Circular polariser.

Charzes44

Charzes44

Legend
Supporter
Location
Cambridgeshire, UK.
Name
Charles
Does anybody regularly/occasionally use a circular polarising filter? If so, what exactly are your thoughts on how, and on what subjects, would you use it, and what would the results be like. I am contemplating buying one, but at £126 for the best, (in my size), I need to know that it would be money well spent!
 
I have one that I've used only sparingly.
When photographing cars you can get the reflections in windows to disappear if you use it correctly.
My photos of cars might improve a tad if I used it more. I should probably dig it out and put it in front of a lens again.
I look at it as a tool in my tool box and am glad that it's there if needed.
If I were shooting a car for someone else I'd probably use it.
Me, I'm not all that picky about reflections so it stays in the bag.
 
I only use it if I know I’m going to have water in the frame, and it’s going to be a key element. I know you can get a little more pop out of any landscape when using it, just like when wearing polarized sunglasses, but given the limited use cases for me, and the fact that I try and have a suite of filters for all my different size lenses, CPLs are where I “cheap out”. I’d personally never spend that much on one, regardless of how big it is.
 
As well as managing reflections, you can use a polarising filter to darken skies and add contrast to images of cloud and sky. A polarising filter can add richness to an image, giving it a film-like or nostalgic appearance. One of our former moderators (Kyle) took really sumptuous outdoor pictures with an original Fuji bayer sensor X100, plus a polariser. That's one of the reasons I own an X100 now, although I haven't yet invested in a polariser.

Correct exposure with a polariser can be tricky, but with experiment and bracketing the results can be lovely.

-R
 
Last edited:
Please correct me if i am wrong, but I think that circular polarizers are not necessary for mirrorless cameras: linear polarizers will do just as well and are less expensive. Again I may be mistaken.
Edit: I take that back. Having googled, it appears things are more comlicated, and both focusing and exposure may be involved.
 
Last edited:
On sunny days outside, I pretty much just leave a CPL on my lenses. Mainly for the skies, but it darkens up reflections on everything. They can steal a couple of stops of light from you, so they're mainly a sunny-day thing.
 
I’m editing this because it looks like wrong about everything. I remember reading that circular polarizers aren’t as effective as linear polarizers. camprl1 pointed out that there shouldn’t be any difference. I did a quick bit of research and while there are differences in effectiveness it’s probably not related to circular vs. linear. I’ve never tried both.

The problems with autofocus (and exposure metering) is with slr’s which have focus points and meters behind a partial mirror. Modern mirrorless cameras probably don’t have this problem so a linear polarizer may not be needed.

I have no firsthand experience.

gecko said:
Please correct me if i am wrong, but I think that circular polarizers are not necessary for mirrorless cameras: linear polarizers will do just as well and are less expensive. Again I may be mistaken.
Edit: I take that back. Having googled, it appears things are more comlicated, and both focusing and exposure may be involved.
Click to expand...
With a linear polarizer phase detect autofocus won’t work. A circular polarizer isn’t as effective as a linear polarizer but is needed for most current autofocus systems. A purely contrast detect autofocus is fine with a linear polarizer, but they’re hard to find these days.
 
Last edited:
fredlong said:
With a linear polarizer phase detect autofocus won’t work. A circular polarizer isn’t as effective as a linear polarizer but is needed for most current autofocus systems. A purely contrast detect autofocus is fine with a linear polarizer, but they’re hard to find these days.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Didn't know that linear polarizers didn't work with phase detect AF. Good thing my one linear polarizer only fits one of my manual focus lenses! 😉

Edit to add: there shouldn't be any difference in their effectiveness since a circular polarizer is a linear polarizer with a quarter-wave plate added.
 
Last edited:
This thread got me curious so I dug my filter out of the bag.
DSC09435 (2).JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I know it wasn't a lot of money since I wasn't sure I'd need/want to use it very much. The front ring rotates once it's screwed on the lens. I got the 52mm so it'd fit my Nikkor lenses since they are the manual focus lenses I use most for shooting cars. I'm pretty sure it's a circular and not a linear polarizer but not entirely sure on that point. Thinking about this some, I may have come by this one when I bought one of my lenses, used of course.
 
