Polarizer for the M9

[Beyder28]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So I have been contemplating on buying a polarizer adapter with the filters that it comes with. Its not cheap and just wanted to get people's opinions on weather or not it is worth it (for the M9) and if anyone has experience using it? Any other relevant info would be greatly appreciated.

[sm23221]

The Leica polarizer only comes with 1 filter and 2 adapters. Note that it will not fit all Leica lenses especially with the larger filter sizes (55mm and >). I use it mostly with my 'cron 50 and find it to be a very useful accessory.

[Beyder28]

Thanks. Any advice on properly using it?

[lars_bergquist]

I sold my Universal Polariser because it is too clumsy. I use standard E39 and E46 filters. I prefer to use the B+W Käsemann filters, as they are of superb quality.

 

To use the filters, the rotating ring has to be marked with the direction of polarisation. This is simple. I direct the filter (no camera!) at a flat reflecting surface, e.g. a pane of glass. The filter should be at an angle of about 30° from the plane of the surface, for a maximum reflection. Turn the filter until the reflection is at a minimum. Now mark the rim – a silver-colour felt-tip pen works well and the dye can be applied to the knurling – so that the mark is at a 90° angle to the reflecting plane. To make this clear, if you use a vertical window pane, put the mark at 9 or 3 o'clock, if it is a calm water surface, us 12 or 6 o'clock.

 

You can now check reflections around you to get the hang of the use of the filter. For reflections, remember the simple rule: Mark at 90° to the reflecting surface. To darken a blue sky, point the mark in the direction of the sun. If I am in a hurry, I just use those rules with excellent results. If in doubt, it is easy to make a visual check through the filter before mounting it, and then turn the rin to the position that gave the best result.

 

If there is much blue sky in the picture, expose manually and a little on the underexposure side. Else, auto exposure will try to compensate for the darker sky by increasing exposure, diminishing the effect.

 

The old man who does it by eye

[doug_m]

I have what Mike and Lars both use. The set up Lars uses is what I use now as the universal polarizer is too bulky etc.

 

Since I usually use the polarizer in situations where there is not a " decisive moment" issue, I just shoot bunches of shots on auto as I turn the ring through a 360 degree rotation and tend to think that the shot with the slowest exposure is the most polarized. The method used by Lars may be better, and he probably knows more about this than I,but this is what I do.

 

Good luck.

[jaapv]

I like and use the universal polarizer and find it a practical accessory. The only modification I did was put a loop on the back of the case so I could clip it onto the strap of my camera bag for easy access.

[rattey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the Leica version and the one made by professional filter manufacturer Lee Filters. I prefer the Lee one. The Lee filters polariser slots into the RF75 filter holder which can also take graduated ND filters. The Lee one will fit filter diameters up to E67 so it will almost all M series lenses (not the new 21 and 24 Summilux). I have used it on my 90mm Apo Summicron to great effect. You view the scene through the filter off camera and then slot it into the holder (only fits one way). I find it easier to use and the system is more flexible. Also if you are working in a nasty environment it allows you to easily leave the UVa filter on. The holder allows you to use two filters at once for effects etc. Check it out before buying the Leica one - I could always sell you my mint unused one !!!

[Beyder28]

So it seems not to be worth it for the price. Does anyone see a difference in the image quality that Leica glass would produce with a Lee or another filter on rather than a Leica one?

[lars_bergquist]

A reputable maker's polariser (b+w and Hoya are the brands I have experience of) will be of the same quality as the Leica filter – which Leica obtains from a different company in an case, probably Schneider = b+w.

 

The old man from the Age of Polarisation

[rattey]

I have seen no difference between the Lee and the Leica polarisers. The Lee is slightly cheaper but very much more flexible solution. Lee make filters that are used world wide with medium and large format cameras so you have nothing to loose other than paranoia. Alternatively buy the Leica one used on eBay for ca. £250 and live with its restrictions and huge size in the case !

[Beyder28]

A reputable maker's polariser (b+w and Hoya are the brands I have experience of) will be of the same quality as the Leica filter – which Leica obtains from a different company in an case, probably Schneider = b+w.

 

The old man from the Age of Polarisation

 

Thanks for the insight. I have a Hoya UV filter for my X1 and am fine with it. A polarizing filter would be different because of the way it works. Is there one from Hoya that you recommend that would work well with the M9? I am not sure if I would need a circular one or a linear. Most of my lenses are 39mm. Thanks again for the advice.

[andalus]

Buy a B&W linear pol for your lens and use the metering in the viewfinder to determine what position the pol should be in for the shot you are aiming at and want. Works for me. I keep the pol on all the time, and it protects the lens, too. better than a u va...

[jaapv]

So it seems not to be worth it for the price. Does anyone see a difference in the image quality that Leica glass would produce with a Lee or another filter on rather than a Leica one?

 

No you will not see any image quality difference whatever filter you use as long as it is one of the top brands. It is all about ergonomics and preferences.

