Nikon f4 600mm polarizer.

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

MorganP

MorganP

Well-known member
Member's gallery
Dose anyone use their polarizer when shooting with the Nikon 600mm? When I install my into my lens is just seams to darken the photo and no mater how much I turn it I doesn't seem to do much. Yes the thumb gear is working.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
MorganP said:
Dose anyone use their polarizer when shooting with the Nikon 600mm? When I install my into my lens is just seams to darken the photo and no mater how much I turn it I doesn't seem to do much. Yes the thumb rear is working.
Click to expand...
I carry one for my 600mm f/4 G lens but it rarely gets used.

In addition to the 1-2 stops of lost light that you mention it really takes a particular situation to make the drop in polarizer worthwhile. Basically it only makes sense when you have:

- A scene that would benefit from the CPL which usually means reflections off water, wet fur, wet leaves or similar. Those are the kinds of situations where reducing polarized glare with the CPL would be beneficial to the image. Wet fur or wet autumn foliage are some examples but it sure doesn't happen in every image and like all CPL uses it works best if the light is coming in from your right or left and not directly in front or behind your subject.

- A very patient animal or static scene that will give you the time to swap out the stock clear filter for the drop in CPL. And of course it's usually wildlife we're talking about with a 600mm lens unless it's something static that we simply can't approach closely to use a wider lens.

- A bright enough day that you can give away a couple of stops of light and trade off the shutter speed, aperture or ISO needed to still capture the shot ideally without being so bright that the light is harsh.

These things don't line up all that often so my drop in CPL doesn't get much use but once in a while it's convenient to have.
 
Member's gallery
You make some very good points to think about. I'm trying to decide if I will remove it from my camera bag. I do like the Idea of using it as an ND filter in harsh light.
 
Member's gallery
Agree with every point Dave made - I too have a polarizer for the 600 and I too have found I only use it on a very rare occasion.

To add to his post, I also tend to forget I have it - there are instances where I should maybe use it, but it's not physically on me (it's tough to remember to carry something you don't use 99% of the time). In addition, you have to be careful with it too. It seems like it would be cool to use, but often the photo looks "off" somehow when you add polarization. Probably because we're not used to seeing polarized wildlife photos and the vegetation not having any reflection.
 
Member's gallery
it will darken and blue the sky if sun is at 90* from the lens objective, otherwise it does very little.
Removes glare off water, reflections off windows.
 
Member's gallery
I use mine mostly as a ND. I often need to slow my shutter speed and on a sunny day even at base ISO I see f stops up at 13-16 wich is way higher than I need/want. Even with the cpol I'm often above where I want to be. Like Steve, I usually have it with me but rarely use it for wildlife. The light reduction will result in a hit to af performance and I usually need all the af speed I can get.
 
Member's gallery
And I had no idea there was CPL available for the 600mm f4. Come to think of it, I have one for my 300mm f2.8 which gets left home each and every time...even when I am intending to use it on a landscape trip.
 
Member's gallery
I wonder if the fact that the filter is on the camera end and the light has made is way down the tube changes the stray light formation as it enters the filter. All the light is coming from straight ahead.
Food for thought.
 
Member's gallery
A subject on which I needed info. I am a bird photographer and had always been unsure whether to buy a drop-in polarizer filter for my Nikon 500 f / 4 lens. Having read the comments of those who have used it, especially in that it is more appropriate for incidental lateral sunlight and not for front or rear - being that for birds the ideal is frontal light - and that it can leave the shots somewhat opaque , it is clear to me that I will not acquire said filter.
 
Member's gallery
just bought my nikon 600mm f4 ED non VR, always wanted this lens, i love it, i use the d850, i also have the nikon 200-500 also love this lens. i have always watched Steves videos for help, i am looking at everyones thoughts on the use of a drop in cpl on my 600mm. i appreciate everyones thoughts and im very happy to be a part of this community,
 
Member's gallery
The CPL as mentioned costs you a full f-stop. Also it is of primary use in areas where there is water or lots of green foliage and I am either in open plains environments or in deep jungle.
 
