Polarizer Help!

zpierce

Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
672
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Real Name
Zach
Can someone recommend a decent polarizer that doesn't cost a fortune? I want a 62mm for my 14-140. I've spent all night reading customer reviews on various models and have no idea what to choose. Seems like one should look for multi-coated? Or is that only if you're really picky? Seems like every model gets some raves and some complaints about flare or what have you.

I had a cheaper one for my 52mm lenses and I never figured out how to use it to good effect, maybe it was just the filter, but I had trouble seeing much difference through the viewfinder to adjust it properly and the few pics I recently tried had very uneven blue skies. Is this a normal issue or do I just need some practice or better equipment? Any advice would be much appreciated!

Thanks,
Zach
 

Pan Korop

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
479
Location
Phare Ouest
Wide angle + polarizer will often give uneven sky density, so it seems normal assuming the filter is clean.
An old (linear) non multicoated or even uncoated can be quite good IF you use a lens hood: on a scenery, max polarization occurs when the sun hits the lens sideways which is when the hood is most helpful.
 

shoturtle

 
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
823
You get what you pay for. B+W is one of the best out there. But if you are looking to save go with a hoya digital pro or a hmc.
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
Multi-coated is an absolute must. Glass is quite reflective without the coatings, and the difference in light transmission can be HUGE.

Linear will be fine with the CDAF of our cameras, and usually cheaper,but harder to find.
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
Yeah, PDAF doesn't work through them, so pretty much rules linear polarizers out for the entire DSLR world
 

docfox

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Hatfield, PA
inexpensive 62mm polarizer

Dear Zach,

Take a look at Tiger Direct - they advertise item YYI1-GB1637 for $9.99 - it is a 62mm circular polarizer by Vivitar (Sakar manufactured). They seem to have some good prices on (select sizes and types) of filters as well as memory cards. I recently bought two 52mm multicoated glass filters from them (same brand), a UV for $3.99 and a circular polarizer for $6.99. These seem to be of very nice quality and I have no idea how they can sell them so cheaply.


Good luck,

George
 

shoturtle

 
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
823
They are made in china, with lower quality glass. They work like most of the ebay ones.
 

Ulfric M Douglas

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
3,709
Location
Northumberland
I must have got lucky with my two e-bay CPL purcheases ... one's a Hoya and one's a 'DOI',Japan. both work great and for £3 each I'm happy. (Just 52 & 55mm, not big)
 

pjohngren

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
560
It doesn't have to be a circular polarizer. This is not phase detection on the autofocus but contrast detection. It can be a linear polarizar. You get a much better linear polarizer for the same price as a circular polarizer. I have a 52mm and a 46mm Linear Pol and they work very well - in fact better than the circulars in that they don't alter the color. I always hated polarizers because they made the greens look weird to me - unnatural. Not so with the linears.
 

tomas

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
73
Location
Western New York State
I use B+H UV MC and Polarizing filters exclusively. B+H filters are the way to go. With any Hoya or Tiffin filter I've ever used I've always experienced some loss of sharpness. You get what you pay for
 

ksn

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
266
Sorry to bump an old thread, but is a Polarizer on minimum close enough to the original that it can be left on permanently?

Edit: Just realized minimum isn't even close to "off" on most of the filters. Is there any reason not to leave one on permanently except when you need glare for some reason?
 

SMaturin

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
243
Location
New York's Backyard
Is there any reason not to leave one on permanently except when you need glare for some reason?
1. They will reduce light transmission some, thus making your lens a little slower for given ambient light. Not a problem in broad daylight, but likely an issue in less well-lit circumstances. I have never seen one that wasn't a bit darker than a standard UV/skylight filter, and some are quite dark.

2. They usually cost much more than a UV filter, if what you want to do is protect the front of the lens. Good multicoated polarizers are not cheap, so why use it as a lens protector?

3. There may be some surprising inadvertent effects, such as darkening the safety glass of cars, or polarized sunglasses, or other forms of polarized glass. Use this creatively, rather than by accident.
 

ksn

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
266
2. They usually cost much more than a UV filter, if what you want to do is protect the front of the lens. Good multicoated polarizers are not cheap, so why use it as a lens protector?
Thanks, I wanted to get a UV filter for my 14-140mm because it wasn't a cheap lens, but I would like to get a polarizer to play around with. I've been doing some reading, but haven't actually used one before. I just thought that maybe if I spent a bit more on a polarizer, I wouldn't need the UV filter at all. There's a B+W Linear Polarizer on ebay for $42, which doesn't seem too bad at all.
 

SMaturin

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
243
Location
New York's Backyard
How would that compare to something like this? B&W 62mm TOP LINEAR POLARIZER Filter 62 mm Pol 65075291 | eBay

A few people earlier mentioned that Linear polarizers should be just fine with MFTs.
I have not looked in detail at the various models, but B&W tends to have the highest reputation and highest cost. Check out the article on polarizers referenced earlier in the thread. Very scientific study about polarizer filters done in Poland. Maybe some of those models are available here today, as well.

Yes, a linear polarizer is just fine with the m43 cameras, and likely cheaper than a circular polarizer. CPols are required for DSLR cameras, which use a different method for achieving autofocus (phase detection, vs contrast detection in mirrorless m43 cameras), where linear polarization will interfere. Complex physics that I only sort of understand. But that article may shed some light.


-Steve
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom