Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Polarizing Filters (Page 3): I have a simple policy in advising folks, based in my experience. It's not my innovation or invention or a phrase I myself have coined-...

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I have a simple policy in advising folks, based in my experience. It's not my innovation or invention or a phrase I myself have coined- it's OLD, like me! KIS- Keep it simple!

Firstly, in the filter business you can bet on the old adage, "you gets what you pays for'! I don't even know if any dealer or manufacturer is still marketing inferior second rate filters anymore under no-name "brands". So a rule of thumb, in any event, is to buy the best quality filters you can afford. You really can't go terribly wrong with filters made my B+W. Zeiss, Sing-Ray, Tiffen (Professional), Harrison & Harrison, Hoya and some of the brands marketed through Canon, Nikon and Hasselbald. The latter brands may very well be made for them by the other aforementioned manufacturers. There are a few other"new guys" on the block, ( making polarizing filters)) that are supposed to have better color accuracy attributes- I don't know- as I have not had the opportunity to use any of them as yet. I am not sure if some of the claimed color shifts or irregularities are specific to digital technology and did not affect film. Thus far, I am using my older CPS filters on digital cameras and backs and have experienced no issues. I have a few very old polarizing filter that have either seemed to "crystallize"- perhaps the internal layer of material deteriorated and a few that discolored and I simply had to discard them.

I have been using polarizing filters, both circular and linear for decades, in commercial photography, where, in some cases the color accuracy of the product being photographed and advertised needs to be very accurate- sometimes even color matched. I have never experienced a color shift with any high quality polarizing filter, either on film in digital photography.

Filter quality is based on the use of good optical quality glass, the integrity of the dyes, color materials or foils used in the manufacturing process. The front and back surfaces must be parallel so as to not introduce any distortion or optical magnification. Since most polarizing filters have a rotatable feature, they should be constructed with high quality rims and materials that won't cross-thread or wear out prematurely. Anti-flare coatings are desirable in scenarios where stray light is an issue. In studio- I have never experienced flare or loss of contrast due to flare. Even the very finest filters, theoretically, can introduce an infinitesimal level of optical aberrations, perhaps only detectable under laboratory optical bench standards. I inferior filter can significantly affect image quality- don't buy or use those!

A CIRCULAR polarizer is advisable for current digital cameras, that is, if you intend using all the auto-focus and auto-exposure features. The use of a LINEAR polarizer on a digital camera will not cause any damage, it LIKELY will interfere with the accuracy of automatic operations.

Like any other item of photographic gear or accessories, the polarizer is not a cure-all for all unwanted reflection issues. In some cases, as in portraiture, negation of certain diffuse and speculate highlight is detrimental to modeling. The filter will eliminate certain reflection from foliage or other surfaces that impairs color saturation. It will darken the blue the sky on bright sunny days thereby accentuating some clouds, providing the sun is at 90 degrees. It will not "create" a clear sky on an overcast day. There are many aesthetic compromises that must me observed and judged by the photographer as to which reflections should be subdued or eliminated and which should remain uncorrected. You can darken the sky but at the same time you might negate lovely refection in water or render windows in houses or barns ad jet black. As you rotate the filter and closely observe the effects, you can make theses decisions and of course, you can opt for an intermediate effect- not always full tilt polarization.

Certain unwanted reflections in still life work, reflections in eyeglasses in portraiture and situations where reflections are needed for dimension and realism but need to be placed differently can not be remedied adequately or appropriately bu polarization. This is usually a matter of understanding ANGLE OF INCIDENCE theory. In theses cases, oftentimes moving the light source, the subject or the camera position is the solution.

Polarizing filters will not significantly subdue or eliminate reflections form most metallic surfaces or mirrors.

Polarizing filters are extremely effective in shooting through glass or Plexiglas in storefronts, display cases, dioramas in museums etc. The are indispensable in copy, art reproduction, photographic restoration, copying images and documents that are adhered to glass in old frames etc. By cross-polarizing, that is adding polarizing filters to the light sources, difficult subjects like heavily varnished and aged oil paintings can be easily be reproduced. Polarizing filters and cross-polarization can also be used to create special effects when photographing certain crystalline materials and translucent plastics- it brings out colorful stress and
interference patterns.

