I've been putting some of the most popular circular polarizing filters to the test. Here are some side-by-side results.
While I’ve been spending some time down at Washington DC’s Tidal Basin for the annual blooming of the cherry blossoms I decided to take the opportunity to do some side by side testing of polarizing filters.
In practice, polarizing filters are something I use less often these days. But they can make a dramatic difference, especially on skies and water.
First, though, if you haven’t used a polarizing filter before, one of the considerations to factor in is that they cut down the amount of light coming into the lens. Precisely how much varies filter to filter, but it’s generally somewhere around 1 to 2 stops. Here’s an illustration of what that looks like in practical terms. The first shot is without a polarizing filter. The second is with a polarizing filter but using exactly the same exposure settings (aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc) without compensating for the light loss.
[before-after viewer_position=”center” orientation=”horizontal” label_position=”one” overlay_color=”#ffffff” label_color=”#000000″ label_one=”Without polarizing filter” label_two=”Same exposure settings with polarizing filter”]
Since I had all of the filters on hand, I shot a series of side-by-side tests. These are all on the same camera with the same lens with exactly the same exposure settings (including white balance).
They were shot on a Nikon D810 with a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED lens, with the camera mounted on a sturdy tripod. The 24mm lens has a 77mm filter thread. As you can see in these examples, there are issues when using a circular polarizer on a wide-angle lens, but I did that deliberately because it also shows more clearly how aggressively the polarizing effect is being applied.
Because of the way that circular polarizing filters work, there can be some variance in the strength of the effect based on the rotation. And the “right” spot is something you just eyeball. I’ve tried hard to keep these consistent with the point of rotation where the maximum effect is applied, but it’s an imprecise process.
In use, I ran into an issue I’ve come across with other Hoya filters I’ve tried–a slight color shift. The results are a little muddier and not quite as crisp as the other filters here, and it’s a shade more aggressive than the others here.
Considering it’s lower price point (Tiffen’s MSRP is $44.99), this one came as a nice surprise. While it has a slightly cooler color, it’s performance is remarkably good, rivaling even the much more expensive Nikon filter. The Nikon’s effect is a bit smoother, especially near the edges, but the Tiffen performs surprisingly well. For the price, it’s very hard to argue with.
This one is in their “high-transmission” range, which lets more light in but trades off against a lighter polarizing effect. That makes it a good choice for low-light situations where you need to squeeze out all the available light you can while still having a polarizing effect. On a wide-angle lens like the 24mm, that more subtle effect is an advantage because it doesn’t result in as much banding. And just in looking at this through the camera I could see that its polarizing effect of this was less aggressive than some of the others–in bright conditions and scenes that don’t include large smooth regions ripe for polarizing (like the sky in this shot) it can be a little trickier to eyeball where to rotate the filter to.
This one definitely has a stronger polarizing effect than the B+W one above, but its optics are, as expected, excellent.
It’s worth noting that even though this is a Nikon filter, that does not mean you can only use it on Nikon lenses. It has a standard filter thread that can be found on most DSLR lenses, regardless of brand of the lens.
There are, of course, other polarizing filters available, and as the opportunity arises I’ll aim to add to this list.
Images and product information from Amazon Product Advertising API were last updated on 2019-10-20 at 13:49.