Member's gallery
Originally purchased one to use in my 200-400, did use it several times. Sold my 200-400, never used it in my 500mm or my 600mm. Pretty much stays in my camera bag in the closet. As DRwyoming said most critters don’t have the patience to wait while we install it. Also if you have a lens coat on the lens it will also slow you down a little.
MorganP said:
Dose anyone use their polarizer when shooting with the Nikon 600mm? When I install my into my lens is just seams to darken the photo and no mater how much I turn it I doesn't seem to do much. Yes the thumb rear is working.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
I actually used the drop in circular polarizer on my 600mm f/4 for the first time in a couple of years last night while photographing some Beavers. The sun was setting behind me over my left shoulder and lighting the scene but also throwing a ton of glare on the water. I had to dial in a couple of stops of negative exposure compensation to keep the glare on the water from completely blowing out and that pushed the dark Beaver even darker. So I dropped in the polarizer, dialed it to cut as much of the glare as I could and took some more shots.

Here's shots with and without the polarizer
Nikon D5, 600mm + TC-14 iii, no polarizerNikon D5, 600mm + TC-14 iii with drop in polarizer
D51_5649--20210429-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
D51_5747--20210429-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

This was one of those rare times where the polarizer for the 600mm f/4 was handy but it met the conditions:
- Scene that would be helped by a polarizer due to the glare off the water
- Patient subject that stuck around while I messed around with the polarizer
- Enough light. - This one wasn't completely obvious as the polarizer and TC pushed my ISO sky high to 12,800 where without the polarizer the ISO was down at 2800 (both images shot at f/5.6, 1/640") but without the polarizer I had to do a hard pull on the shadows to bring out any detail so they both ended up with similar noise and I ran both through Topaz DeNoise to clean them up.

It might be another couple of years before I find myself using the drop in polarizer again but in some situations it can make a difference.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
I actually used the drop in circular polarizer on my 600mm f/4 for the first time in a couple of years last night while photographing some Beavers. The sun was setting behind me over my left shoulder and lighting the scene but also throwing a ton of glare on the water. I had to dial in a couple of stops of negative exposure compensation to keep the glare on the water from completely blowing out and that pushed the dark Beaver even darker. So I dropped in the polarizer, dialed it to cut as much of the glare as I could and took some more shots.

Here's shots with and without the polarizer
Nikon D5, 600mm + TC-14 iii, no polarizerNikon D5, 600mm + TC-14 iii with drop in polarizer
View attachment 18100View attachment 18101

This was one of those rare times where the polarizer for the 600mm f/4 was handy but it met the conditions:
- Scene that would be helped by a polarizer due to the glare off the water
- Patient subject that stuck around while I messed around with the polarizer
- Enough light. - This one wasn't completely obvious as the polarizer and TC pushed my ISO sky high to 12,800 where without the polarizer the ISO was down at 2800 (both images shot at f/5.6, 1/640") but without the polarizer I had to do a hard pull on the shadows to bring out any detail so they both ended up with similar noise and I ran both through Topaz DeNoise to clean them up.

It might be another couple of years before I find myself using the drop in polarizer again but in some situations it can make a difference.
Click to expand...
DRwyoming, Nice beaver, nice use of the polarizer. I’ve owned the drop in polarizer for years, when I first got it I always carried it. Found myself never using it and stopped carrying it. Haven’t carried or used it for years. Guess I need to start taking it out. Thank You !
 
Member's gallery
MorganP said:
I wonder if the fact that the filter is on the camera end and the light has made is way down the tube changes the stray light formation as it enters the filter. All the light is coming from straight ahead.
Food for thought.
Click to expand...
The location of the polarizer on the lens has either no impact or extremely limited impact upon its function.

The location of the drop-in polarizer does make it easier to use on a very long lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top