Drop in polarising filters for bird shots (1 Viewer)

[mikenott]

As it has been very quiet on here, I thought I woudl ask a question that has been perplexing me for a while. Is it worthwhile spending money on a polarising fillter (in my case a Canon PLC-52) into a 600m lens? I often go to a hide which faces east and the glare from the water is quite strong until about 2pm. I have often wondered whether a polarising filter woud make a difference to that glare?

Before anyone says - yes, I could go after 2pm! And yes - it woud probably drop a stop and the bird would still probably be silhouetted. But does it make enough difference to warrant a purchase or is it a big no-no?

Grateful for any thoughts

Michael.:flowers:

 

[johnf3f]

Unfortunately I no longer have an F4 600mm! With my Canon 300 F2.8 the filter is sometimes useful - but not very often. With my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS it simply costs too much light!

I have one but it is rarely used.

 

[Malcolm Stewart]

I was going to respond earlier, but events...
I have an EF 500 F/4L IS, and also the shorter 300 F/2.8L IS. Some years ago I bought the appropriate circular polarising filter, the 52mm, and after running some tests after purchase, haven't found any use for this filter. OTOH I do routinely use a circular polarising filter on my Legria HF G30 video camera - it's very useful when I'm shooting damselflies against the surface of a pond. If you are tempted, beware, there is a smaller size (49mm?) which fits the earlier range of Canon L lenses.