CPL Filter for kit lens...

[cyanide]

I am looking at filters at the moment and am a bit unsure re a circular polarising (CPL) filter for the kit lens.

At the moment I only have a couple of el cheapo (ie free with lens) UV filters. I want to get decent filters for all my lenses and have made the decision to get B&W brand filters. I am going to get a B&W MRC F-Pro UV filter (has front thread) for each (except the 60mm Macro) and then also one 62mm and one 77mm B&W MRC CPL. The 62mm CPL I will share between the 20mm, 60mm macro (if needed) and (with a step-up ring) 50mm lenses, and the 77mm CPL is basically for the yet-to-receive 70-200mm lens.

So, for the kit lens (67mm), which is often my walk-around lens at the moment, I am wondering what to do. My options are:

1 - buy a B&W CPL for that size (approx AUD200... seems excessive for this lens, given the fact that the lens cost itself is not a great deal more, plus it's a non-common size so even if I end up upgrading/selling the kit lens I'd be unlikely to find another use for this filter)

2 - buy a step-up ring and just use the 77mm B&W CPL on the kit lens also (means I probably can't use the hood at the same time, I guess...?)

3 - just get a cheaper (and therefore non-MRC) CPL for the kit lens. (eg Hoya non-MRC- saving, I guess, about AUD120?)

I will probably go with 2, as the cost of the step-up ring will be much less than the 67mm B&W MRC CPL, but I'll still get the benefit of an excellent filter, albeit by sacrificing the use of the hood.... however I welcome advice/comments on what others have done re this?

Cheers

[dooda]

I don't think that you should look at it as cost comparison, but by how often and what you do with each particular lens. I really only need a CPL for my Kit lens as that is what I use for scenics and such. I also keep a UV on that lens because I use it quite often (although I use the UV less and less now). So don't worry if the kit lens didn't cost you very much, if it's what you use most often than it's quite valuable and deserves a good filter. Also if you plan on replacing it that might factor in as well. I don't know how much of a hassle a step up ring is, but I think that you should factor that in, for me that plays a huge part of the equation. Otherwise #2 does sound like a good option as I don't think that the hood is ever necessarily essential, just handy (if I'm getting stray light I just shade the sun with my hand). This is all very subjective to myself of course, you might do things completely different.

[cyanide]

dooda - thanks for your comments. Actually, that's a very fair call, saying that I should judge on usage rather than cost. I do use the kit lens more than the others, because I have mainly (so far) taken streetscape/cityscape shots, and only have an old camera bag that fits a body with one attached lens, so I tend to take the kit lense for the flexibility of the zoom. I'd like to get a bigger bag, to give me the option of swapping to the 20mm and 50mm (and the future 70-200), and so I guess I am sort of pre-empting use, with these filter purchases... At this stage I have no plans to upgrade the kit lens for that range.

Perhaps I should add an option 4 - get one 67mm CPL, mainly for use on the kit lens, but also get step-up rings, so I have the option of using this one filter on all of my lenses up to 67mm.... (I don't have hoods for the 50mm and 20mm anyway....)

I am not really sure how much I will want to use a CPL on the 70-200mm, so perhaps I am jumping the gun a bit re that one... (I am very impatient!! )

[dooda]

Glad to help.

I use the 70-300 ED lens and I never use a CPL on it. There generally isn't enough scenery to justify the lack of light. That may be different for the majority of other users though, I have no idea. Might make an interesting poll question.

FWIW if I was buying a new lens right now I can't honestly say that I'd buy a UV to go along with it unless I was replacing the kit lens with a 24-120 VR (the one that gets/would get by far the most abuse). Plus the kit is not super high quality glass so a filter screwed on won't mess with the image as much (the more glass you put in front of a lens the more chance the image will degrade in quality). I never put anything on my 50mm as I use it for it's sharpness and high clarity (plus I don't have it out all the time walking through trees and bushes etc). This is just food for thought and I'm a pretty slow mover when it comes to purchasing ANYTHING so you might approach it differently. There have been some in depth discussions on this forum about the validity of filters (whether or not you really need them) if you did a search.

[huynhie]

When I was shopping for circular polarisers, I narrowed my choice down to the Nikon 77mm CPL-II and the B+W 77mm Kassemann. Both were the thin style filters and were pretty similar in price. I ended going for the Nikon CPL-II as advised by the guys from another site as apparently the quality control of the Kassemann filter have deteriorated in previous years.

I'll still stand by B+W for other style filters such as their UV and skylight.

[ipv6ready]

$200 for a filter seems a lot of money....unless you are always taking photos of water or through glass?

YOu could get a decent UV (normal HMC) for all your lenses for that price and just buy a normal CPL?

yes, Have a filter on all the time - one little scratch on the front glass can destroy the resell value to the toilet . Better safe than sorry.

Thin (marketing hype) CPL was designed so you can stack two without vignetting. Don't belive the extra light transmission you will never know the difference.

All you will have to do is take off the UV then put on the CPL?

You will not notice the difference of light missed.

Step up rings definately, it should save you $$$ in the future for 70-200mm VR