Circular Polarizer Filter Suggestions

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by snegron, Jun 1, 2013.

  1. snegron

    snegron Mu-43 Regular

    May 9, 2013
    SW Florida
    I'm looking into getting a circular polarizer filter for my 14-42 kit lens and 45-150 lens. Both have a filter thread size of 52mm, so I will be using the filter on both lenses when needed.

    I'm looking into the following:

    - B+W Kaesemann Slim Ciricular Polaraizer
    - B+W Circular Polarizar Slim MRC
    - B+W Circular Polarizer MRC
    - Hoya Circular Polarizer High Density

    Any comments on the above list or suggestions on other alternatives?
  2. gs94121

    gs94121 Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 6, 2011
    I liked Marumi DHG Super Circular PL.D (aka circular polarizer) for my OM-D.
  3. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 9, 2011
    If you want to save a few bucks, you don't require a circular polarizer for m4/3...a linear polarizer will suffice.
  4. atmo

    atmo Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 11, 2013
    It can be hard to find linear polarizers though.
  5. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    I use the 52mm B+W MRC C-pol on my Nokton 25mm and have found it excellent.
  6. snegron

    snegron Mu-43 Regular

    May 9, 2013
    SW Florida
    Interesting! I remember reading somewhere that linear polarizers were not suitable for digital sensors.
  7. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 6, 2012
    Digital sensors with "mirrors". Does not apply to mirrorless cameras. Though I'm not too sure about SLTs.
  8. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    My understanding is that it has nothing to do with digital sensors. They're unsuitable for cameras with a beam-splitting AF set-up. DSLR's have this, mirrorless cameras don't.
  9. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada

    Agreed. Linear polarizers are not only cheaper but also stronger than circular. Even on a DSLR I would prefer to use Linear (there's nothing wrong with manual focus, and I don't use polarizers on hurried shots) but the problem is that the manufacturers and retailers fell into the whole trap of supporting only PDAF users because AF is apparently essential and at the time DSLRs were king. So they either stopped manufacturing linear or stopped making them available. That is the ONLY thing that has kept me using circular, is the fact that it's all I can find in the stores. I really don't care about AF compatibility when using a polarizer (something I only use on unhurried shots). I cared little for it as a DSLR user, and now it's completely moot with CDAF!

    I really hope the manufacturers and retailers start waking up to the fact that the camera world has expanded so much that there is a huge market of users who don't even have PDAF, nevermind the market that had already existed of users who care more about the effectiveness of their polarizer than its compatibility with AF. Then maybe they'll start making Linear Polarizers more actively available so we can get the best out of our polarizers without crippling them just to cater to AF on DSLRs.

    Yes, exactly. The purpose of the switch from Linear to Circular only had to do with AF compatibility on DSLRs, and nothing else. Other than PDAF compatibility, Linear polarizers are more effective.
  10. snegron

    snegron Mu-43 Regular

    May 9, 2013
    SW Florida
    I ended up ordering the B+W MC Kaesemann Circular Polarizer. I just got it in the mail today.

    I found something a bit confusing. The box says Digital MRC F-Pro. There is a sticker on the box that reads 52 MRC KSM POL Circular. The writing on the filter ring itself reads "B+W 52 KSM C-Pol MRC". The filter ring is black in color (not silver like they advertise for the digital filters).

    Is it possible that the box has nothing to do with the actual filter? I remember seeing the "digital" version on B&H but decided to go with this one instead. The digital/non-Kaesemann version was about $30.00 less than this one.

    Did I receive the right filter? Is the box simply a standard box? Is there any other way to tell if my filter is truly a Kaesemann other the the "KSM" printed on the front of the lens ring?
  11. rogergu

    rogergu Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 11, 2013
    Have been using Hoya HD2, so far so good, really slim.
  12. beanedsprout

    beanedsprout Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 13, 2013
    north central Ohio
    Jesus I can't see spending $130 on a filter. Maybe a new camera body? lol. My craptastic Chinese-made no-name CPL that I paid $20 for works pretty well for getting a nice blue sky and killing reflections. What's the big deal, otherwise, besides possible better optical clarity?
  13. snegron

    snegron Mu-43 Regular

    May 9, 2013
    SW Florida
    It was only $89.95 and the manufacturer promised it had magical powers that would make me a better photographer! :biggrin:

    The only reason I went with the Kaesemann version was because I really do need the best sealing possible (I live in Florida; probably one of the most humid places in the U.S.). I also plan to use it extensively on several other lenses (Nikkors both manual and auto focus) of the same diameter. :smile:
  14. hazwing

    hazwing Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 25, 2012
    Besides price, is there any other advantage to linear polarisers?

    Yep people pay a lot of money for better optical quality. Cheap filters have been associated with reduced sharpness, possible increase flare and vignetting. If these aren't issues (or if you don't notice these issues), then sure... go for the cheap filter. Personally, I'm happy with something mid-range.
  15. the_traveler

    the_traveler Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 12, 2011
    Columbia, MD
    Lew Lorton
    I always use a lens hood in 12-35 and 35-100 Panasonic and want to avoid filters that will interfere with mounting bayonet lens hood.

    Any ideas?
  16. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
  17. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    If its a bayonette hood, I'd imagine most filters wouldn't interfere unless they were really thick or something. Maybe clearance issues between the filter and the hood?
  18. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

  19. dwig

    dwig Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 26, 2010
    Key West FL
    Its not only AF but also metering that rely on beam splitters or semi-silvered mirrors in the common SLR, digital or film. You'll affect both if you use a conventional "linear" polarizer.

    Linear polarizers are generally more effective and more neutral color than circular polarizers. It is difficult (read: expensive) to get really neutral transmission with circular polarizers.
  20. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    The thing I ran into was that many linear polarizers were not multi-coated, and the ones that were, were just as expensive as the circular polarizers.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.