Hi photo aces--I am going out on a pelagic bird finding trip from Cape Hatteras later this month. I will be taking my shiny new 500mm PF lens and something shorter like 70-200mm, on my D850. Do I want to get a polarizing filter for both lenses?
Shooting birds out in the ocean
- Thread starter PeggyBaker
- 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).
What he said 
Warren D
Well-known member
I'd say no. I've done hundreds of whale watches and found a cpol more of a hinderance than a benefit. You have to re-adjust as you change shooting directions and you loose 1.5 stops of light. With subjects on the move it becomes tiresome. I also always use the lens hood and it's eevn tougher to adjust a cpol with the hood on. More important with the 500 pf, the polarizer will drop the light level reaching the AF sensors to f8 or so. I think you'll have lots of trouble with af using a cpol.
My experience of pelagics would be that refections are not an issue. I find it totally different to shooting on lakes or rivers, (Or even at the coast.) where I would chose to use a CPL. I personally would not sacrifice the loss of stops.
DripDryMcFleye
Well-known member
For bird photos I think you will find the CPL more of a hinderance than a help. There's just not enough time to fool with the thing and the loss of light transmission will force you to raise ISO and/or give up shutter speed. If the subject were wading birds it might be worth giving it a try in some situations.
I'd probably not worry about a CPL either. Sure, there are times when it may potentially be handy, but the above posts are 100% correct - your always messing with it and the 2 stops of light it eats are no fun to lose. While I do use them on a rare occasion for wildlife, I certainly don't consider them essential for it and for what you're shooting, I probably wouldn't take one.