Last edited:
I owe you all a bit of thanks. I just looked a little deeper into my bag and found this:
DSC09440 (2).JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I was thinking I'd need to buy another one to fit my Sony lenses, but it turns out I already have one!
Thanks again for peaking my curiosity on this subject.
 
It was delivered yesterday. I tried it this morning. I am not impressed! And it is a real faff putting it on, rotating it to see if there was any effect (mostly there wasn't), then taking it off again. My photography is about enjoying myself, simplicity and easy to use are an important part of that experience. It is now on its way back to Amazon. Why did I want it? When I photograph flowers, I find that the petals are highly reflective, and I thought that this filter would saturate the colours. I will stick with adjusting the exposure compensation dial!
See samples below:

With CPL filter first, without second!
IMG_5888.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
IMG_5889.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
IMG_5886.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
IMG_5887.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
gecko said:
Please correct me if i am wrong, but I think that circular polarizers are not necessary for mirrorless cameras: linear polarizers will do just as well and are less expensive. Again I may be mistaken.
Edit: I take that back. Having googled, it appears things are more comlicated, and both focusing and exposure may be involved.
Click to expand...
I've not experienced any issues using a linear polariser on my mirrorless systems, but I've never seen evidence of a significant difference in price. CPLs have more demand & economies of scale keep the price down.
Both focus & metering systems can be effected with DSLRs but it seems this is not always the case, some models will meter OK through a linear polariser.

One application I use polarisers for is to create a variable ND using two polarisers, for this a CPL will only work for the front polariser if turned around.

On top of the usual kill reflections & darken skies applications I also use polarisers to BOOST reflections, and to show stress patterns in clear plastic etc.

42371536051_e52989d84a_b.jpg
Stressed filter by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr


I don't think I've yet tried a polariser with rainbows, but they should be able to improve shots of them too.
 
Last edited:
Charzes44 said:
It was delivered yesterday. I tried it this morning. I am not impressed! And it is a real faff putting it on, rotating it to see if there was any effect (mostly there wasn't), then taking it off again. My photography is about enjoying myself, simplicity and easy to use are an important part of that experience. It is now on its way back to Amazon. Why did I want it? When I photograph flowers, I find that the petals are highly reflective, and I thought that this filter would saturate the colours. I will stick with adjusting the exposure compensation dial!
See samples below:

With CPL filter first, without second!
View attachment 486197View attachment 486198View attachment 486199View attachment 486200
Click to expand...
In all honesty, I don't think those are 'fair' shots to judge the polarizers effects by, Charles.
 
Here are examples of what a polarizer can do for you.
Without one:
DSC09458 (Large).JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

With one:
DSC09457 (Large).JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Note how you can see the hose for the pump down in the bottom of the bowl in the last shot, but the reflection in the first shot doesn't allow you to see it.
 
Which brands are recommended? I've been considering a CPL for awhile now because I mostly shoot in midday sun but so many brands. From what I've read stay away from the low end stuff like K&F and etc?
 
SOOC, a few minutes apart. You can see two things here. First, the dramatic change in contrast and auto-white balance from the polarization adjustment. Second, I didn't properly center the polarizer effect, so the sky is much darker on the left boundary in image #2.

P1100025-26.jpg


2nd image, after crop and adjustment for the sky gradient:

P1100026_01AP.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Similar threads

AndyMcD
    • Like
Filters K&F magnetic filters
Replies
1
Views
1K
agentlossing
agentlossing
AndyH44
  • Locked
  • Article Article
Completed For Sale: Hoya 58mm Circular Polarizer Filter - XLNT! | Location: USA | Ships: USA
Replies
0
Views
633
AndyH44
AndyH44
AndyH44
  • Locked
  • Article Article
Completed For Sale: Canon 52mm Circular Polarizer Filter | Location: USA | Ships: USA
Replies
2
Views
616
Kevin
Kevin
Back
Top