PDA

View Full Version : Polarizers



Peter De Smidt
7-Jul-2009, 10:16
Now that I've started to shoot color, both in LF and MF, I'm realizing how useful a polarizer is. I have a Tiffen 52mm warm polarizer, and it's ok, but my larger polarizer, the one that fits most of my LF and MF lenses, is a very crappy Rokunar, which has a decided blue tinge. Hence, I'd like to get a better one. Neutral color would be great, but I'd rather have a slightly warm one rather than a cool one. It should be well machined with good knurling, as getting the filters on the Fuji rangefinders can be something of a pain. I see that there's a lot of new polarizers with special coatings, but I don't have any experience with them.

venchka
7-Jul-2009, 10:34
I have B+W polarizers. They work.

Capocheny
7-Jul-2009, 10:42
Hi Peter,

You might want to consider the B+W line of filters... the rings are made of a good brass material and should, therefore, be easier to mount onto your lenses.

B+W put out a nice little brochure illustrating the different product lines in it... look for a copy and go through it prior to making a decision.

Heliopans are also very well made and are a very good filter. Probably harder to find and more costly than the B+W.

Cheers

Jerry Bodine
7-Jul-2009, 12:14
Years ago (70s) I had a number of Leica lenses for which I bought several B+W polarizers in the necessary thread sizes. After about twenty years they ALL started to degrade by what appeared to be delaminations and significant loss of density that increased toward the edges, rendering them useless. I queried B+W about replacing just the glass in my metal rings, but they wouldnt hear of it, and recommended buying new filters (probably a cost factor) without any comment as to the cause of the problem. I dont know if theyve done anything to resolve the degradation issue. But, since Id been thinking of liquidating all my 35mm and MF gear anyway and going only with my Sinar Norma, I decided to toss the useless B+Ws. The Norma needs only ONE polarizer (Tiffen 105mm, coarse thread) in the Sinar swing-out filter ring and is large enough for all my LF lenses, so well see how long the Tiffen holds up. Tiffen also offers the Warm Polarizer, which I did not want as Im only doing B&W now. I find the polarizer very helpful in B&W, not only for darkening skies but for controlling reflections (e.g., removing enough reflection from the surface of water to show the rocks etc on the bottom).

Steve Hamley
7-Jul-2009, 12:33
Peter,

My "go to" polarizer is an older uncoated Heliopan warm tone. While too thick to use with wide angle lenses, I like the heavy brass ring, the tone which seems very well suited for landscapes, and the "index" marks on the rim.

I typically set the polarizer (not always to full polarization) and note the index alignment, then screw the filter onto the lens.

I haven't found that the lack of coating is a detriment with color film as the polarization seems to outweigh any loss of contrast or saturation because it isn't coated.

Heliopan doesn't make these anymore although they should pop up occasionally, but the index marks are really nice.

Cheers, Steve

Peter De Smidt
7-Jul-2009, 13:41
I appreciate everyone comments.

I have a couple of older Tiffen filters which show de-lamination. It's probably a problem for every laminated filter, which covers all polarizer filters. Maybe the Kasemann filters are better in this regard since their edges are sealed.

I'm leary of MC filters, having owned some of the earlier Tiffen and B+W coated filters, both of which were very hard to clean. I often work near water spray, and so I need to clean my filters fairly often. I'd be particularly interested if the newer anti-scratch/anti-dirt coatings actually work.

Archphoto
7-Jul-2009, 14:19
I use the B&W MRC polfilters, but am never that near to any water.....
They are neutral.
If you have any doubts about the neutrality of your filter(s) use a colormeter and write down the diferences.

Peter

Lachlan 717
7-Jul-2009, 14:27
Save yourself some money and get linear, not circular, polarisers. You don't need the circular for what you're doing and linear are cheaper.

As for brand, it's up to you. I find it easy enough to tickle up some warmth for tranny scans in PS and not really an issue in B&W.

Lachlan

Bob Salomon
7-Jul-2009, 14:50
Heliopan polarizers with SH-PMC coating are the most neutral in color. Additionally, all Heliopan polarizers are rim calibrated for convenient use on rangefinder cameras.

Peter De Smidt
7-Jul-2009, 17:59
Bob, how delicate are the coatings?

Greg Blank
7-Jul-2009, 19:06
Here's a good one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/400005-REG/Heliopan_706936_69mm_Neutral_Density_ND_.html



Heliopan polarizers with SH-PMC coating are the most neutral in color. Additionally, all Heliopan polarizers are rim calibrated for convenient use on rangefinder cameras.

SamReeves
7-Jul-2009, 23:21
Save yourself some money and get linear, not circular, polarisers. You don't need the circular for what you're doing and linear are cheaper.


I agree there. I've never found too much of a point with the circular PL's. Get a used Tiffen or Hoya from B&H's online catalog, and save some more $.

Peter De Smidt
8-Jul-2009, 00:19
Isn't a circular polarizer simply a linear polarizer with a diffraction grating added? Circular polarizers are need with some slr cameras where the polarized light from a linear polarizer can cause problems with the camera's meter. You're right in that a linear polarizer would be fine for me. One problem with that, though, is that some of the newest technology polarizers only come in circular.

