Cheap n good polarising filter?

[Morphis]

haha, but i dont have the budget yoh. i just now got quoted $43 for Hoya, $35 for Tokina. i dont think i wanna pay for anything more than $50. how much would a filter that lasts me a lifetime cost? are there any sites that review polarizing filter i wanna see for myself the difference.

Think the Konix CPL have got to be the cheapest.
Just bot a 52mm Konix CPL for $20 and a 58mm for $30.
Its at Sim Lim from a shop called Mobile Hut.
Look for Chong, he's incharge of camera sales.

 

[looonie]

Think the Konix CPL have got to be the cheapest.
Just bot a 52mm Konix CPL for $20 and a 58mm for $30.
Its at Sim Lim from a shop called Mobile Hut.
Look for Chong, he's incharge of camera sales.

i went today to mobile hut, didnt look for Chong but that guy tell me they dont sell konix filters. sian..

 

[barracuda]

the gurus please correct me, i read somewhere saying that it is not really recommended/not necessary to use polarising filters at high altitudes. since u r going to Nepal, a country that is well over 1000m in altitude, is there still a need for a polariser at all?

 

[jdredd]

not sure about that...

but if it were me, when i was spending 2-3k minimum for a trip to one of the most photogenic landscape environments in the world, where i would be takingca lot of outdoor shots in sunny conditions (and believe me, sun in the mountains is waaay stronger than sun at ground level), i sure as heck would bring a CP with me, every day of the week and twice on sunday.

at the most, even if i didnt use it, its what, a $50 investment? that can always be used for other occassions.

btw, the price u got quoted for the hoya is a bit ex. i just got my 68mm one for $60..

 

[NoMoney]

Guys,

May I know is there any different between Kenko and Tokina CPL?

Saw the threat created by Ortega which show that both brands' price of the 52mm are going for $25.

I hope to get 1 for my K100D kit lens.

Hope to hear from you guys on the recommendation

 

[posez]

the gurus please correct me, i read somewhere saying that it is not really recommended/not necessary to use polarising filters at high altitudes. since u r going to Nepal, a country that is well over 1000m in altitude, is there still a need for a polariser at all?

Light usually falls in symmetrical waves moving in more or less straight lines. However, upon hitting objects like dust, water vapour or even grass and bodies of water etc, it disperses and the waves go nuts, fraying in different directions. This causes loss of colour saturation and unwanted glare and reflection. Polarizers are generally shaped in such a way that only the original waves and not the dispersed ones can pass through and to your lens, so colour is more saturated and glare is cut off. One of the main effects is that the sky will be very blue, because blue light tends to be scatter more easily due to its shorter wavelength. That's why the sky is never really super blue on a very bright, glaring day.

At high altitudes, the sky is already deep blue / violet in colour as more light of this wavelengths is visible at higher altitudes. It is mainly absorbed by the time it reaches lower altitudes. (same reason, because of its shorter wavelength) The effect of a polarizing filter will make the sky even darker / over saturated. So you get weird dark blue / purple at best, completely darkened out sky at worse.

What would be really useful to get is a good haze filter, because it tends to get reather hazy at high alt sometimes. The B+W ones are pricey, but well worth the money.

I don't know what camera the OP is using, but my $0.02 worth is this, after spending hundreds, or maybe thousands of dollars on your camera and lens(es), it does not make sense to spoil the whole set-up by getting a cheap and lousy filter. You image quality is only as good as the weakest link in your system. So, no point having the most expensive kit in the world, but getting a dinky $20 filter that causes vignetting, light fall-off and all sorts of other problems.