Using the Nikon 200-500mm with a Cir-Pol Filter?

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).

StephenP

StephenP

Member
Member's gallery
I know that the non-zoom big lenses have the rear filter slot. Seeing that that's not the case with the 200-500mm do any of you use a Cir-Pol Filter on the front of the lens? Or do you not bother? The reason I ask is the price as we all know isn't cheap, but if it makes my images better, ie. on the water, blue sky, etc. I wouldn't have a problem with purchasing one. However, if it would only be a small improvement I won't bother. I live on the coastline and I also have a lot of ponds around me that Bald Eagles like to visit along with other waterfowl.

Thanks for your input.
 
Member's gallery
StephenP said:
Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
I rarely use a CPL for wildlife images, it costs up to two stops of light, requires adjustment in the field and really only provides benefit in situations where the sun is off to one side or the other and there's glare off of wet or reflective surfaces like wet leaves or wet fur. So you have to have glare that's costing you color contrast but you also need the sun in a particular range of angles and you need enough light to afford a stop or two of slower shutter speed or higher ISO but not so much sun that the light is harsh and not worth shooting. That's a pretty rare combination of circumstances, I do carry a drop in CPL for my 600mm lens but it rarely sees use.

FWIW, my primary use of CPLs is for landscape, foliage and macro work and those don't generally involve my longest lenses.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
I rarely use a CPL for wildlife images, it costs up to two stops of light, requires adjustment in the field and really only provides benefit in situations where the sun is off to one side or the other and there's glare off of wet or reflective surfaces like wet leaves or wet fur. So you have to have glare that's costing you color contrast but you also need the sun in a particular range of angles and you need enough light to afford a stop or two of slower shutter speed or higher ISO but not so much sun that the light is harsh and not worth shooting. That's a pretty rare combination of circumstances, I do carry a drop in CPL for my 600mm lens but it rarely sees use.

FWIW, my primary use of CPLs is for landscape, foliage and macro work and those don't generally involve my longest lenses.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured. The lens is slow enough as it is, never mind adding 2 more stops. I'm coming to wildlife after 45 years of doing mostly landscape, and B&W Film which I still use in medium format 6x7cm. I never thought that I would be able to afford a lens that reaches 500mm! Although I can buy one for my 6x7 for around $700! But it will be 25+ years old and MF :)

Thanks
 
Member's gallery
I have the 200-500 and a polariser for it. I hardly use it, really only just after a rainstorm when it can help with water and leaves in the background. 95mm filters are expensive as you note (mine also fits my Iris 15mm where I use it more often) and for wildlife I would not be in a hurry to spend money on it.
 
Member's gallery
The polarizer is something you can't reproduce in processing software because the glare of the glass or water keeps the camera from recording the information under it. I carry CP polarizer's for all my lens. The type of photos you takes determines if you need to carry one or not. I wouldn't leave home without one.

One thing to remember don't spend $12000.00 on a lens and then put a $100 Polarizer on it.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I've used one on occasion and haven't seen a big hit in the af performance. I'm not using it for BIF (well, kinda, but bigger and less erratic birds aka WW1 era aircraft).
 
Member's gallery
Example, used a CPol on my 200-500 @500mm. D500, wanted to keep the aperture at f5.6 (wide open) and ISO at 100. Also wanted to keep the SS low to get the prop blur which means I needed to lose a couple of stops of light on a day with hazy sun. SS was 1/400.
164062573.jpg
 
Member's gallery
I was thinking one could be useful for waterfowl swimming in the water, maybe the occasional beaver, etc. Not so much for BIF. I use them on all my other lenses when I'm shooting around water unless there are reflections that I want to include.
 
Member's gallery
Warren D said:
Example, used a CPol on my 200-500 @500mm. D500, wanted to keep the aperture at f5.6 (wide open) and ISO at 100. Also wanted to keep the SS low to get the prop blur which means I needed to lose a couple of stops of light on a day with hazy sun. SS was 1/400.
164062573.jpg
Click to expand...

You have nailed this one! great shot. I was thinking more of a situation where the light was not so good as if often the case with wildlife photography.
 
Member's gallery
StephenP said:
I know that the non-zoom big lenses have the rear filter slot. Seeing that that's not the case with the 200-500mm do any of you use a Cir-Pol Filter on the front of the lens? Or do you not bother? The reason I ask is the price as we all know isn't cheap, but if it makes my images better, ie. on the water, blue sky, etc. I wouldn't have a problem with purchasing one. However, if it would only be a small improvement I won't bother. I live on the coastline and I also have a lot of ponds around me that Bald Eagles like to visit along with other waterfowl.

Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
I mounted a 95-77mm step-down ring on my 200-500 and added a couple of epoxy nubbins into the spanner wrench holes to facilitate placement and removal of the ring, allowing use of all my 77mm filters. My tests indicate that the light loss due to the ring is virtually undetectable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top