Now, as for the "BS" factor. I am not here to debunk anyone's theories, defame certain "gurus" and go on endlessly about all the advertising hype. All I can do is present the facts and implore folks to use their common sense. I must, however, admit, that watching some U-Tube stuff, some of the hyperbole that goes down in pitching some photographic products or methods- WOW! I though the "snake oil salesmen" were a thing of the past- but they are back with a vengeance! I am always interested in some guy or gal or company "with a better mousetrap" and that's why, I sometimes click on to some of this stuff. I want the latest and greatest stuff in my studio too! Why not?- it pays if it makes life easier, improves quality and expedites production! I am always suspicious when someone starts off a "tutorial" or sales presentation with a statement to the effect that everyone else's method or product is bad, inferior or not up to date- except for "MINE"!

So...When contemplating the purchase of any gear, ask to see proof of the claims- such as better color, more accuracy, negation of ongoing shortcoming in a certain products or theories. Don't be taken in by old, defunct, or obsolete "name brands" that have not been around since WWII. Reputable companies will put their current badge on new products. Buy from a reputable dealer who guarantees your satisfaction and will make refunds or exchanges on items that don't meet your expectations.

I hope this helps!

cwp3420

amfoto1 wrote:

I don't know anything about the new line of Meyer Optic filters that are being introduced. But, as others have already noted, the name is an old, well respected one that's been bought and sold several times and is now being used by a different company. They have already launched a number of high end, manual focus lenses for various camera systems. I would guess they are introducing the filters to complement those (filter sizes are somewhat limited to the sizes their lenses use). It's hard to say what their filters, which aren't yet in stores, will be like... if they will be as good or better than other brands such as B+W and Marumi. The info is limited at Adorama, but says they are made in Germany, use aluminum mounting rings and have unspecified multi-coatings. I don't see any size of Meyer-Optic filter being offered at Adorama for $135, so am not sure what size you're looking at. The closest to that price is 55mm for $139.90.

Marumi has been around for a while and are well respected. Once again, I'm not sure what size you are looking at... Marumi EXUS (top of the line) in 62mm sells for $93.77, closest to the $95 you cited. I do not know what glass Marumi uses (Japanese Asahi glass is pretty much equal to German Schott, but don't know if that's what they use). They also do not tell us much about EXUS multi-coatings, other than that they are anti-static, oil and water resistant, like "Nano" coatings (usually 15 or 16-layer) used on other brands of filters. Marumi's EXUS C-Pol is standard tint (not High Transmissive, see below). They use an aluminum frame and put Teflon coatings on the male threads to help prevent from getting stuck on lenses.

The B+W (not B & W) XS-Pro and F-Pro C-Pols are among the highest rated... But are priced like much lower specification filters. IMO, they're a great value and hard to beat! Again, not sure what size or which series of B+W you are using or comparing... so I'm guessing.

62mm B+W XS-Pro C-Pol costs $65.50 and is their very top-of-the line with Kaesemann quality foils and sealing, German Schott glass, High Transmissive (less light loss than standard C-Pol), with 16-layer MRC Nano multi-coatings (scratch, oil and water resistant... easier to clean), mounted in a slim brass frame (less likely than aluminum to get stuck on a lens).

62mm B+W F-Pro C-Pol costs about $63.95 and is same as the XS-Pro except that it uses a 8-layer MRC multi-coatings and a "standard" brass frame (which is also pretty slim).

62mm B+W C-Pol MRC costs $53.95 and is same as F-Pro, except it uses standard type of tint (i.e., it's not High Transmissive) and it doesn't have Kaesemann foils or sealing.

62mm B+W C-Pol SC sells for about $59 and is the same as the MRC, except is uses a single anti-reflective coating. Not sure why it's more expensive than multi-coated!

A couple filters that we know more about, to compare with B+W...

Breakthrough Photography's X4 C-Pol is High Transmissive, uses Schott glass, with 16-layer Nano multi-coatings, with weather sealing, in a brass frame ... sells for $129 in 62mm size.

Helipan SH-PMC C-Pol has pretty much identical specs to XS-Pro, but is available in choice of standard or slim frame... selling for $135 to $164 in 62mm size.

Regarding High Transmissive filters.... also sometimes called "HT"... provide pretty much the same polarizing results, but "cost" less light lost to the filter while doing it. For example, a standard C-Pol might cost between 1.25 and 2.5 stops of light, depending upon it's adjustment and how strong you set the polarizing effect. In comparison, an HT C-Pol typically "costs" between .75 and 1.5 stops. That's a half stop to one stop more light, approx., which can make a real difference in some challenging conditions and may allow the camera and lens to autofocus better.

