How do you use a polorizer and a wd 58. The 58 doesnt have threads on the outside, just threads for mounting to the lens. Do you have to use a filter holder and how would that mount to the wd 58?

You could get a clamp-on sunshade or just use a 58mm filter at the base of the WD58. Some say this will throw the lens slightly out of focus and other's say this is nonsense. Personally, I don't see any loss of resolution when using the filter at the base, but I've never done any tests. There's a number of posts about this if you do a search.

A polarizer is one of those filters that won't work well when sandwiched between the lens and camera. A polarizer needs to "see" the incoming light first and, of course, it must rotate (which will cause grief with your hood orientation).

The correct, albeit an expensive, solution is to use a rectangular filter mounted in a rail-mounted matte box. You might be able to jerry-rig a setup using a flexible clamp to hold a rectangular polarizer in front of the lens but it will not be a very long-term good solution. There may be a clamp-on mount that will work with the WD58 but I am not aware of one.

I have a clamp on sunshade made by Century Optics that fits nicely on the WD58. It accepts Series 9 drop in filters. I believe they make Series 9 polarizers, but I don't know how you rotate them, or if they would fit in retaining ring.

A polarizer is doing his job, wherever is't mounted in the optical path. There are pro and cons w.r.t. sandwiching between the WA and the frontlens. There is some more risk for vignetting when ''in between" setup, and also the mechanical strenght of the rotating rings have to be verified with the ''heavy'' WA. The pro is, apart from price differences for good coated filters, that anything in front of a WA is seen by the cam (dust particles, smudge), especially with high F setting which often goes together with the use of a polar (sunshine...). I use it sandwiched on a WD58 without problems. B.t.w. I never checked the bi-refringence performance of a WD58, but if it is present (often occurs in acrylic lens parts) the lens sharpness will be lowered when polarized light passes through the WA. So at least a front polar needs to de-polarize (circ polar type)

Marco - is this it? Looks kinda handy?

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/filters/polarizers/rotating.htm

Grazie

Nope. That's a completely different product, but it looks pretty cool. You may need to contact Century. I've never seen my sunshade advertised on their site. I bought it used and I don't know if it is in production anymore. I can post the model number if you like tonight when I get home from work. One cool thing about it is that it lets you use Series 9 split diopters. I don't know how people do that with rectangular sunshades and matteboxes.

Hello all.

There are several questions here that I thought I might answer.

First of all the Century Series 9 sunshade filter holder has been replaced by one that accepts 82mm screw-in filters (stk# 0DS-FA82-00, list price $195) . This shade clamps on to an accessory with a 80mm outside diameter. While intended for Century accessories, I believe the Canon 58mm .7X wide converter is that size as well.

One would purchase an 82mm polarizer and thread into the shade.

Sandwiching a 58mm pola: There is no optical reason to prevent you from doing this-- the caution is that it will act like a spacer, moving the wide angle converter away from the lens, this could cause vignetting-- check coverage on a monitor in the underscan mode to be sure you are not getting dark corners.

Circular vs linear polarizers. The metering systems (auto-focus etc) of some camera's can be adversly affected by polarized light.

It is also possible to cause some color shading problems in prism type video cameras under some conditions.

For these reasons, circular type polarizers (which depolarize the transmitted light after first polarizing the incident light) are techinically the correct type to use. Many, Many users are perfectly happy with the less expensive linear type and notice no ill effects --- but I am not endorsing their use or promising you would never have a problem.

Ah, that explains it. Bill, can you tell me if Century is backing off its support for Series 9? I've been wondering if it makes sense to continue to invest in Series 9 filters. I find it a very convenient size.

Series 9 filters are still readily available from professional film and video dealers, much less common at photo/video stores.

We concluded that it was simpler and better for the typical user to use purchase 82mm screw-in filters-- and as you mention the series 9 polarizer presents problems in terms of rotation-- using an 82mm polarizer is straight forward.

Terry, I have one of those century series 9 adapter, (+series 9 rotating ring + magnifier +2 also), for the canon lens and a circ polarizer never used if you want it I'll let it go for a good price.

Thanks Gents for the help. I learned a lot and really appreciate that. Richard, thank you for the offer, I will look at yours and Bills and make a decision. Again I thank you all for the info. I am looking forward to shooting some, well alot of ski/snowboard footage this winter.

<<<-- Originally posted by Graham Bernard : Marco - is this it? Looks kinda handy?

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/filters/polarizers/rotating.htm

Grazie -->>>

Good luck finding one. They don't seem to exist anymore and Century seems to have no plans to produce any more. Bill?

