it would be the end of it, and we could all learn something. I thought maybe a few people would think to themselves, "gee... maybe I should just sit tight and learn something when I don't really know, instead of weighing in as though I'm an expert..."  And yet, wishy-washy language persists that seems to indicate that there _may still be_ a vignetting issue, but "I can't get to my files right now to prove it". And of course, the excuses begin, "on a different, but VERY SIMILAR, lens than the one in question (implication being that it should be about the same result), it causes vignetting so bad, just throw those shots away."  Well, we're not asking about that other lens though.  The question is about X, and we get an answer to Z, but without the initial explanation that it's not an answer to X, as if there's no difference, until it's pointed out with actual evidence that the given answer doesn't fit - THEN we find out it's Z and not X, but it's supposedly basically the same thing, after all. For shuck's fakes, just give it up already...

Look, there are plenty of times when I _think_ I know what the answer will be to a question that comes up simply because I have a fundamental understanding of surrounding issues or similar circumstances, or I've read or heard it a bunch of times.  But I also know that I _really_ don't know for _sure_ because I don't have first hand knowledge, nor have I seen the actual evidence from someone else that proves it one way or the other.  When that happens, I do my best to just bite my tongue, subscribe to the thread to track responses, and wait for someone who DOES know to answer and provide resources to back it up, and then I learn something from it.  That's one of the great things I love about internet forums - someone is bound to actually KNOW the answer, and can PROVE it, and then anyone paying attention learns from it.  From that, I've got a mental list of several people that I've come to trust here, and I'd be SERIOUSLY surprised if I EVER saw them post something that wasn't true.

Then there are times when, even though I don't actually know the answer when I first read the question, I realize that I have everything needed to do the testing myself and get the answer, share it, and we can all benefit from it.  That's what I did here.

I apologize if my response while doing so had some smarm mixed in with it, or seemed aggressive.  I admit that I find it frustrating to see bad information being passed around, especially by folks that I think should have more integrity and therefore act more responsibly than that.  Frankly, I'd like to guilt them just a little tiny bit; Just enough for them to stop doing it going forward, but not enough that it starts a fight.  It would be a lot easier and a lot more beneficial to everyone if they'd just stick to what they _really_ know when they decide to jump in and answer a question, rather than to correct them or watch them be corrected time after time when they're just faking it.

Sparky, I love much of your work, and I'd love to have some of the specialized gear you have for my own work.  I have no interest in maintaining some ongoing spitting match just because you seem to have gotten the short end of a trivial issue regarding a grip on a body while shooting macros recently, so you really should just move on to more productive things than trying to stick a fork in me like this.

Of course, that's all just my opinion though.  YMMV.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 26, 2012)

Dude...are you telling us that everything we read on the interwebz has the potential to be bogus info??? Are you suggesting that some of the stuff on here is....wrong info? ZOMG...I feel awful!!!!!!!!!


(*runs screaming from the room, hands over eyes...*)


----------



## Buckster (Oct 26, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Buckster, although your means are a bit "aggressive", I can't argue with the end result! *Thank you very much *for running this test. This is extremely useful information for me and others who will have the same question in the future.


Always glad to help if I can.  :thumbup:



Rotanimod said:


> Do you recommend the multi-resistant coating, or is single coating adequate? There's a price difference, so I thought I should pose the question here.


I can't answer with actual testing, as I don't have both to make a valid comparison.  I suspect that the multi-resistant coating will perform better and, for me, that's worth the additional cost.  It'd be very interesting to see a good comparison of the two.  If you run across one, be sure to post a link to it!


----------



## Buckster (Oct 26, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Dude...are you telling us that everything we read on the interwebz has the potential to be bogus info??? Are you suggesting that some of the stuff on here is....wrong info? ZOMG...I feel awful!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> (*runs screaming from the room, hands over eyes...*)


See?  That's why you're one of the people I trust!  You know when to run, screaming!!  LOL!!