You might already be aware, "slim" filters may be needed with wide angle lenses. B+W's "standard" are already pretty slim. Really slim filters can be more difficult to get a grip on to install or remove.

I don't know anything about the new line of Meyer ... (show quote)

Thanks, Alan. I really appreciate the information. I learned some things from you. I always consider it a good day if I can learn something new each day.

cwp3420

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

I have a simple policy in advising folks, based in my experience. It's not my innovation or invention or a phrase I myself have coined- it's OLD, like me! KIS- Keep it simple!

Firstly, in the filter business you can bet on the old adage, "you gets what you pays for'! I don't even know if any dealer or manufacturer is still marketing inferior second rate filters anymore under no-name "brands". So a rule of thumb, in any event, is to buy the best quality filters you can afford. You really can't go terribly wrong with filters made my B+W. Zeiss, Sing-Ray, Tiffen (Professional), Harrison & Harrison, Hoya and some of the brands marketed through Canon, Nikon and Hasselbald. The latter brands may very well be made for them by the other aforementioned manufacturers. There are a few other"new guys" on the block, ( making polarizing filters)) that are supposed to have better color accuracy attributes- I don't know- as I have not had the opportunity to use any of them as yet. I am not sure if some of the claimed color shifts or irregularities are specific to digital technology and did not affect film. Thus far, I am using my older CPS filters on digital cameras and backs and have experienced no issues. I have a few very old polarizing filter that have either seemed to "crystallize"- perhaps the internal layer of material deteriorated and a few that discolored and I simply had to discard them.

I have been using polarizing filters, both circular and linear for decades, in commercial photography, where, in some cases the color accuracy of the product being photographed and advertised needs to be very accurate- sometimes even color matched. I have never experienced a color shift with any high quality polarizing filter, either on film in digital photography.

Filter quality is based on the use of good optical quality glass, the integrity of the dyes, color materials or foils used in the manufacturing process. The front and back surfaces must be parallel so as to not introduce any distortion or optical magnification. Since most polarizing filters have a rotatable feature, they should be constructed with high quality rims and materials that won't cross-thread or wear out prematurely. Anti-flare coatings are desirable in scenarios where stray light is an issue. In studio- I have never experienced flare or loss of contrast due to flare. Even the very finest filters, theoretically, can introduce an infinitesimal level of optical aberrations, perhaps only detectable under laboratory optical bench standards. I inferior filter can significantly affect image quality- don't buy or use those!

A CIRCULAR polarizer is advisable for current digital cameras, that is, if you intend using all the auto-focus and auto-exposure features. The use of a LINEAR polarizer on a digital camera will not cause any damage, it LIKELY will interfere with the accuracy of automatic operations.

Like any other item of photographic gear or accessories, the polarizer is not a cure-all for all unwanted reflection issues. In some cases, as in portraiture, negation of certain diffuse and speculate highlight is detrimental to modeling. The filter will eliminate certain reflection from foliage or other surfaces that impairs color saturation. It will darken the blue the sky on bright sunny days thereby accentuating some clouds, providing the sun is at 90 degrees. It will not "create" a clear sky on an overcast day. There are many aesthetic compromises that must me observed and judged by the photographer as to which reflections should be subdued or eliminated and which should remain uncorrected. You can darken the sky but at the same time you might negate lovely refection in water or render windows in houses or barns ad jet black. As you rotate the filter and closely observe the effects, you can make theses decisions and of course, you can opt for an intermediate effect- not always full tilt polarization.

Certain unwanted reflections in still life work, reflections in eyeglasses in portraiture and situations where reflections are needed for dimension and realism but need to be placed differently can not be remedied adequately or appropriately bu polarization. This is usually a matter of understanding ANGLE OF INCIDENCE theory. In theses cases, oftentimes moving the light source, the subject or the camera position is the solution.

Polarizing filters will not significantly subdue or eliminate reflections form most metallic surfaces or mirrors.

