14
\$\begingroup\$

As I am now looking for a decent polarizer for my 18-105mm and 50mm (Nikon D80) I realized how important they are for outdoor photography. So why aren't they directly hard-mounted on every modern lens?

(As a "by-question", which polarizers can you suggest for the above lenses?)

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
0

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
29
\$\begingroup\$

A polarizer cuts out light — about one and a half to two stops, give or take. Additionally, one does not always want the effect. In wide angle shots, it can make skies look distinctively uneven.

So, it makes sense to not include them by default.

B+W and Hoya are good brands. It's worth spending a bit more a well-made one with good coatings.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ More like 1-1/2 to 2 stops. \$\endgroup\$
    – Reid
    Commented Nov 20, 2010 at 16:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ You're right. Corrected. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Nov 20, 2010 at 17:50
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Supposedly Hoya's HD Polarizers are only 1-1/6 stops \$\endgroup\$
    – drfrogsplat
    Commented Nov 26, 2010 at 0:42
7
\$\begingroup\$

I woudnt want a polarizer on my lens all the time - after all you are not always going to need one. You wouldnt use one when shooting portraits for instance (well i wouldnt)

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

You'd pay the cost for each lens! Good polarizers are expensive.

Actually, I'd like to see someone build one into the camera. Using a button the camera would slip the polarizer in and out. You'd need an efficient interface to rotate it, like press the polarizer button and use the control-dial or a fly-by-wire ring.

It would be really neat because you'd only pay the cost of the polarizer once and it would be for a small one since it would be at the back of the lens. It would save time too. I find screwing on filters rather slow (Why don't they make bayonet lens-filter connections? It made sense for lenses and hoods and so much faster).

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Even neater would be TWO of such polarizers so you'd have a built-in variable-ND filter. But there's a complication - adding glass between sensor and lens would slightly change back-focal length, so the camera would either have to adjust distance between lens and sensor, or pop out a replacement clear glass when the polarizer is not needed. \$\endgroup\$
    – Imre
    Commented Mar 30, 2011 at 4:36
1
\$\begingroup\$

Both those answers are good so I won't add to them except to remind you that a good quality 77mm filter plus step-down rings is a worthwhile investment that will likely fit every lens you ever own, even if/when you start buying pro lenses. I made the mistake of buying a 67mm CPL when I bought my first zoom and had to replace it a year later when I bought a lens with a larger filter thread.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Many lens hoods cannot be used with significantly larger filters :( \$\endgroup\$
    – Imre
    Commented May 12, 2011 at 10:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ True - that's the downside. \$\endgroup\$
    – Max Sang
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 22:45
1
\$\begingroup\$

It's another layer of glass that reduces light that goes into the sensor/film and degrades sharpness, so it should only be used when necessary. This is the same reason why we should avoid to stack filters (polarizers, neutral density and gradient filters), something that is tempting to do in low exposures to reduce the amount of light into the camera.

The less things you put in front of the sensor you may have better and sharper results. In the end this is one of the reasons why prime lenses have better image quality than zoom lenses, but that's another discussion

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.