[Robert_M]

I use the previous generation Leica swing out polarizer which was intended for E39 filter lens sizes. Search the Wiki for the exact code numbers and a description. It is more compact than the current universal polarizer, and has a nicer hood. It is really for E39 lens size only. Even works with my summicron-c 40mm with the adapter they put out at the time (yes mine is decades old). They are also much less expensive on the used market than the current one (when they pop up). For other lens sizes, I've used Hoya or similar dedicated sizes and used my "intelligence" to guess the correct polarization angle. For my MATE, Leica put out a special adapter which allowed one to use a big polarizer and see through some cutouts in the lens overflow to judge angles. Works fine. Anyway, there are many ways to solve the problem and it is worthwhile to try one. Polarizers are generally the only filter I use (and only when appropriate).

 

RM

[lars_bergquist]

Thanks for the insight. I have a Hoya UV filter for my X1 and am fine with it. A polarizing filter would be different because of the way it works. Is there one from Hoya that you recommend that would work well with the M9? I am not sure if I would need a circular one or a linear. Most of my lenses are 39mm. Thanks again for the advice.

 

Cicular polarisers are for SLR cameras that measure light through a semi-silvered central spot on the main mirror. Such a semi-mirroring does in itself polarise light, so with a standard, linear polariser on the lens you would in effect stack two polarisers. If their directions of polarisation cross, this can play havoc with exposure by attenuating the light that reaches the meter cell; this of course leads to over-exposure as the shutter compensates for the presumed drop in light intensity. Therefore circular polarisers have a 'light scrambler' behind the actual polarising layer, which de-polarises the light again (un-polarised light is often referred to as 'circularly polarised').

 

M cameras and other mirrorless cameras do not have this mirror arrangement, so a good linear polariser works just as well, but is less expensive. Some people believe however that circular polarisers are somehow intrinsically superior to the linear kind. This is not so, but dealers are of course happy to sell a more expensive filter, so only pathologically honest salespersons do enlight the customer. But as I said before, any good filter is OK. If the filter comes marked with the direction, check that the mark is applied in the direction I advised in a previous posting. Some do perversely mark them at 90° from that direction!

 

The polarised old man

[hydeca]

The Leica polarizer only comes with 1 filter and 2 adapters. Note that it will not fit all Leica lenses especially with the larger filter sizes (55mm and >). I use it mostly with my 'cron 50 and find it to be a very useful accessory.

 

The filter comes with adapters for E39 and E46 lenses; an adapter is also available for E49 lenses, and another one specifically for 3,4/135 and 2/75 lenses.

[kokoshawnuff]

I've done what Lars suggested after reading his previous threads, and purchased a couple $60 linear B+W Kaesemann polarizers—so far very effective and $440 cheaper than the Leica Universal Polarizer

[01af]

M cameras [...] do not have this mirror arrangement, so a good linear polariser works just as well ...

We had this topic so many times in the recent months, and I really cannot understand just why some persons feel compelled to repeat this allegation over and over. It simply isn't true ... at least not for the digital M models.

 

Not only semi-silvered mirrors but any reflecting surface (except when it's metal) will polarise the light. The Leica M cameras with TTL metering (except M5) measure the light that gets reflected off the shutter curtain. So the light hitting the metering cell is polarised, and a linear polariser can—and, at times, will—interfere with this internal polarisation, leading to unexpected over-exposure.

 

Fortunately, the shutter curtain's surface is rather matte so the light bouncing off will be fairly diffuse. So the cross-polarising effect won't be very strong; the resulting exposure error usually will be approx. half an f-stop or less. That's not very much. And because some people cannot tell a proper exposure from 1/2 EV over, or don't care, they support the myth that linear polarisers work just as well with digital M cameras as circular ones. However in fact, they don't. They work almost just as well but not quite.

 

You can get along with a linear polariser on a digital M camera, in particular when you work in manual exposure mode and occasionally check your histogram. But you should know about this small idiosyncrasy, so you'll be aware of the error and compensate for it when it happens.

[lars_bergquist]

Only if the surface is shiny. The light has to be reflected specularly, not diffusely. The polarising occurs when the light penetrates to some extent, a few hundred nanometers, into the reflecting substance; this is why shiny metal surfaces don't polarise light, while water, glass and paint do. But then it has to get out again in a coherent manner. If the surface is matte, the outgoing, reflected light will have its polarisation scrambled, just as happens when light is leaving a circular polariser. It is un-polarised.

 

The finish of the M9 and M8 shutter blades is matte. End of argument.

 

The slightly polarised old man

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[01af]

Only if the surface is shiny. The light has to be reflected specularly, not diffusely. [...] The finish of the M9 and M8 shutter blades is matte. End of argument.

No, it's not the end of the argument. The situation is not binary—as in: reflected light either gets or does not get polarised. Instead, reflected light gets polarised to different degrees—more when reflecting off shiny surfaces; less when reflecting off matte surfaces.

 

Obviously you didn't read through my previous post entirely, so I'll repeat part of it here: "Fortunately, the shutter curtain's surface is rather matte so the light bouncing off will be fairly diffuse. So the cross-polarising effect won't be very strong; the resulting exposure error usually will be approx. half an f-stop or less. That's not very much."

 

But it still is more than nothing.