forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

This is the most informative post, to me as I have not seen some of this info, for example, about B+W, except that their nano coat is about repelling dirt, etc.

I am just starting with polarization, on the lens and on the lighting. I now have film for use with lighting and Nikon's original linear and CP filters to prefix various lenses along with the most costly recent such filter from B+W.

My first problem with this "coated or not" discussion is that the molecules that do the polar-centric work on the light moving into the lens would have to be deposited on a substrate (optical glass), so are CP filters coated, by definition??? So it seems, to me!

Problem #2 is about the extra glass of the filter. Nikon has emphasized its filters' flatness as essential, I think to avoid causing reflections. In general, we prefer less glass. Since we can make a filter with film on a mount in front of a lens or strobe, would this be better than a glass approach? I'm set up to start doing a number of controlled comparisons.

hcmcdole

It sounds as though you have some doubts on the newest advances in polarizer filters and are about to test the newest filters against older ones?

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

...sounds as though you have some doubts on the newest advances...

Curiosity, not doubts. And a scientist's disposition to experiment and get to the next level of continuous improvement...
Actually, I was hoping for content references to amplify on the replied-to remarks; maybe you have some favorite resources.

Experiments? Like image on polarizing film versus image on filter; filter versus filter; cross-polarization (See Hunter if you need to.) or not; and so on. Just like the everyday comparisons among lenses, hoods, and lighting that I do for my modest commercial-production work.

You are probably aware that some of Nikon's older products have not been surpassed, the 1966 55mm f/3.5 Auto being a case in point, wrt resolution -- see Sato at nikkor.com. Other examples are the D lenses still sold on Nikon.com.

BTW, if you can contribute usefully on this topic, this is the place to do it.

Leitz Loc: Solms

While such experimentation has much entertainment value, you are unlikely to discover anything that is not already well known.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

You are probably aware that some of Nikon's older products have not been surpassed, the 1966 55mm f/3.5 Auto being a case in point,

************************************************************************************************
Is that the manual - macro (Micro) lens?

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

My Hasselblad CPL filter only needs 1 stop difference in exposure. Most other makes need 2 to 2½ stops.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

I would not argue with the designers at Nikon.

Well, it would just have to be manual in 1966, although I have the later AF. Check out live view some time; you'll discover you can focus more accurately using manual in live view than with, say, my D810's autofocus.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

Yes, unlikely but I never thought about entertainment or discovery. You and I are just not on the same page.
Since I'm new to photography, my experiments are about learning which tools and procedures work, by reading, doing, and observing -- and less than about discovery. Maybe I should have said trials, instead of experiments.

For scientific discovery, I continue to build out a software patent portfolio.
PM me and I'll give you a number of a patent awarded to me, for you to look at, an experiment that worked.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

CPLs are so useful for darkening a blue sky for cloud contrast or even in a cloudless sky and for limiting reflected light in certain situations (with water, glass, vegetation, etc.) that I usually regret leaving them home when shooting scenes, indoors or out. For moving subjects I remove them due to the loss in light (shutter speed) and occasional increase in auto-focus time, and as was mentioned, where composition is more important than IQ. But to stay on point, do not skimp--get a higher quality multi-coated filter. My experience is that a cheap, barely coated filter will basically ruin most shots taken in challenging situations due to glare, loss of contrast, and even decreased sharpness. Use shots that include the sun or other bright point light sources in your comparison tests. The reflections between lens and filter will immediately show why the expense of quality, multi-coating is well worth it.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Now you're talking, that's the best way to learn!

lowkick Loc: Connecticut

To all who replied to my question, thank you for your responses and your knowledge. One of the things I love about UHH is that, not only do I get an answer to a question, I get a number of different points of view and the benefit of the knowledge of multiple people. It's much better than Googling!