Polarizing Filter for WDW?

W

WDWFigment

Member
When I bought my 18-200 lens, it came with two filters, a B+W UV filter and a Tiffen Polarizing filter. On our trip this summer I used the B+W filter because of its higher quality and versatility, and because I tested the polarizing filter beforehand and didn't see that great of results (don't get me wrong, there were results, just nothing that made it a "must use" for me). The reason I got the 18-200 in the first place is because I didn't want to carry multiple lenses or spend time changing them, so I also didn't bother with the polarizing filter and having to take it off every time we went in a show or dark ride (because I can't afford the ~1.5 stop loss).

I'm wondering if it would be worth it to use the polarizing filter during the middle of the day for our next trip. It doesn't seem like there is a whole lot of "water reflection" pictures or really anything that would lend itself to polarizing, but I'm not quite sure. Do any of you use polarizing filters at WDW? Is it worth it, or should I just stick to the UV filter?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do like to use my polarizer at WDW. I like the saturated colors and blue skies it produces.

I keep the filter case in my pocket to switch between pol. and uv.
if you use both at the same time I get vignetting on my 18-200 even with step up filters at 77mm.

generally, I put it on for castle pics, fantasyland, epcot ball. usually the big touristy weenies. it worked great taking pics of the contemp earlier this year.
 
i rarely if ever use a polarizer because i am a huge proponent of using lens hoods. too much of a pain to spin the filter with the hood attached. just a personal opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread reminded me of 10 years ago....

I just noticed it again at home Sunday when I was putting my stuff back from our little impromtu visit to SWSA....my Cokin Yellow/Blue polarizer.

Blue:

main.php


Yellow:

main.php



Back before PS these were really cool to get the effects you needed. I loved the blue polarizer with DL's usually dirty moat IFO Sleeping Beauty Castle (aka Stargate 2: Where you enter the Royal Table and exit in SoCal)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a tough one for me. On my first trip out with a dSLR I used one. It made for some pretty impressive blue skies, like in this shot:

2262091003_b5bddfb5ee_o.jpg


I have not taken it on the last two trips because it just kind of seems like too much of a hassle... If I really want the blue skies, I can create the same PP - but I guess if you're one that doesn't like to do a lot of PP then it would probably make sense...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Tim" said:
i rarely if ever use a polarizer because i am a huge proponent of using lens hoods. too much of a pain to spin the filter with the hood attached. just a personal opinion.
Click to expand...

good point Tim. I rarely use a hood, so I forgot about that inconvience!

"J°O°E" said:
That's a tough one for me. On my first trip out with a dSLR I used one. It made for some pretty impressive blue skies, like in this shot:

I have not taken it on the last two trips because it just kind of seems like too much of a hassle... If I really want the blue skies, I can create the same PP - but I guess if you're one that doesn't like to do a lot of PP then it would probably make sense...
Click to expand...

beautiful colors Joe. And exactly why I like the polarizer. For me it much easier to use the filter than do it on the computer. I just don't have those skills on the computer.

Roger, those are really cool!

And, one more thought about the polarizer on the 18-200. I have noticed that at 18mm the filter tends to vignette and do strange things to the sky, so be aware of your corners in the frame at wide angle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the feedback everyone, it is appreciated!

Tim, I understand the benefits of a lens hood, but it adds a bulk to the camera I'm not willing to have. We are infrequent visitors, so the trip is more about taking in the parks with getting pictures an ancillary concern. I like to be as light on photo gear as possible.

Roger, awesome pictures with the blue and yellow polarizers.

Joe, amazing sky. I'm not really sure how to accomplish the same effect in post processing. Increasing the saturation would make the sky more blue, but it would also increase the saturation on everything. Isolating the sky to increase its temperature or saturation would be a lot of work. Is there some other method I'm missing?

Craig, thanks for the feedback about the vignetting. I didn't notice that when I tested it, but I will take some more shots today and see what I find.

All in all, I think I will at least carry the filter with me next trip. At the very least, I could put it on when we're around the Castle, SSE, etc., then take it off while in a queue. I just won't use it extensively. If there are any other pros/cons, I'd like to hear them.

One thing I didn't really look into (I don't pixel peep) is the difference in image quality between using the Tiffen polarizer and my normal B+W UV filter. Is there much of a difference?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim instilled in me the use of the lens hood and I've found no extra weight because of it. It really, really is nice from a safety standpoint.

I no longer worry about scratching my filter when I quickly shove my camera in my bag (lens down). The lens hood provides a good inch or more buffer between the filter and the bottom of the bag.

Now, the camera bag, extra lenses and tripod prove to more of a pain. Granted, once we have a child and get the requisite stroller, that problem goes away. Tim, in June, taught me all about some of the non-child related benefits of the stroller
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top