Circular vs Linear Polarizer on m4/3 Camera

RedDog Steve wrote:

Charley123 wrote:

. . . .
The lack of lens coatings didn't matter much back in my film days when I got excellent results from Hoya and Tiffen uncoated linear polarizers. However, I'm not sure if that same applies to digital. Would the lack of lens coatings be a problem for digital? I don't know, which is why I went for the coated Heliopan at way more cost.

===

Tiffen linear polarizer was available for $19, but has no lens coatings. It's rated 4 stars by BHPhoto customers. I didn't buy it because I think the Hoya and Heliopan are better. However, in my college days (using film) I used a Tiffen polarizer and it gave excellent results. It was great with film. It's probably good with digital too. But I can afford better now. Hoya is better for only $2 more. Heliopan is much better for $50 more.

===

Though my question stands... Does lens coating (or lack of) on a linear polarizer matter more for digital than for film? Cause on film I was getting great results with cheap uncoated linear polarizers like Tiffen and Hoya.

I did some informal testing and found that even the best coated filters will exhibit some flare, the cheap ones were 'very objectionable' (trying to be nice here...)
It was at that point I stopped using filters for anything except effects and harsh conditions.
I'm sure the same applies to polarizers, they are after all several layers of filter glass.

So I'd say yes it matters.
To what extent is debatable, but consider that a smaller sensor is more susceptible to optical imperfections.

I'll always use a lens hood. I don't think I'll have any problems. We'll soon find out.

Thank you for your post and information. It's a good reminder for me of the importance of using a lens hood, even though it's going to be inconvenient to use a bayonet mount hood with a polarizer.