Lachlan 717
8-Jul-2009, 01:53
Isn't a circular polarizer simply a linear polarizer with a diffraction grating added? Circular polarizers are need with some slr cameras where the polarized light from a linear polarizer can cause problems with the camera's meter. You're right in that a linear polarizer would be fine for me. One problem with that, though, is that some of the newest technology polarizers only come in circular.

I've never had a problem with the linear ones that I use. I cannot remember the rationale behind it, but I did once read that linear were superior in performance to circular; however, circular are needed for SLR/DSLR with reflected prism metering. A necessary evil, if you will.

Perhaps this is like Beta versus VHS. The popular/consumer use was VHS, but the broadcast use was Beta, as it was a far better technology.

So, make sure that the newest technology is, in fact, as good as the other option has always been!

Lachlan

Emmanuel BIGLER
8-Jul-2009, 02:22
Isn't a circular polarizer simply a linear polarizer with a diffraction grating added?

My understanding is thar a circular polariser is a linear polariser stacked with a quarter-wave plate, not a grating. But some gratongs are polarisation-sensitive and might act as a quarter-wave plate, may be ?
The usual quarter-wave plate is bi-refringent plate.

A quarter-waver plate when suitably orientated at 45 with respect to the polariser transforms a linear polarisation into a circular polarisation. This orientation is fixed/glued inside and in principle not accessible to the user. The whole assembly rotates like a linear polariser.

From the point of view of the LF photographer who does not use TTL metering, there is definitely no need for a circular polariser.
However, polarisers being expensive filters, it does make sense to get a circular one in order to use it on various cameras including cameras equiped with internal TTL metering systems.

As far as I have understood it, the problem with TTL metering behind a linera polariser is not in the metering system itself but in the beam splitters used to divert part of the light entering the camera to the TTL light sensors.

Bob Salomon
8-Jul-2009, 03:56
Bob, how delicate are the coatings?

They are not at all delicate and the top layer on each side repels dust and moisture.

Bob Salomon
8-Jul-2009, 03:57
Here's a good one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/400005-REG/Heliopan_706936_69mm_Neutral_Density_ND_.html

Did you use the error report at the bottom of the page?

Jim Becia
8-Jul-2009, 07:02
Now that I've started to shoot color, both in LF and MF, I'm realizing how useful a polarizer is. I have a Tiffen 52mm warm polarizer, and it's ok, but my larger polarizer, the one that fits most of my LF and MF lenses, is a very crappy Rokunar, which has a decided blue tinge. Hence, I'd like to get a better one. Neutral color would be great, but I'd rather have a slightly warm one rather than a cool one. It should be well machined with good knurling, as getting the filters on the Fuji rangefinders can be something of a pain. I see that there's a lot of new polarizers with special coatings, but I don't have any experience with them.

Peter,

I have been using the Moose Peterson warming filter for years and find it to be just right for color film, at least for me. I believe it's made by Hoya. I usually carry two, a 52mm and a 67mm. I must admit that I have to replace them about every three or four years as I am very hard on them (pull the shirttail out and give them a quick cleaning.). That plus the fact that filters and windy Utah days are hell on glass. Jim

gevalia
8-Jul-2009, 07:27
Singh Ray

Martin Miksch
8-Jul-2009, 09:42
Save yourself some money and get linear, not circular, polarisers. You don't need the circular for what you're doing and linear are cheaper...


I use a Mamiya linear on modern SLR cameras without any limitations.
Regards
Martin

J. Patric Dahlen
8-Jul-2009, 14:16
How are polarizing filters made? I've seen many pages on how they work, but non about how they are made. I've read about polarizers as a "very fine metallic grid", but it's impossible to see a grid, and if it is so very fine, the technique must be at least as advanced like the manufacturing of modern computer processors. Yet polarizing filters have been made for 80 years or more.

Deepak Kumar
10-Jul-2009, 09:53
Only Singh Ray LB Polarizer with warming

Or

B/W circular Polariser with or without warming.



These are very expensive so invest once in the best filters,


Because time spent in shooting is even more expensive.

Deepak

Emrehan Zeybekoglu
10-Jul-2009, 11:01
Be generous to yourself and get a Heliopan. You won't be sorry.

Brian Ellis
10-Jul-2009, 12:07
For LF photography I use linear polarizers, unwarmed, uncoated, unanything. I have a huge collection of filters because I never liked using adapter rings. I have at least one each major brand of polarizers - Hoya, Tiffen, B+W, Heliopan plus several other less common brands such as Contax and Pentax. If there's a dime's worth of difference among them in terms of the final print I've never noticed it. I couldn't begin to go back to my photographs and tell which ones were made with which brand of polarizer (or any other type of filter for that matter). I do like the B+W filters but not because I think they produce a different or better photograph, I just like the feeling of quality they have when they're handled.

Joe English published the results of his testing of numerous different polarizers used to make color photographs of the same scene in the final issue of the old "Camera and Darkroom" magazine. IIRC, none were totally "neutral" in the sense that the identical colors were reproduced with and without the filters. All produced some form of color cast though I'm not sure it always would have been noticeable or objectionable without side-by-side comparisons with the unfiltered version of the photograph. This is all from memory, I no longer have that issue of the magazine, so if someone does have it and if I've misstated anything please feel free to correct me.