Return to Equipment, Hints, Tips

Nikon C-PL1L Polarising Filter (and polarisers generally)

Rating: 3/5

I bought my example new in early to mid 2012 off of Ebay for approx. £150 (from a reputable UK photographic dealer in London, I don’t mind buying non-Nikon gear occasionally but not when I don’t expect to, and certainly not when it impacts image quality.  so when buy Nikon items from places like ebay I tend to only use reputable sellers).  It typically retails at £200+ so this was a good price at that time.

If you want to polarise on a long exotic lens there is simply little alternative to Nikon's specialty rear slot polarising filters.  Yes, one or two specialist accessory companies make them too, some have done so longer than Nikon, but as prices are generally comparable or higher (they are all VERY expensive) my thought was why buy anything other than the genuine Nikon part?  It didn’t make sense, or so I thought…..but more on that a little later.

I don’t plan to go into any detail here about the practical uses of a polarising filter in photography, or the technical differences between the different types.  My assumption, rightly or wrongly, is that if you are seriously interested in this item, or one of its siblings, then you already know what you need to on the theoretical side and are simply looking for further product specific information and opinion.  If you are interested in the technical aspects of how these filters work I provide a link in the later in the discussion.

Frustratingly not all of Nikon's rear filter slot lenses use the same polariser filter however, even though they all nominally accept 52mm filters.  Therefore you may be in the unfortunate position of owning a couple of long fast lenses and need a different polariser for each.  This is irritating, potentially confusing in the field and expensive, and all probably due to a lack of forward cross product planning at Nikon, certainly in the case of one lens.  Thanks Nikon!

TABLE OF WHICH POLARISES FIT WHICH LENSES

O = compatable    X = Incompatble

There is some understandable evolution in the needs of the lenses as they are developed over the decades, such as the general move from 39mm to 52mm filters.  But there are some real odd-balls.  For example why, when developing the AFI series did all but one use 39mm filters but the 400mm needed 52mm filter?  Surely they could have all been developed to take the 52mm option?  And what were Nikon thinking with the the 200mm f/2?  It takes 52mm filters like all of the other modern AFS telephotos but needs a different polariser (and presumably a different holder for standard filters).  However, the general ‘rule of thumb’ is quite easy;

1.       If your lens takes 39mm rear slot filters but is NOT AFI or the MF 300mm f/2.8 IF-ED you need the C-PL1S

2.       If your lens takes 39mm rear slot filters and IS AFI you need the C-PL2S

3.       If your lens takes 52mm rear slot filters and IS AFI you need the C-PL2L (this is only the 400mm f/2.8 AFI, surprisingly the 600mm AFI uses 39mm filters)

4.       If your lens takes 52mm rear slot filters and  is NOT AFI and NOT the 200mm f/2 you need the C‑PL1L

5.       If you have an AFS 200mm f/2 VR you need the C-PL3L

There are a couple of further interesting points.  I don’t know why but the official Nikon compatibility table does not include the AFS 200-400mm f/4 VR but that lens does use the C-PL1L filter.  I can vouch for this as it is the one I use in the lens and is clearly identified in the paperwork supplied with the lens.  I have therefore included it in my table.  The other is the fact that there is no slip-in polariser that is, according to Nikon, compatible with the manual focus 300mm f/2.8 IF-ED.  I find this rather strange given that Nikon probably sold more of these than all the other exotics combined before the advent of AF.  I don’t have any other information on this, perhaps the table is wrong?

NIKON’S OFFICIAL COMPATIBILITY TABLE (From the Nikon C-PL1S instruction leaflet)

As noted above I use this filter in my 200-400mm f/4 AFS and it is with that lens my experience is based.  It will also fit some of the other Nikon 'exotics' such as the 500mm AFS VR, but do double check before buying. 

The general build quality of the filter mount and associated mechanism is good and the unit fits precisely in the back of the lens.  There is even a directional arrow to remind you to insert it the correct way round.  I guess that, unlike a single glass filter, getting the unit back to front may upset the optical formula of the lens a little? 

Personally I would prefer the adjustment wheel to be a little more proud so that it is easier to find without looking, and easier to use.  I have not used the filter whilst wearing gloves yet but I imagine that it will be unnecessarily challenging.  I would also like a little more 'feel' or resistance in the action when making adjustments.  The very light action feels 'dead' and combined with the almost flush adjustment wheel there is little in-use tactile feedback.

But, does it work and is it worth the outlay?

The answer to both of these questions is a sit on the fence "yes and no".  The range of polarisation that can be applied is actually very narrow, with little difference being discernable as the filter is rotated.  The filter does have a noticeable impact, so it does ‘polarise’, I just find that the level of refinement of the effect is very limited.  I find this is a common issue with circular polarisers generally, the linear types used before the advent of AF and complex metering systems could be adjusted infinitely between virtually no effect to way over the top polarisation.  With the circular designs, which are necessary with modern cameras, this is a price we pay for modernisation.  However this particular filter I find to be extreme in respect of poor adjustment even compared to other circular polarisers that I have used, including ones from Nikon.  For this reason I do now wonder if the few different offerings of rear slot polarisers from other manufacturers are indeed all equal and whether a different brand may actually be a better buy?  Too late for me, and difficult for a prospective purchaser to try out, but certainly something to think about or investigate if you are about to make a purchase.

Is it worth the money?  No, not really.  But, if you want to have the option to polarise with the compatible lenses, and this can sometime make or break an image, then you have no option but to pay the high asking price.  I do however wonder if a substantial part of the cost of such accessories in a self-fulfilling prophecy?  By this I mean that a significant justification for the high cost is probably the low sales volume, this in turn is low because the prices are high.  Hmm!  It would be interesting to see if Nikon took an approach of accepting that they made their main profit on the lenses and accessories such as these were then sold at relatively low margins (I certainly don't suggest that they should not make money on them) to facilitate the use of their lenses, sales of the filters and similarly over-priced accessories would increase significantly making a similar amount overall for Nikon?  I suspect reality is that Nikon, like most / all other manufacturers in this position, figure that those who want or need such things will buy them regardless of cost once they have invested in a hugely expensive lens or two, and therefore put huge margins on them.  It probably makes business sense, especially if everyone does it, but it is certainly not putting the customer first (after a reasonable profit of course).

In conclusion, the filter is fairly well made, handles reasonable and performs adequately but is very expensive and for the price you pay it should be superbly made, handle exquisitely and perform near state-of-the-art.  Recommendation – avoid unless you really need a polariser and can’t find a better independent offering.  I will certainly keep and use mine now that I have it and have recovered from the shock of the cost :-o

Footnote 1 - just to be clear here, "linear" and "circular" refers to the way the polarised light is filtered.  Linear polarises of old were still typically round screw-in attachments, and you can buy square 'Cokin type' circular polarises for the square filter systems such as Cokin, Lee and others.  Potentially confusing I know, if you would like to read more on this Wikipedia explains it far better and in more detail than I could, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarising_filter and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarizer#Circular_polarizers)

Footnote 2 - With modern cameras you need to use circular polarising filters to avoid issues and errors with autofocus and metering systems, true?  Well, this is another "yes and no" type answer.  If you are wanting to shoot with AF and auto exposure then yes you probably need a circular polariser, especially if it is a fleeting moment that cannot be reshot.  However, if you are shooting landscapes, still life, close-ups, etc. where you can manually focus and / or shoot in manual mode (or check the histogram, make adjustments and re-shoot) then a linear type polariser is perfectly useable in such situations.  This gives the option of better control of the degree of polarisation and the ability to apply more (and probably less) polarisation than you could with a circular polariser.  There is also the added bonus that high quality (e.g., Nikon, B&W, ....) older linear polarisers can be bought second-hand for much less than a circular one because they "don't work with modern cameras".   The linear types are generally no longer available new.

 Return to Equipment, Hints, Tips

Copyright © Mike Needham Photography. All rights reserved.