Hiyah! I finally . . Robin can rest in peace now . . put my money down on this puppie: KESTREL BELLOWS MATTE BOX. this firm does an adaptor for the WD and I've used it. If you wanna sample of some snow covered parts rural Manchester I can email them to you.

Here's the manufacturer: http://www.truelens.co.uk/matte/kestrel.htm


Grazie

<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Maloney : Terry, I have one of those century series 9 adapter, (+series 9 rotating ring + magnifier +2 also), for the canon lens and a circ polarizer never used if you want it I'll let it go for a good price. -->>>

Richard,

If you still have the century adapter and circ polarizer I might be interested in buying. Please email me the details and price at pete.wilie AT earthlink.net

Thanks.

I'm still looking for an inexpensive solution to add a polarizer filter (and maybe other filters) to the WD-58 that doesn't cost more than the WD-58 itself!

Any ideas?

Or maybe I should sell the WD-58 and buy a 3rd party wide-angle adapter that has a threaded filter mount. Other than the Century adapter, are there any other wide-angle adapters that you would recommend?

Thanks,
Pete

Unfortunately these companies never seem to make it easy. I had researhced this for a month and came up with nothing in an easy solution for using filters with the wide angle lenses. Since none of them have front threads you are limited to using some kind of clamp-on device and this means a matte box of some kind or shade that can hold filters. Unfortunately only the really expensive ones seem to have a filter holder that rotates and one that doesnt so you can use a regular polarizer along with a graduated filter of some kind. I opted fort the sunshade with 2 fixed filter holders thinking I could get one of Centuries proprietary rotating housed polarizer filters but unfortunately AGAIN they seem to be non-existent.

. .and that is why I held out for a matte box - "priced" within my budget - which then would also allow me to "clamp" onto the wide angle. I spent as much on the filters and adaptors - 58mm screw-on and the 80mm clamp-on - as I did for the bellows matte box itself!

I like the bellows:

1/- If you knock it, and unlike the stiff matte boxes, it will give and not transmit that energy to the rest of the camera!

2/- Being bellows there is far more flexibility

3/- It packs "flatter" than rigid matte boxes.

I decided on the 16:9, trying to future proof at least something in this biz, and really acknowledge the need to keep an eye open for that "hood" edge appearing in shot. That is the trade off with flexibility.

I spent possibly a whole year researching and humming and hawing about this thing. I knew I would get stuff wrong and but I also knew that I could at least mitigate the amount of mistake by researching and visiting various exhibitions and outlets to experience that which was on offer. I now have a file about an ½" thick, just on Matte Box stuff: adaptors; filters; filter technologies - polas - NDs - formulas;soft ones stiff ones; rails; shades; price lists and examples of pro work!

Todd, I really feel for you. This one last piece in the jigsaw - oh I've been there before, with other ventures, can fundamentally mess you up - BIG TIME! I even got to the point where I almost seriously contemplated building one. Then I thought, how much do I go out on an hour? When am I next being booked to shoot or edit? How much will I earn? So the decision to "build" was kinda removed from the equation - hah! Sometimes I/we need to move on. Put stuff down to experience.

Just think about "that" shot you wanna get? Can you do it OR experiment WITHOUT a suitable matte box arrangement? No? Then the argument has been made for you. If you can sell what you've bought all to the better .. otherwise dear friend, IMHO, bite the bullet and start again. Start with what you know to be right and a correct solution. If you can do it in or near budget, you're doing great. Most likely you will not! But think about THAT shot! Think about what you will be doing in a year's time with a suitable MB? As I said, if you can re-sell then fine. If you can find someone/yourself to build a clamp even better.

I hope this helps in you making the decision you WANT to make,

Best regards,

Grazie

Yes the bellows matte boxes look great (I saw another one from Cavision I think) but the Kestrel one you linked to has too little information about it and again leads me to another one of those dead ends where the only real way I can see if it will work is to ask them for very detailed info including high resolution pictures so I can SEE close up what the matte box is made of and what its features are exactly. Im just tired of dealing with the sad lack of clear, detailed complete information on 95% of companies products on their web sites. If only these companies knew how many sales they lose due to the extremely poor presentation/information of their products on the web their marketing departments would dance the jig.

In any case, I also got tired of buying products getting them in the mail only to have to box them back up and send them back due to incompatability's not listed and/or poor workmanship in one area or another.

I would love to get some pictures of the Kestrel you speak so highly of if you have the means to do it.

Let me know.