I am seriously thinking about getting a Nikon D40x with 18-200VR lens. I am just costing everything up at the moment. Looking at polarizing filters, the cost seems to vary incredibly. The Nikon 72mm circular polarizing filter is £188, which is insane. I have seen other circular polarizing filters for £30. Will there be that much of a noticeable difference? I can't afford the Nikon filter right now, but does anyone have good cheaper suggestions?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon polarizing filter for 18-200
- Thread starter JDN
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is about the cheapest I've found ( http://www.abc-digital-cameras.co.uk/shop/product.php?xProd=3364 ) and even that's not cheap. I've this lens ( D40 ), and I've been looking for the same thing. Beginning to think it's not worth that amount of money, and get a polarizor for my 18-135 ( which also fits my 70-300 ).
FWIW, the 55-200 VR lens has been getting good reviews, and it's smaller diameter ( 52mm ) means the polarizor is much cheaper ( for example, http://www.abc-digital-cameras.co.uk/shop/product.php?xProd=1180 ). Could be worth thinking about? Most of the D40x kits I've seen offer some sort of bundle with the 55-200 VR.
HTH
Cheers, i will have a think.
I have found a filter for £30, i think it is 'regent' brand. Would it be detrimental to the quality of my photos being so cheap? Or would i not notice?
EDIT: I found a Hoya circular polarizing filter for £47 ... does anyone have any experience with it? A user review maybe?
If you read comments about filters that have been made by professionals, you will see one thing over and over - you get what you pay for. Think about it for a minute - you're going to be adding another optical element to your lens. You want that piece of glass to be well-designed and made of quality materials. I would very much doubt that a circular polarizer that cost that little could be of any quality at all.
Yeh, i agree. I know i will regret it if i don't get a decent one first time round.
Looking around, it seems some CP's are tagged "specialised for dSLR's" ... do i need a filter specifically for dSLR cameras? What is the difference between these and 'standard' CP filters?
As someone who just spent many days in Greece with a CP, I can tell you that you need a lot of light. I'm not sure how fast the 18-200mm lens is, but I would hesitate to try anything slower than f/4. You lose TWO stops of light, which is huge.
The other thing to think about is how often you will use a polarizing filter at 50-200mm (roughly).
Typically you want those for the big wide shots of oceans, lakes, etc.
Unless you have the 12-24 or Sigma 10-20, you may not get much use out of the polarizer.
Typically you want those for the big wide shots of oceans, lakes, etc.
Unless you have the 12-24 or Sigma 10-20, you may not get much use out of the polarizer.
The Nikon 18-200 is F3.4 and it has VR which will buy you another stop at least. The OP will be fine with this lens, even with the CP filter on it.
All the way through? I thought it went to f/5.6 at the long end. Anyway, just know that you lose a lot of light so you *must* be outside in good light. Good Luck!!
It does. It's 3.5 - 5.6.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18200_3556vr/index.htm
By 50mm it's already f/4.8.
If you don't mind spending the money - Singh-Ray has a polarizer that only drops light levels 1-1/3 stop.
If you don't mind spending the money - Singh-Ray has a polarizer that only drops light levels 1-1/3 stop.
It's weird how expensive the Nikon CP is in Britain - it's $139 here (77mm). That's not cheap; but it's less than half the cost.
It's weird how expensive the Nikon CP is in Britain - it's $139 here (77mm). That's not cheap; but it's less than half the cost.
But really, how often are you going to shoot using a CP at 50 mm and above? It would be better utilised on an 18-200 mm at 18 mm.
I wouldn't buy one for a 55-200 mm, or at least I can't see the value in it.
Yup, the 18-200 is rather slow, but good lord, it's an 18-200, and it has VR (not equal to a faster lens, I know, but often times it works wonderfully).
Anyway, on to the OP's filter question. Most photographers would agree that a CP is one of the most important filters they use (assuming they shoot outdoors), not only for eliminating reflections and darkening skies but also just acting as a ND filter on bright days. The more expensive filters have advantages, in my experience it's mainly that they're coated well and don't introduce new ghosting and flare. They cost limbs though (especially for the 'professional' sizes of 72+mm), so my personal route is to get decent well made filters that aren't coated and expect to use the hood and/or your hand here and there. In my experience there's not a noticeable difference in image quality unless you're shooting into light, in which case you must take precautions.