----------



## tirediron (Oct 26, 2012)

Buckster:  You've proven me wrong.  I admit it.  I've apologized for posting a statement which I cannot support which counters one you have clearly supported.  OKAY!    E-freakin'-nuff already!  I GIVE!


----------



## Buckster (Oct 26, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Buckster:  You've proven me wrong.  I admit it.  I've apologized for posting a statement which I cannot support which counters one you have clearly supported.  OKAY!    E-freakin'-nuff already!  I GIVE!


I hereby withdraw my wagging finger!  

Seriously though, it seemed like as good a time and place as any to get that broader point off my chest.  Didn't mean for you to be a punching bag in the process.

We generally agree, but when we don't, I prefer Dos Equis!  Stay thirsty, my friends!  :mrgreen:


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 26, 2012)

Buckster said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Helluva lot
> ...





Um, WHO needs to move on?  I got a news flash for ya:  I 'moved on' a long time ago.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 26, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Um, WHO needs to move on?


 IKYABWAI


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 26, 2012)

Buckster said:


> IKYABWAI



Someone who really knows how to take the fun out of forum, that's who.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 26, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > IKYABWAI
> ...


 I see.  You find it fun to post bogus information when you have no clue in order to feed your ego, and I take away that fun when I point out in public that you're full of it.

Golly, I'm so terribly sorry I've ruined your fun!  Even worse, it's going to keep happening unless you stop posting bogus info and getting caught!

Your turn.  :mrgreen:


----------



## usayit (Oct 26, 2012)

In my case,  12mm on a full frame using a 77mm polarizer on a clear sunny day yielded very uneven polarization...  I trashed the frames.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 26, 2012)

usayit said:


> In my case,  12mm on a full frame using a 77mm polarizer on a clear sunny day yielded very uneven polarization...  I trashed the frames.



Any way to avoid this?


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 26, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > In my case,  12mm on a full frame using a 77mm polarizer on a clear sunny day yielded very uneven polarization...  I trashed the frames.
> ...



Not much.  It's a function of the way polarizers work in relationship to the sun in the sky.  They affect the blue sky the most 90° from the sun.  The further you get from this 90° arc, the less affect the polarizer has, and the lighter the sky will be rendered.  You might be able to correct this in post.  

I say MIGHT in hopes of avoiding another 3-page dissertation.


----------



## markj (Oct 28, 2012)

Rotanimod, take a moment and read this: It may give you a little insight.  Polarizing filters test - Results and summary - Lenstip.com


----------



## pgriz (Oct 28, 2012)

I've got the 10-22 and a 77mm polarizer.  When used against the sky, the effect is exactly what fjrabon said.  As you rotate the polarizer, different parts of the sky go dark, and others lighten.  If used against polarized light from a surface (say,  water) the wide angle of view guarantees that not all the polarized rays across the full width of the view will be intercepted (darkened).  In fact, even with my 24-105 lens, the wide end is a bit problematic with the polarizer.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 28, 2012)

pgriz said:


> I've got the 10-22 and a 77mm polarizer.  When used against the sky, the effect is exactly what fjrabon said.  As you rotate the polarizer, different parts of the sky go dark, and others lighten.  If used against polarized light from a surface (say,  water) the wide angle of view guarantees that not all the polarized rays across the full width of the view will be intercepted (darkened).  In fact, even with my 24-105 lens, the wide end is a bit problematic with the polarizer.



The effect described above is pretty standard...polarizing with very wide-angle lenses can easily result in pretty wonky polarizing effects on skies, where it is noticeable, much of the time.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 28, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > In my case,  12mm on a full frame using a 77mm polarizer on a clear sunny day yielded very uneven polarization...  I trashed the frames.
> ...



There's been some experimentation with things like spherical polarizers for very specialized applications.  The issue is in how polarizers work, their very nature means that the different angles that light enters a very wide angle lens, the more angled light gets polarized differently than the light that is coming into the lens more 'head on'


----------

