• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

CPL Filter (1 Viewer)

Can anyone recommend a circular polarizing filter for us with the 400mm F5.6?

Most/Majority people with the 400mm f5.6 would not use a filter with this lens because of the degraded IQ being another piece of glass to shoot through, that could affect the sharpness of your image, however if you were using it for something completely different from wildlife, they say buy the best or as much as you can afford for the filter, IE dearer filter should = better glass.
 
I have a Kenko CPL filter in 77mm, seems fine on my 17-55mm amd 10-22mm. They are made by Tokina who incidentally produce Hoya too, just avoid Ebay as its full of fake ones
The genuine article has Japanese writing on rather than Chinese text

Not too keen on filters and just removed the UV that came with my s/hand 400mm f5.6, can't think when I would use the CPL on it anyway
 
I guess you are looking to do some long distance Landscape stuff Jim (the 400/5.6 stop down a couple makes a fairly nice landscape lens IMO). My advice would be to buy a top quality one which is going to set you back £100 + . The Hoya 77mm Pro1 is £149 at Warehouse Express although I suspect you could get one cheaper if you looked around.
edit: just seen you are in Canada, worth checking the price of the Hoya Pro there, You can buy cheaper Hoya CPL but at the end of the day you get what you pay for.

Mind you Jim, I reckon you can simulate what a CPL does via software like Photoshop these day's.
 
Last edited:
I guess you are looking to do some long distance Landscape stuff Jim (the 400/5.6 stop down a couple makes a fairly nice landscape lens IMO). My advice would be to buy a top quality one which is going to set you back £100 + . The Hoya 77mm Pro1 is £149 at Warehouse Express although I suspect you could get one cheaper if you looked around.
edit: just seen you are in Canada, worth checking the price of the Hoya Pro there, You can buy cheaper Hoya CPL but at the end of the day you get what you pay for.

Mind you Jim, I reckon you can simulate what a CPL does via software like Photoshop these day's.

Not sure about that last bit Roy. A lot of good motorsports togs use CPLs to kill off the glare and reflections on car windscreens so they can clearly see the driver in the shot. I'm not aware of anything in PS that can do that successfully and I think that allowing for the downside of using polarising filters those guys would do it in PS if they could
 
Not sure about that last bit Roy. A lot of good motorsports togs use CPLs to kill off the glare and reflections on car windscreens so they can clearly see the driver in the shot. I'm not aware of anything in PS that can do that successfully and I think that allowing for the downside of using polarising filters those guys would do it in PS if they could
You could well be right about motor-sports Paul, something I never thought about or attempted myself. I was thinking more about landscapes where a Polariser is sometimes used to darken the sky and increasing saturation (and to a lesser degree, reflections). Certainly if you are wanting to reduce reflections then a CPL is the way to go as you say. Like you say,the guys who use one for fast moving cars would not sacrifice the light lost if it could be avoided. I know when I have used one for landscapes before I was forever fiddling around trying to get the best angle of the poleriser - with something like motor sports I would have missed the shot every time LOL.
 
Last edited:
We now have snow on the ground and I'm looking for a filter to cut the glare and reflection.
I've ordered a Hoya HD filter. It should arrive in the new year.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top