I take the same route with protective filters; I don't use lens caps because i don't like wasting time fooling with them (or remembering where the hell i set it down), so i use cheapo protective filters 80% of the time. They add lots of flare though, so I take them off when shooting into lights or the sun, or if I will be shooting something important continuously for a while. I broke one early on, probably saving a $400 lens, so I've bought one for every lens i've had since.
Singh Ray etc make great specialty filters as well, warming polarizers etc, but I've found that these smaller changes can be made acceptably in post processing. Unless you have all the time in the world when setting up and shooting your photos, only the more drastic filters should be used. I'm usually hurrying when taking photos, trying to frame correctly, get a decent exposure, sometimes not be seen (I really hate being yelled at for taking photos from public property by some yokel or overzealous security guard who doesn't understand the laws pertaining to photography) etc, and screwing on filters in the field is more than a slight pain (namely when I'm in a kayak, I love paddling and photography, but the two don't always mix very easily). When I'm shooting somewhere I'm completely comfortable and don't have to worry about lighting or weather, it's always best to get as close as possible to a finished shot in-camera.
Some no-name filters are probably good quality, but i haven't had any luck with them. I was going to get a $75 77mm Hoya CP but ended up getting a similar tiffen as a gift. It's even cheaper I believe, but it has worked very well for me.
This advice probably won't matter much for you since you'll be shooting with an 18-200, but I've always bitten the bullet and bought the largest filter size I need and used $5 adapter rings to allow their use on my smaller lenses. I figured I'd want to use all my filters on my Sigma 10-20mm, which is 77mm, so I just buy all my filters at 77mm, then use step-up rings for my 52, 62 and 67mm lenses.
Anyway, on to the OP's filter question. Most photographers would agree that a CP is one of the most important filters they use (assuming they shoot outdoors), not only for eliminating reflections and darkening skies but also just acting as a ND filter on bright days. The more expensive filters have advantages, in my experience it's mainly that they're coated well and don't introduce new ghosting and flare. They cost limbs though (especially for the 'professional' sizes of 72+mm), so my personal route is to get decent well made filters that aren't coated and expect to use the hood and/or your hand here and there. In my experience there's not a noticeable difference in image quality unless you're shooting into light, in which case you must take precautions.
I take the same route with protective filters; I don't use lens caps because i don't like wasting time fooling with them (or remembering where the hell i set it down), so i use cheapo protective filters 80% of the time. They add lots of flare though, so I take them off when shooting into lights or the sun, or if I will be shooting something important continuously for a while. I broke one early on, probably saving a $400 lens, so I've bought one for every lens i've had since.
Singh Ray etc make great specialty filters as well, warming polarizers etc, but I've found that these smaller changes can be made acceptably in post processing. Unless you have all the time in the world when setting up and shooting your photos, only the more drastic filters should be used. I'm usually hurrying when taking photos, trying to frame correctly, get a decent exposure, sometimes not be seen (I really hate being yelled at for taking photos from public property by some yokel or overzealous security guard who doesn't understand the laws pertaining to photography) etc, and screwing on filters in the field is more than a slight pain (namely when I'm in a kayak, I love paddling and photography, but the two don't always mix very easily). When I'm shooting somewhere I'm completely comfortable and don't have to worry about lighting or weather, it's always best to get as close as possible to a finished shot in-camera.
Some no-name filters are probably good quality, but i haven't had any luck with them. I was going to get a $75 77mm Hoya CP but ended up getting a similar tiffen as a gift. It's even cheaper I believe, but it has worked very well for me.
This advice probably won't matter much for you since you'll be shooting with an 18-200, but I've always bitten the bullet and bought the largest filter size I need and used $5 adapter rings to allow their use on my smaller lenses. I figured I'd want to use all my filters on my Sigma 10-20mm, which is 77mm, so I just buy all my filters at 77mm, then use step-up rings for my 52, 62 and 67mm lenses.