I’ve never spent the money on a drop in polarizer for my 400f2.8 and 600f4 but wondering if it’s worth the $399 to buy one.
Do any of you use them? Worth having?
Do any of you use them? Worth having?
Drop in polarizers
- Thread starter DavidT
- Start date
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).
I used one for the first time last week. I found it very awkward to use. Not very practical for anything that's moving around. For a static scene it would be fine.
Yeah don’t really shoot a static scene with my 400 and 600. What made you use it?
I borrowed the lens from a friend. She forgot to send me the polarizer so brought it with her 3000 miles. I felt compelled to at least give it a go. I never use a polarizer shooting wildlife. The slip in was no easier to use than others.
I bought a CPL for my 180-400 TC and have not used it once; in fact I put it in the lens once upon purchase and at this moment I'm not sure where it is stowed 
To be fair I haven't hit the shutter once for a landscape shots since I got it -- was hoping to use the lens for mountain landscape shots, but moved very far from mountains and well -- and had no intention of using it for wildlife, tho I was shooting big horn sheep across a span of gorgeously clear green glacial water once and thought having the CPL (it would have been at home) to see through the water to the great pattern of rocks beneath would have been nice. But still, for me, a waste of $ for the long lens -- I have magnetic filters (Kase) for shorter and wide lenses.
To be fair I haven't hit the shutter once for a landscape shots since I got it -- was hoping to use the lens for mountain landscape shots, but moved very far from mountains and well -- and had no intention of using it for wildlife, tho I was shooting big horn sheep across a span of gorgeously clear green glacial water once and thought having the CPL (it would have been at home) to see through the water to the great pattern of rocks beneath would have been nice. But still, for me, a waste of $ for the long lens -- I have magnetic filters (Kase) for shorter and wide lenses.DHL
Well-known member
I occasionally use a polarizer when shooting wildlife that have been in the water. It’s useful to reduce glare on sea lions, seals, etc. I’m off to Botswana this weekend and will take one along for hippos, as an example. I find I often leave the polarizer in the bag because the light is low in destinations like Alaska or British Columbia, but I may not see a cloud the entire time I’m in Botswana so I think it will be more useful there.
I've never used the drop in-filter, but if I were into more video, I could see the benefit a polarizer's two stop loss of light when trying to keep the shutter speed down.
fcotterill
Well-known member
In tropical latitudes, a CPL can be very useful to cut out glare/reflections off water or vegetation, and also fur and feathers.
Thanks to its internal rotation mechanism, the internal rear drop-in design is much easier to use in a telephoto, as a front screw-in is irksome to adjust being under the long hood. The rear CPL is simple to adjust with a finger on the rotating mechanism.
The designs of the Nikon internal CPL's have changed between generations of telephotos - mainly in diameter. And yes they are expensive. I recall all three Z Nikkor longer primes now use the same version, it's entirely polymer. Swop out the standard NC filter holder.
bcgforums.com
Thanks to its internal rotation mechanism, the internal rear drop-in design is much easier to use in a telephoto, as a front screw-in is irksome to adjust being under the long hood. The rear CPL is simple to adjust with a finger on the rotating mechanism.
The designs of the Nikon internal CPL's have changed between generations of telephotos - mainly in diameter. And yes they are expensive. I recall all three Z Nikkor longer primes now use the same version, it's entirely polymer. Swop out the standard NC filter holder.
NIKKOR 800 PF 6.3 Lens Filter???
Are you able to use the Zemlin Cap with the Kase Filters? Finally ( 8 months) I have my 800 coming next week. I've seen arguments for no filters- but I have always felt better with a protection layer. I've seen another YouTube video from another photographer and I'm not sure if you can attach...
bcgforums.com
Warren D
Well-known member
I have one for my 500 f4 EFL and it also fits my 600 EFL. I've used it a few times, mostly to drop my exposure when I need prop blur on old airplanes. I don't use it anymore as it was too hard to adjust as the planes changed position relative to the sun. I won't buy one for my 800pf and doubt I'd buy another one for a 600z if I ever were to get one.
Thanks but I don’t shoot Nikon. I know right a non Nikon shooter on this forum how can it be lol.In tropical latitudes, a CPL can be very useful to cut out glare/reflections off water or vegetation, and also fur and feathers.
Thanks to its internal rotation mechanism, the internal rear drop-in design is much easier to use in a telephoto, as a front screw-in is irksome to adjust being under the long hood. The rear CPL is simple to adjust with a finger on the rotating mechanism.
The designs of the Nikon internal CPL's have changed between generations of telephotos - mainly in diameter. And yes they are expensive. I recall all three Z Nikkor longer primes now use the same version, it's entirely polymer. Swop out the standard NC filter holder.
NIKKOR 800 PF 6.3 Lens Filter???
Are you able to use the Zemlin Cap with the Kase Filters? Finally ( 8 months) I have my 800 coming next week. I've seen arguments for no filters- but I have always felt better with a protection layer. I've seen another YouTube video from another photographer and I'm not sure if you can attach...
I purchased one for the 600 f/4 and sent it back the next day. Not worth 2 cents imo and appeared to my eyes at least to degrade image quality. I never use any kind of filter unless shooting video and can't get my shutter speed right.
I use this pol with the 180-400 for landscape work shooting across narrow Yorkshire Dales river valleys.
I have the one for the 800 PF but so far I have only used it for landscape test shots.
I paid £250 including sales tax.
If I win the lottery big, big time I will use it on the 400 and 600 primes
So far I have not used my 95mm pol on my 180-600.
Here's a post from a while back on a situation where I found the drop in polarizer handy with my 600mm lens. But realistically I find I go years between situations where a polarizer is useful in long lens wildlife situations.
Nikon f4 600mm polarizer.
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.
bcgforums.com
Interesting. I’m hoping for a moose or elk crossing a River with mountains behind. One reason I was thinking a polarizer might make a difference but couldn’t decide if it would be worth the $399Here's a post from a while back on a situation where I found the drop in polarizer handy with my 600mm lens. But realistically I find I go years between situations where a polarizer is useful in long lens wildlife situations.
Nikon f4 600mm polarizer.
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.
I expect many will be aware a polariser will normally degrade colour saturation if the Sun is close to in front or behind the photographer.
Polarisers can be a bit of a niche product as they only perform at up to maximum colour/sky saturation enhancement with the Sun more or less over your shoulder.
I find in suitable polarised light a polariser filters can significantly improve an image well beyond the theoretical extent where using a filter might degrade image quality.