Polarizing filters are extremely effective in shooting through glass or Plexiglas in storefronts, display cases, dioramas in museums etc. The are indispensable in copy, art reproduction, photographic restoration, copying images and documents that are adhered to glass in old frames etc. By cross-polarizing, that is adding polarizing filters to the light sources, difficult subjects like heavily varnished and aged oil paintings can be easily be reproduced. Polarizing filters and cross-polarization can also be used to create special effects when photographing certain crystalline materials and translucent plastics- it brings out colorful stress and
interference patterns.

Now, as for the "BS" factor. I am not here to debunk anyone's theories, defame certain "gurus" and go on endlessly about all the advertising hype. All I can do is present the facts and implore folks to use their common sense. I must, however, admit, that watching some U-Tube stuff, some of the hyperbole that goes down in pitching some photographic products or methods- WOW! I though the "snake oil salesmen" were a thing of the past- but they are back with a vengeance! I am always interested in some guy or gal or company "with a better mousetrap" and that's why, I sometimes click on to some of this stuff. I want the latest and greatest stuff in my studio too! Why not?- it pays if it makes life easier, improves quality and expedites production! I am always suspicious when someone starts off a "tutorial" or sales presentation with a statement to the effect that everyone else's method or product is bad, inferior or not up to date- except for "MINE"!

So...When contemplating the purchase of any gear, ask to see proof of the claims- such as better color, more accuracy, negation of ongoing shortcoming in a certain products or theories. Don't be taken in by old, defunct, or obsolete "name brands" that have not been around since WWII. Reputable companies will put their current badge on new products. Buy from a reputable dealer who guarantees your satisfaction and will make refunds or exchanges on items that don't meet your expectations.

I hope this helps!

I have a simple policy in advising folks, based in... (show quote)

It does, E.L. I appreciate it and your response.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Thanks to all the substantive contributions here. Apparently there have been just a minor development or two since I last researched the subject some forty years ago (in AA’s books, for the most part)!

Stop learning, stop living.

Andy

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

cwp3420 wrote:

I'm looking to get a quality polarizing filter for... (show quote)

I buy B&W filters, new or used and don't look back.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

rmalarz wrote:

Andy, I've transitioned to using B+W exclusively. ... (show quote)

Bob, what was the filter that you were talked out of buying?

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

alfeng wrote:

FWIW ... Meyer-Optik LENSES were in the second tier of German FILM lenses behind Leitz & Zeiss (and of course, Meyer-Optiik lenses are not as good as post-War 'Aus Jena' Zeiss-formulated lenses) ...

The 35 f/4.5 Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Primagon was one of the three lenses that came with my Exa 6 in the early ‘60s. Hasn’t been used since my initial Efke KB-14 test shots, but the image quality looks good. I’ll be running a roll of Velvia 50 through the camera before long, maybe I’ll try the lens again.

MauiMoto Loc: Hawaii

tinplater wrote:

The question, remains for me, are these CP's any different, any better, than the cheap versions? I am willing to spend for quality, but on the other hand would like to feel there is a measurable difference between a $20 CP and one that costs $150.

Then go with Hoya, if you don't mind spending more for the best.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

MauiMoto wrote:

Then go with Hoya, if you don't mind spending more for the best.

Thanks...but that really doesn't answer my question. Can you prove to me that the $150 is better than the $20? (I am not referring to build quality, number of coatings, thick or thinness....just results in terms of image comparison.) I have the feeling in a double blind contest, many would have a hard time discerning which image was taken with the expensive CP but again, I don't know that.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

cwp3420 wrote:

I'm looking to get a quality polarizing filter for... (show quote)

Don’t know of Meyer-Optik, but here’s a test for the “best”: https://www.techradar.com/how-to/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-circular-polarizer-filter-5-top-models-tested-and-rated-1320842

Hoya Pro-1 is top rated

MauiMoto Loc: Hawaii

No, I can't prove it but I have tossed a bunch of filters for one reason or another. Hard to use because you can't grip surfaces like grip ring, loose, wobbly in mount. Ghost image. Poor rendition.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

MauiMoto wrote:

No, I can't prove it but I have tossed a bunch of filters for one reason or another. Hard to use because you can't grip surfaces like grip ring, loose, wobbly in mount. Ghost image. Poor rendition.

Thanks...I'm the kind of cheapster that will spend $20 a couple of times before committing to a filter 10x that cost. By the way this little kitchen device is perfect for unscrewing those jammed filters (and I have had both cheapos and a Hoya and a B&W need this wrench...around $7.00 on Ebay or Amazon as I recall). 8 different diameters.

(Download)