kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I’ve been told that, for a DSLR, that the old “linear” polarizer filter will not work and that one must use a “circular” type.

I’ve also read that the “circular” type will work just fine with older “film” cameras.

What is the “rule”? Right now, I just have “film”. With the anticipation that I will, some day soon, get a DSLR, if I get a “circular” polarizer NOW, will that work on what I have right now? Or should I get a “linear” one for that?

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I've always used circular, even on film cameras back in the day. You should be fine. Just make sure you buy your filters from established manufacturers. They cost more; but it does not make sense to put low quality glass in front of your fancy expensive lenses. Of course, if you already have one and are getting good results, then you should ignore my overly paranoid ramblings.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

The old linear filters are reputed to upset the metering and auto focus systems of a digital camera.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

Linear filters will/can upset focus systems on modern cameras. Safer to go for good quality circular polar filters whatever use you put them to.

melismus Loc: Chesapeake Bay Country

Digital versus film has nothing to do with it: a linear polarizer may distort the autofocus and autoexposure systems of either camera type.

But it appears to me that a good linear darkens a blue sky better than the best circular, so I go for linear and fully manual operation.

Paul

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Go to the top of this UHH page and do a search. This is a topic that has been covered many times. Do beware of the experts on UHH who flunked 8th grade science and have tried something once. DO GOOGLE THE SUBJECTS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT, ACCEPT ONLY AUTHORITIES, NOT FINGER IN THE WIND. Only fools know more than valid scientific data... eg; half of congress.

Circular Polarizers (CPF) are a sandwich of two polarized layers, rotatable, with a 1/4 wave disruptor between. The choice of material varies, expensive not always being much better than low cost. (cheap is an negative emotional word and is not rational) Also choice of glass, Float vs Optical ground, historically optical was vastly superior. Modern float is almost equal to optical. (ref: previous UHH post) Anti-glare coating is also important. Do your technical research before investing, CPF is one that you will use often.

See http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/polarizing-filters.htm
---------------------
From:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm

"Linear vs. Circular Polarizing Filters: The circular polarizing variety is designed so that the camera's metering and autofocus systems can still function. Linear polarizers are much less expensive, but cannot be used with cameras that have through-the-lens (TTL) metering and autofocus — meaning nearly all digital SLR cameras. One could of course forego metering and autofocus, but that is rarely desirable." ... melismus is correct you can use linear if not relying on camera auto.

Enjoy you photography and do not be a pixplucker, JohnQ Public dose not use a magnifier only the emotional feel of a photo.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

That makes absolute sense. I’ve always used Tiffen or Hoya, in the past. I read somewhere that Hoya is the better brand, but I really don’t know. I have no idea who makes the filters they sell at Best Buy (“Rocketfish”) and, therefore, won’t go near them. Must be some reason why those Polarizers are $19.99 and the Hoya is $54.99.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Heard about that, too. But they’ll be fine on a film camera? Mine is a Nikon FE2, so no AF going on here.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

That’s what I’ve got. Nikon FE2. No AF at all here. So your recommendation is the old-fashioned “Linear” type?

melismus Loc: Chesapeake Bay Country

Used linear polarizers are pretty cheap.

Paul

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Thank you to all for the info.

gmw12 Loc: Indianapolis & Windsor/UK & Montreux/Switzerl

Try this website:

http://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article-polarizing_filters_test.html

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Excellent site of scientific information. This was sited in a previous rundown on CPF. The testing used is good, but there is a narrow rang when % results is plotted vs price. There are some results that negate the "get what ya pay for" ol'saw ($560 filters). The next thing we need to ask is return on investment. From $150 - $500 there is only about 10% difference in results. For $560 you get 59% or 84% results ... yep get what ya pay for. Also for the return on investment the improvement/dollar is not impressive.

Can you really see that 10% difference in 99% of your shots. Vignetting/edge effects are mentioned; most of us crop some which negates that problem.

One post refers to "major manufacturers" ... get real, most are contracted to the far east, probably most to China.

Agreed glass optical or float may differ, but again can you really see the difference in ordinary viewing. Pixel Pickers, perhaps, like looking at camera comparisons using a microscope!! Do we perceive these "test" differences?? Do your own side by side tests holding all constant ... can your best friend really see the difference in a blind test?

We UHH people, yes even me, fall pray to myths like the OEM vs 3rd Party ink UV sensitivity (who is the 2nd party??) That is a myth unless, perhaps, you are a UV lamp glow in the dark freak. Most after market inks have UV protection.

One must be careful not to fall for the myths in the world; hocus pocus costs us all a lot of money. Especially the Canon/Nikon only good camera people. I recall years ago when expensive "monster cables" were introduced for speakers. A blind test demonstrated no perceivable difference and that enraged the "audiophiles" in the group. A welding cable going to the speaker wire that is as fine as a cats whisker!! Really?

This is a subject beat to death with 30+ topic posts...

gmw12 Loc: Indianapolis & Windsor/UK & Montreux/Switzerl

The lenstip site is in Poland. Pricing reflects RPPs in Central Europe and do not necessarily equate those in the US.
Anyway, I bought a Marumi circ. polarizer in the US based on their testing and I am more than happy with it.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

+ 1.

No paranoid rambling to me. I use both but never had an issue with a linear polarizer.
Polarizers tend to confuse the AF of many cameras. I like to take a meter reading first without the filter and then apply the filter factor, up to 2 stops depending on full polarization.