[Old] style polarizing filter

[Tobywan]

I have a series Vl polarizing filter that I would like to use on non-slr cameras. I seem to remember that you turn the pointer to point toward the sun but am not entirely sure. Does anyone here use or remember using them?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a series Vl polarizing filter that I would like to use on non-slr cameras. I seem to remember that you turn the pointer to point toward the sun but am not entirely sure. Does anyone here use or remember using them?

Point the filter at the subject, and rotate the front part until you see the effect you want. Then keep the two parts together without changing the position between them and put the filter on the camera. You may need some more exposure.

 

[xkaes]

The pointer is merely a reference point so that you can set the filter where you want it. You can determine this with the filter on the lens -- or just in front of your eye looking in the same direction that the camera is set. Rotate the filter until you get the effect you want. In many instances there won't be any change at all. In that case, you don't need to use it. If you find an effect you like, just make sure the pointer is in the same spot/angle when it is on the lens. I think off it as a clock face -- "Set the pointer at 1:45", for example.

The amount of exposure change depends on how much glare reduction there is -- usually around 1-1.5 f-stops.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I think that is not reliable. You need to hold the filter up to your eye and spin it until you see the degree of polarizing that you like. Remember the angle of the pointer. Then mount on the lens and set the pointer ar the same angle. It will be approximate but will work.

 

[John Wiegerink]

For me, the best, easier and most accurate way to use a polarizer on a non-SLR cameras was to use two identical polarizers. This is what I learned when I still had my Fuji GW690II and wanted to use a polarizer. You take the two polarizers outside on a sunny day and look through and turn one at a scene where it darkens the sky or takes the glare off water/glass/chrome. Now take pink or some bright colored fingernail polish and make one dot on the top of both polarizing filters moveable front ring part of that polarizer. That dot is now your reference point. A quarter way around you make two dots. Halfway around you make three dots. Three-quarters way around you make four dots. Now just take the second one and put dots two, three and four where they match the first filter. Now all you have to do is slap the one filter on your camera and stick the other in your pocket. When you get to where you want to shoot a picture and need the polarizer just take the one from your pocket from the scene, turn the polarizer for the amount of polarization you want and look at which dot is up or near up. now set the one on your camera exactly like the pocket filter and shoot away. This makes shooting faster, simpler and far more accurate. Yes, it cost you an extra polarizing filter, but to me that extra cost was well worth it.

 

[Tobywan]

Thanks!

 

[George Collier]

Some clarity (for me), please. My understanding about how polarizers work is that there are 2 pieces of glass, with "lines" or some treatment that controls light passage, or something like that, owing to the rotational relationship between the two pieces. The proper position for the rotating ring (with the dot) is as you say, but isn't the effectiveness of the filter also dependent upon the position of the other (rear) ring, which would be determined only by screwing the filter onto the lens threads? In other words, if you hand-hold to view, then mount the filter onto the lens, how do you know that the position of the rear ring, when bottomed out on the thread, is the same as when you held up the filter to your eye?
I use Leica M's, and they make a contraption (which I have) that mounts to the lens, then rotates back at 180˚ to place the filter in front of the viewfinder. When you find the sweet spot, you rotate back to in front of the lens (implying that a 180 position is the same) to shoot. Why this trouble if the position of the rear piece doesn't matter?

 

[brbo]

The proper position for the rotating ring (with the dot) is as you say, but isn't the effectiveness of the filter also dependent upon the position of the other (rear) ring, which would be determined only by screwing the filter onto the lens threads?

No.

 

[eli griggs]

I have a series Vl polarizing filter that I would like to use on non-slr cameras. I seem to remember that you turn the pointer to point toward the sun but am not entirely sure. Does anyone here use or remember using them?

Make a thin but visible scribe line on the unmarked filter ring, this is your top.


Holding the filter, scribed side up always vertical, rotate the filter's original dotted ring until you have it where you want it, scribed side still held vertical.

Note the postion of the two marks, and I suggest, place a small piece of 'tack' putty, yellow or blue across both rings, to hole the newly arrived at position, in place.

Keeping the filter rings stable, screw into you lens filter threads, until you have the scribed mark, as close to the top of the lens as possible, which, might require some filter looseness.

If you like, use another small piece of tack putty to avoid the filter from moving in the lens threads.

This seems to me to be the cleanest, clearest way to preposition the polarizer's rings and fit the adjusted setting to the lens, without any fuss.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,
Eli

 

[r_a_feldman]

Some clarity (for me), please. My understanding about how polarizers work is that there are 2 pieces of glass, with "lines" or some treatment that controls light passage, or something like that, owing to the rotational relationship between the two pieces. The proper position for the rotating ring (with the dot) is as you say, but isn't the effectiveness of the filter also dependent upon the position of the other (rear) ring, which would be determined only by screwing the filter onto the lens threads? In other words, if you hand-hold to view, then mount the filter onto the lens, how do you know that the position of the rear ring, when bottomed out on the thread, is the same as when you held up the filter to your eye?
I use Leica M's, and they make a contraption (which I have) that mounts to the lens, then rotates back at 180˚ to place the filter in front of the viewfinder. When you find the sweet spot, you rotate back to in front of the lens (implying that a 180 position is the same) to shoot. Why this trouble if the position of the rear piece doesn't matter?

