Circular vs Linear Polarizer on m4/3 Camera

dontfret wrote:

You certainly have more flexibility with individual filters, but I find I seldom need both at the same time on different lenses. Why not get the 46 and a 37-->46 step ring? I have two linear coated Hoya pols from older lenses at 72mm and 55mm, and a handful of step rings. I have used the 55mm on a lenses and step up to the 72 to get an infinite ND for HDR stacking.

This is exactly what to do.

Besides the pro lenses, most other m43 lenses are 37mm, 46mm, and 52mm.  46mm filters (PL, ND, etc) along with 37->46 and 52->46 step rings should suffice; 52->46 step-down rings do work as the front pieces of the 52mm threaded lenses are typically smaller than 46mm.

dontfret wrote:

You certainly have more flexibility with individual filters, but I find I seldom need both at the same time on different lenses. Why not get the 46 and a 37-->46 step ring? I have two linear coated Hoya pols from older lenses at 72mm and 55mm, and a handful of step rings. I have used the 55mm on a lenses and step up to the 72 to get an infinite ND for HDR stacking.

I assume the two Hoya linear polarizers I found at BH Photo are not coated because they didn't mention anything about lens coating in the description, but it's possible they could be coated and I just don't know about it.

There was no information at Hoya's website about linear polarizers.

If I knew for sure the Hoya linear polarizers were coated, then I would have bought them because they're a lot cheaper than Heliopan filters.

I got Heliopan because I wanted to be certain of getting coated linear filters.

I'm not really concerned about the cost of a $70 filter. It's a business expense and I can afford it. I don't want to mess with a step up ring.

When was a poor college student I used to own one large polarizer and a few step up rings. That made sense at the time because I was short of money, but I don't have that problem anymore and I don't want the hassles. It's just easier to own two filters

TheEye wrote:

Linear polarizers are a bit more effective than circular polarizers. Considering that polarizer-happy photogs often overdo the effect, it is not a bad thing to use a circular polarizer by default. It will work on any camera.

The highest quality polarizers are environmentally sealed, which prevents the sandwiched polarizer foil from getting damaged due to moisture. These pricey filters are called Käsemann.

Some cameras require circular polarizers for the AF system to work proplery. The manual should say, or you can call technical support.

For use with wide-angle lenses, get slim polarizers. The ones with a thick mount may cause vignetting.

Overdoing the polarizing effect? There's no such thing as far as I'm concerned. The more polarizing the merrier, IMO.

One of my cousins was a professional photographer who used to shoot for Sunset Magazine and others. He was of the opinion that the more polarizing the better and he loved his linear polarizer. I learned from him about polarizing. Also my college photography instructor was a full-time pro photographer (and part-time teacher) and he loved his linear polarizers.

Neither one of them would be caught dead using a circular polarizer. They preferred linear polarizers because they wanted the maximum polarizing effect. That was back in the film days, but I still love a linear polarizer today.

Beru Roniki - AKA Grzzl wrote:

And they both work fine. No problems with exposure or autofocus.

I never had, in contrary to what they say. Not on Minolta, NIkon, Panny or Olympus.

Linear is much cheaper.

Heliopan linear cost about the same as other good brands of circular. So the Heliopan linear are not cheap, but linear polarizers polarize more strongly and dramatically and I like that. I also like that Heliopan linear polarizers are multi-coated.

I didn't remember this earlier, but now I clearly remember that linear polarizers do polarize more strongly/dramatically than circular polarizers, IME.

It's been a few years since I did outdoor photography with a polarizer. I've been doing mostly indoor photography the last few years.

This thread has jogged my memory regarding polarized outdoor photography that I did in the past.

I never had flare or ghosting from uncoated linear polarizers when I used film. I'm reasonably confident that I won't have any flare or ghosting using a coated linear polarizer on a digital camera because I always use a lens hood.

I do appreciate your post because you provided me some good information to think about and jogged my memory about lens hood and flares.

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.

polarizers do 2 things that photoshop cannot...

• Blocking the reflections off wet splashed rocks by waterfalls and at the seashore
• Cutting reflections off waxy or moist plant leaves - restoring colour and contrast to foliage in forests, fields and meadows

I have never found a satisfactory processing workaround for these 2 situations. Neither of these needs autofocus - both are the time for "slow" thoughtful photography with lots of exposure correction to optimise the image. So, there is no critical need for circular polarizers (which are reported to interfere with the AF in some digital cameras) for those "must have" composition situations.

For me - I find that linear polarizers have a stronger and more consistent effect than circular - certainly at the budget end of the scale (<£20 GBP/ USD $ 25). The jump in image quality with a polarizer in those 2 situations makes carrying a PL filter with me a necessity.

I am a big fan of collapsible rubber lens hoods, those £2 / $3 generic Chinese ones sold new from auction sites - so only rarely will I see the benefit of ultra-multi-coated filters.

I have never found a satisfactory processing workaround for these 2 situations. Neither of these needs autofocus - both are the time for "slow" thoughtful photography with lots of exposure correction. So, there is no critical need for circular polarizers (which are reported to interfere with the AF in some digital cameras) for those "must have" composition situations.

For me - I find that linear polarizers have a stronger and more consistent effect than circular - certainly at the budget end of the scale (<£20 GBP/ USD $ 25). The jump in image quality with a polarizer in those 2 situations makes carrying a PL filter with me a necessity.

I am a big fan of collapsible rubber lens hoods, those £2 / $3 ones from auction sites - so only rarely will I see the benefit of ultra-multi-coated filters.

There seem to be diminishing returns for more expensive circular over linear polarizing and multicoated over single coated filters….the only critical test is for colour shift since polarizing is one time when turning OFF the auto-white balance could be useful; dense green forests or fields and glistening red or blue river stones are usually way off “neutral grey” in the colour spectrum.

Today on UK Amazon - the 49mm Heliopan polarizer is£65.98 and the B&W £71.81 (postage free). Now - if photography is your work - when every pixel of better image counts for getting a contract - then certainly pay more. At the eye-watering price of some "pro" filters - I'll put the difference towards a new lens or a day out taking pictures !

Conclusion - even the most hard-up photographer will benefit from a polarizer in the camera bag.   So boring though the topic may be - please test and report your kit here.

======

My test: HOYA Linear Polarizer, 52mm thread, used principally on a 14-42mm kit lens or 25mm F1.7.

Result: Cheap, mechanically good. Doesn't jam in lens filter threads on Panasonic lenses. No obvious unexpected colour shift. Has lasted >5 years without losing the foil filter surface. Any image quality loss from a "budget" filter is more than compensated by improved colour and saturation.

best wishes to you all - Paul in the UK