as I cant afford both at the same time which would be better to get first an ND or polariser?

Question

I'm leaning towards the nd, what do you think?

thanks teaser lots of all round info. The problem with the polariser is when the sky is too blue when i dont want it to be, altho a circular polariser is defo on my list

Answer 1

Easy. Get the polariser. You can use it as an ND anyway.

Of course, I'm assuming that you don't want the ND to make really long exposures. In that case the ND would be better.

Answer 2

Get a polariser. This can also be used as a ND by turning it round. Depends on what you are photographing but I have rarely needed a ND and have either used a smaller aperture or a faster speed. If you can only afford one then get a polariser. If you experiment then you can see how it affects the picture and as I said above you can turn it to act as a more or less ND filter anyway . An ND filter only reduces the amount of light getting through to the sensor or film. A polariser does this as well but can also be twisted round to reduce polarised light as well. You turn it as you look through the lens and can see the effect it has on colour saturation

Answer 3

Get the polariser - it's a MUCH more versatile filter.

Stops glare & unwanted reflections, protects the lens element from UV, enhances blues skies in bright sunlight.

Make sure it's a Circular Polariser (CPL) if for an autofocus lens.

Answer 4

I'll vote with everyone else above. The Polarizer will serve as a Neutral Density filter, as it will cut from 1 to 2 stops anyway. You may as well get a filter that has two purposes, right?

Add ND filters once you see if you really need them and then choose the strength you need.

Answer 5

Another vote for the polarizer.
It is useful in more circumstances than the ND. And it will function as a mild ND.

Answer 6

polarize filter a ND filter only cuts light coming into the camera.

Answer 7

polarizer ..and get a Circular polarizer filter

Answer 8

polariser of course..........