A polarizer has only one element. You rotate it so it either lines with or against the polarization of the light incident on the camera, depending on the effect you want. If you use two polarizing elements together, you have in effect a "variable neutral density filter": the two polarizers will block more light when aligned at right angles. I also have a variable Red-Yellow filter that uses a polarizer and a polarized red-yellow combination filter. Rotating the polarizing element blocks different amounts of the red or yellow light.

 

[eli griggs]

There are two types of polarizers.

One is a single element, the second is two elements.

I am speaking to the two element filter, which I prefer and have the most of.

Its also possible to easily find the vertical point/apex with a single element polarizer.

Simply rotate the filter before your eye and once it's found, note the top of the filter, keeping it aligned at 0° and, postion a snug rubber band or an "O" ring, with a narrow, but clear marking in the vertical.

Again, screw the filter in as far as it'll go, with the marked vertical in it's found position and, tack filter to the lens as before.

One thing to keep an eye on, is if the front barrel of the lens, which the filter is attached, rotates when focused.

This is for BOTH TYPES, which will require a repositioning, on the barrel, in the final vertically presentation, when focused.

Tack putty is still a great option to hold them ngs put.

IMO

PS: An "O" ring can be cut with a sharp razor, have it's excess of what is needed for a snug fit on the filter ring and the parted ends simply super glued back together

 

[Sirius Glass]

There are two types of polarizers.

One is a single element, the second is two elements.

I am speaking to the two element filter, which I prefer and have the most of.

Its also possible to easily find the vertical point/apex with a single element polarizer.

Simply rotate the filter before your eye and once it's found, note the top of the filter, keeping it aligned at 0° and, postion a snug rubber band or an "O" ring, with a narrow, but clear marking in the vertical.

Again, screw the filter in as far as it'll go, with the marked vertical in it's found position and, tack filter to the lens as before.

One thing to keep an eye on, is if the front barrel of the lens, which the filter is attached, rotates when focused.

This is for BOTH TYPES, which will require a repositioning, on the barrel, in the final vertically presentation, when focused.

Tack putty is still a great option to hold them ngs put.

IMO

PS: An "O" ring can be cut with a sharp razor, have it's excess of what is needed for a snug fit on the filter ring and the parted ends simply super glued back together

Single element polarizers are not very effective compared to the two element ones.

 

[xkaes]

Single element polarizers are not very effective compared to the two element ones.

Thanks for that great explanation.

 

[r_a_feldman]

There are two types of polarizers.

One is a single element, the second is two elements.

I am speaking to the two element filter, which I prefer and have the most of.
...

I was referring to linear polarizers (with a single polarizing element), not circular polarizers (which combine a linear polarizer with a quarter-wave plate). I believe that the OP was also referring to a linear polarizer. In both cases there is only one rotating part, which is what I called the "element".

In my understanding, if you are shooting film with a manual focus camera, a simple linear polarizer is fine. If you have an autofocus film camera or a digital camera, then you need a circular polarizer.

To use a polarizer on a non-SLR, as a number of posters have explained, simply look through the filter with it off the camera, rotate it around its axis to get the effect you want, noting its orientation, then put it on the camera in the same orientation.

The only times in my experience where you have two separately rotating glass elements is with variable ND filters and variable color filters, such as my red-to-yellow filter.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I was referring to linear polarizers (with a single polarizing element), not circular polarizers (which combine a linear polarizer with a quarter-wave plate). I believe that the OP was also referring to a linear polarizer. In both cases there is only one rotating part, which is what I called the "element".

In my understanding, if you are shooting film with a manual focus camera, a simple linear polarizer is fine. If you have an autofocus film camera or a digital camera, then you need a circular polarizer.

To use a polarizer on a non-SLR, as a number of posters have explained, simply look through the filter with it off the camera, rotate it around its axis to get the effect you want, noting its orientation, then put it on the camera in the same orientation.

The only times in my experience where you have two separately rotating glass elements is with variable ND filters and variable color filters, such as my red-to-yellow filter.

Excellent description. I was wondering what this two-element discussion was all about. Note that linear polarizers work well on mirrorless digital cameras.

 

[xkaes]

Yes, a great description. I'll just add that linear polarizers work perfectly well on any camera as long as you are not using a camera feature that can get messed up with a linear polarizer, such as auto-focusing, as mentioned.

 

[Helge]

Anyone know if there is any qualitative difference between a circ and and linear pol filter?

Reason would tell to you that the quarterwave plate would introduce some light loss and diffusion.
But I heard many people insist that that isn’t the case.

Is that just people who are forced to use a circular pol filter? Or is it true?

BTW up can get a very nice blue/warm regulating function by stacking a linear and circular pol filter.
It will allow you to control the warmth of certain parts of the scene selectively as well as polarizing them.
A bit fiddly to fine tune, but gives a fantastic effect.
I have little idea how it works, but it does work.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, you need a circular polarizer if your camera makes use of a beam splitter to either assist with focus, or meter the light. That includes a number of manual focus SLRs.

 

[xkaes]

But you can use a linear polarizer if you aren't using those features -- manual focusing, manual metering, etc. People should not be misled into thinking that linear polarizers will not work on those cameras. They will if the features that they are incompatible with are not used / turned off.