Go-To/Favorite Polarizer Filter?

[STANDARD H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone. Got the B&W UV filter for my new Q2 as recommended by several Q/Q2 friends to protect the glass, however, I have a trip coming up with lots of water/beach days. Wanted to know which model Polarizer filter everyone may be using. Any positive/negative feedback welcome. I was looking at the following two, but not married to either.  Thanks!

B+W 49mm Circular Polarizer MRC Filter

B+W 49mm F-Pro Kaesemann High Transmission Circular Polarizer MRC Filter

[bullmoon]

I went with the XS-Pro (lower profile) Kaesemann HT with the hope that when I forget and leave it on inside, it won't knock my exposure down too much - because I know I'm going to do that <again> eventually. 🙄

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[STANDARD H]

11 hours ago, bullmoon said:

I went with the XS-Pro (lower profile) Kaesemann HT with the hope that when I forget and leave it on inside, it won't knock my exposure down too much - because I know I'm going to do that <again> eventually. 🙄

Ok, cool - thanks for that!

[dancook]

I just ordered Hoya 49mm Linear Polarizing Screw-in Filter, it seems a CPL is wasted on a mirrorless/compact - and there isn't a vast selection of linear - but much cheaper.

[jaapv]

That is correct. A circular polarizer is needed when there is a mirror in the light path. On a mirrorless camera thus obviously not  

And  before the red herring swims: PDAF also works fine with a linear polarizer. Not that ‘this applies to the Q cameras. 

[Fedro]

B&W for me

[Leica Guy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It’s very embarrassing, but I thought a circular polarizer meant I could rotate it. Damn. I learned something new and its not even 7 am yet where I live. 😁

[dancook]

58 minutes ago, iQ2 said:

It’s very embarrassing, but I thought a circular polarizer meant I could rotate it. Damn. I learned something new and its not even 7 am yet where I live. 😁

Easy mistake

[Jared]

I couldn’t find in a local store the brand I had originally been looking for, so decided to give “Breakthrough” a try and purchased their X4 CPL.  So far, I have been pleased.  The brass construction makes it resistant to binding which is a good thing since it is quite thin so would be hard to get a good grip on the inner,  on rotating ring for removal.  

About one stop of light reduction so not quite as much throughput as the latest from Hoya and B+W, but it dies appear quite neutral which is the major selling point to the X4.  Construction is excellent, and optical quality is high enough that I can detect no degradation in image quality.  Multi coatings are extremely good, easily among the best.

if you aren’t worried about losing just a bit more light than the highest transmission filters out there, I highly recommend the X4.  If you want to leave it on all the time as sort of a combo lens protector and CPL, I would probably go with the newest B+W or the highest transmission Hoya as they appear to have this one beat by half a stop or so.

[bullmoon]

Good points - I had read Overgaard's paper where he recommended circular because that's needed if the metering is fed from a mirror split-off, but now I have read that the Q's don't meter that way so linear should be fine as well.  

[smenp3]

On 7/10/2019 at 1:32 AM, STANDARD H said:

Hi everyone. Got the B&W UV filter for my new Q2 as recommended by several Q/Q2 friends to protect the glass, however, I have a trip coming up with lots of water/beach days. Wanted to know which model Polarizer filter everyone may be using. Any positive/negative feedback welcome. I was looking at the following two, but not married to either.  Thanks!

B+W 49mm Circular Polarizer MRC Filter

B+W 49mm F-Pro Kaesemann High Transmission Circular Polarizer MRC Filter

I go with Zeiss 49mm. Just be careful water/beach/sand. 

[FHPdoc]

On 7/13/2019 at 2:41 PM, bullmoon said:

Good points - I had read Overgaard's paper where he recommended circular because that's needed if the metering is fed from a mirror split-off, but now I have read that the Q's don't meter that way so linear should be fine as well.  

Thanks for sharing this!  Did any of your reading address how  linear vs. circular polarizers affect the Q2's autofocus capability?  I had understood that TTL autofocus also required circular polarization (if used).

[jaapv]

There are indeed some sources that suggest that PDAF might be influenced by polarized light. However, it has never been demonstrated reliably.

Until then : Urban Myth, probably from the time that AF and focus confirmation systems used mirrors.

[FHPdoc]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

There are indeed some sources that suggest that PDAF might be influenced by polarized light. However, it has never been demonstrated reliably.

Until then : Urban Myth, probably from the time that AF and focus confirmation systems used mirrors.

Ah—thank you sir!  I should have looked up PDAF when you first mentioned it.  

[dancook]

I used to have CPL's, but changing cameras all the time I stopped using them - This thread prompted me to get a filter because of Ireland trip coming up

Tried it in the garden 

Filter, No Filter, No Filter Processed with -41 highlights and +30 vibrance

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Q2 - With Filter by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Q2 - No Filter by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Q2 - No Filter Processed by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

[M11 for me]

In our eyes we do not have a built in Pol filter. So one could argue that such a filter is not needed for a natural rendering. Only for special applications it makes sense. 

The example above shows us how in Lightroom you can improve the contrast in the sky. Dancook applied the LR rulers for the entire picture I presume. This could be done for the sky only. 

I think there could be a discussion if to use such a filter at all. At least when you plan to use the filter permanently on your lens.

[dancook]

4 minutes ago, M10 for me said:

In our eyes we do not have a built in Pol filter. So one could argue that such a filter is not needed for a natural rendering. Only for special applications it makes sense. 

The example above shows us how in Lightroom you can improve the contrast in the sky. Dancook applied the LR rulers for the entire picture I presume. This could be done for the sky only. 

I think there could be a discussion if to use such a filter at all. At least when you plan to use the filter permanently on your lens.

Yes I used global sliders so could certainly take more care over it, I note the filter does leave things looking a little flat by comparison