Linear and Circular Polarizer

mporter012 · Jan 17, 2013

If I'm using a fully manual camera, I want a linear, not circular polarizer correct? The circular is designed for autofocus lenses?

Thanks -

Mark

MattKing · Jan 17, 2013

Nope, it is not that simple.

Circular polarizers are necessary for cameras that include beam splitters in the optical path. Some of the metering systems also use beam splitters.

Pinholemaster · Jan 17, 2013

I used circular polarizer filter long before auto-focus as invented.

mporter012 · Jan 17, 2013

Ok. I'm looking for a polarizer for my Nikon FE2.

nyoung · Jan 18, 2013

Switched to all circular polarizers a couple of years ago because they work on everything - manual, AF, AE. Can't say I miss the old linear jobs.

jochen · Jan 18, 2013

Hello,
if you want to use the polarizing filter only with your FE-2 (or F-3, FM-2, F-2, FA, FE, FM, FM-3 A) you only need a linear filter since these cameras do not have polarizing elements in the light measuring system like Leicaflexes or AF cameras.

Steve Smith · Jan 18, 2013

MattKing said:
Nope, it is not that simple.

It's very simple for the OP. You can use either!

Steve.

Shawn Dougherty · Jan 18, 2013

Pentax Digital Spot Meter

What would be the proper polarizer to use when metering through it with a Pentax Digital Spot Meter?

bsdunek · Jan 18, 2013

In my experience, linear polarizers have a stronger effect than circular. As I have old cameras, I just use linear.

Jim Rice · Jan 18, 2013

I have found circular polarizers to be much too subtle in effect for my tastes. Even though it will require an hand-held meter once I quit shoveling money into the darkroom, I will be picking up a linear.

Steve Smith · Jan 19, 2013

I'm not sure about circular being more subtle. The first part of a circular polariser is an ordinary linear polariser. The extra bit is a layer which randomly rotates the already polarised light.

Steve.

George Collier · Jan 19, 2013

I have heard (read in these forums) before that linear polarisers are more dramatic, or pronounced, in their effect.
I see two disagreeing posts in this thread on this, although neither one seems certain.
All of mine are linear, but I may in the future have a camera that needs a circular one. Does anyone know for sure?

Steve Smith · Jan 19, 2013

I can't see how the polarising part of a circular polariser can be any less effective than a standard linear polariser (because that's what it is). However, it might be possible that the re-circulificating* bit is somehow reducing the contrast a slightly making people think it's less effective at polarising.

(* I can't think of the right word).

Steve.

Jeff Kubach · Jan 19, 2013

I use a linear on my RB67.

Jeff

cliveh · Jan 19, 2013

I am a little confused with this thread. Am I correct in thinking that the circular polarising filter is merely two linear polarising filters mounted together, where one rotates?

Steve Smith · Jan 19, 2013

No. It's a single linear polariser with another layer which puts the light back in a random orientation so cameras with lightmeters and/or AF which use polarisers internally will still work.

Steve.

AgX · Jan 19, 2013

which puts the light back in a random orientation

No, but circular polarisation mean a steady uniform variation of polarisation. "Random orientation" is what characterises un-polarized light.

bsdunek · Jan 19, 2013

Steve Smith said:
I can't see how the polarising part of a circular polariser can be any less effective than a standard linear polariser (because that's what it is). However, it might be possible that the re-circulificating* bit is somehow reducing the contrast a slightly making people think it's less effective at polarising.

(* I can't think of the right word).

Steve.

You may have hit it. It could be the contrast difference.

Jim Rice · Jan 21, 2013

All I can tell is from my experience. I had a B+W linear which was easy to see the effects of on the viewing screen and in the transparencies. I recently acquired a Contax circular the effect of which is much more subtle (to the point that I can usually not find the correct angle using the finder.) Perhaps my linear was great (it was) and the Contax is a dud.

sbuczkowski · Jan 30, 2013

RE #15: No. A circular polarizer is a linear polarizer followed by a 1/4-wave retarder plate. The linear polarizer does the polarizing (really it just selectively admits light with a polarization axis aligned with the polarizer and rejects anything else. it doesn't create any polarization). The light after this part is linearly polarized and it is this that can cause problems with meters and AF systems. So, the circ. polarizer puts the 1/4 retarder next which turns the linear polarized light into circularly polarized light which doesn't cause problems in metering and AF.

steven

Soeren · May 22, 2013

Reviving this thread for a dilema question.
Im buying into the Lee system planing to use it for all my formats from 35mm to 13X18cm, manual focus as well as auto focus in 35mm.
Logic says Cirkular but wallet says Linear.
So if using a tripod anyway will you consider the extra work in metering/setting aperture and shutterspeed and focussing to much of an extra hazle when using a Nikon F100?
Best regards

AgX · May 22, 2013

In your case I see hardly a benefit of a circular polarizer, and no at all when you are metering handheld.

Linear and Circular Polarizer

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency