Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Polarizer on MFDB  (Read 5071 times)

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 820
    • Shadows Dancing
Polarizer on MFDB
« on: October 25, 2007, 08:20:24 am »

Wondering if anyone has run test, or has actual experience, on the use of a standard Circular Polarizer verse a Kaesemann Circular Polarizer on our MFDB digital backs?

Price difference for a 95mm filter is substantial and I'm wondering what I'll get in image impact from the Kaesmann foil verse standard.  I'm planning on only top quality filter:  Heliopan or B+W.

Will go on a 35mm Hasselblad H lens, if that is of any concern.  Back is the P45+.  Use is landscape work.

Also, on the 35mm H lens, need to go with a Slim mount?

Thanks,
Jack

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Polarizer on MFDB
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2007, 02:03:34 am »

A circular polarizer is intended for SLR cameras with a mirror and autofocus. The output side of the filter has an extra layer to circularly polarize the output of the filter so that the autofocus and internal camera meter are not confused by linearly polarized light reflecting off the mirror unevenly depending on the orientation of the filter. If your camera has no mirror and you aren't using AF, there's no reason to pay extra for a circular polarizer. A linear polarizer will transmit more light and perform better optically, as there is one less layer in the filter, and it will be cheaper, too. B+W filters are very good; haven't tried Heliopan, but have heard good things about them.
Logged

Camdavidson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
    • http://www.camerondavidson.com
Polarizer on MFDB
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2007, 12:33:49 pm »

Quote
Wondering if anyone has run test, or has actual experience, on the use of a standard Circular Polarizer verse a Kaesemann Circular Polarizer on our MFDB digital backs?

Price difference for a 95mm filter is substantial and I'm wondering what I'll get in image impact from the Kaesmann foil verse standard.  I'm planning on only top quality filter:  Heliopan or B+W.

Will go on a 35mm Hasselblad H lens, if that is of any concern.  Back is the P45+.  Use is landscape work.

Also, on the 35mm H lens, need to go with a Slim mount?

Thanks,
Jack
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Jack,

I shoot aerials.  I use PL filters every time I shoot.  I've shot with two MF backs in the past six months.  (A P21 and a P30)

No problems or concerns at all.  B+W and Nikon (IMO) make the best PL filters.  I've used both and have never had a problem with either.  

I'd go with the B+W slim series for your 35mm H lens.  They are very thin.  Easy to bend.  Treat them gently.

Otherwise, the Nikkor PL or B+W PL filters are great.  I always use the circular PL filters.

[a href=\"http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=77&productNr=25667] Nikon PL  [/url]Nikkor  or   B+W B +W Filters
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 12:34:43 pm by Camdavidson »
Logged

jing q

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
    • we are super
Polarizer on MFDB
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2007, 02:14:30 pm »

-
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 02:35:31 pm by jing q »
Logged

jing q

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
    • we are super
Polarizer on MFDB
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2007, 02:14:57 pm »

--
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 04:07:14 pm by jing q »
Logged

Camdavidson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
    • http://www.camerondavidson.com
Polarizer on MFDB
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2007, 03:11:20 pm »

Quote
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


B+W Filters are manufacturers of B+W Kaesemann.  The B +W filters I use are the same filters (ie, the B+W Kaesemann).

They are excellent filters (as I mentioned above.)  Well worth the money.
Logged

jing q

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
    • we are super
Polarizer on MFDB
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2007, 04:06:45 pm »

Quote
B+W Filters are manufacturers of B+W Kaesemann.  The B +W filters I use are the same filters (ie, the B+W Kaesemann).

They are excellent filters (as I mentioned above.)  Well worth the money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

hey apologies...wasn't referring to you.
Logged

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 820
    • Shadows Dancing
Polarizer on MFDB
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2007, 05:17:46 am »

Something seems to be lost in translation.  What I'm primarily trying to define is:

"Wondering if anyone has run test, or has actual experience, on the use of a standard Circular Polarizer verse a Kaesemann Circular Polarizer on our MFDB digital backs?"

In short, can you see any difference in the captured digital image between the two filters (standard polar verse Kaesemann polar) on the same scene?

Thanks,
Jack

Camdavidson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
    • http://www.camerondavidson.com
Polarizer on MFDB
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2007, 06:10:56 am »

Quote
Something seems to be lost in translation.  What I'm primarily trying to define is:

"Wondering if anyone has run test, or has actual experience, on the use of a standard Circular Polarizer verse a Kaesemann Circular Polarizer on our MFDB digital backs?"

In short, can you see any difference in the captured digital image between the two filters (standard polar verse Kaesemann polar) on the same scene?

Thanks,
Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148976\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Jack

I have used both on 35mm.    I've used them for over seventeen years.  When I first tested the circular versus Ln. lenses, I decided that the circular was well worth the extra costs.  I use my set of filters between my Canon's and other systems.

I've only used the circular on Medium Format backs and found no problems with the file or, in my case, ability to cut through haze, increase saturation or reduce reflections.

C
Logged

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 820
    • Shadows Dancing
Polarizer on MFDB
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2007, 06:30:53 am »

Quote
Jack

I have used both on 35mm.    I've used them for over seventeen years.  When I first tested the circular versus Ln. lenses, I decided that the circular was well worth the extra costs.  I use my set of filters between my Canon's and other systems.

I've only used the circular on Medium Format backs and found no problems with the file or, in my case, ability to cut through haze, increase saturation or reduce reflections.

C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148981\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry but I'm still not getting through - the Kaesemann Circular Polarizer is reported made with a specal "foil" that according to some of the technical data I've read improves the saturation and clarity of the resulting image.  But I've found not data written by actual photographers using it in landscape/field work.

I understand the difference between Linier and Circular, but have not found anyone yet who had compared Kaesemann Circular Polarizer to the standard polarizer.

That's what I'm hoping to define, is the Kaesemann Circular Polarizer worth the extra 30% +/- price premium for our digital work?

Jack

cerett

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
    • http://
Polarizer on MFDB
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2007, 08:04:06 am »

Hi Jack,

I have your exact set-up and have used both a Kaesemann Circular Polarizer and regular CP on my HC 35mm. I cannot honestly say that I see a significant difference. The problems I have are making fine adjustments while keeping the lens shade in place and adding additional filters (such as a warming filter).

The system that I now use is the new LEE wide angle lens shade with the ring that allows attachment of their 105mm circular polarizer. The shade also allows placement of two additional rectangular filters, if needed. Check it out on their web site. It is a bit expensive, but very functional, especially for landscape work.

Martin
Logged

Gary Ferguson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 550
    • http://
Polarizer on MFDB
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2007, 08:10:32 am »

Quote
Sorry but I'm still not getting through - the Kaesemann Circular Polarizer is reported made with a specal "foil" that according to some of the technical data I've read improves the saturation and clarity of the resulting image.  But I've found not data written by actual photographers using it in landscape/field work.

I understand the difference between Linier and Circular, but have not found anyone yet who had compared Kaesemann Circular Polarizer to the standard polarizer.

That's what I'm hoping to define, is the Kaesemann Circular Polarizer worth the extra 30% +/- price premium for our digital work?

Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack, I can give you a partial answer. I use a 72mm Kaesemann filter on some Canon 5D/1Ds MkII shots, but normal polariser filters on everything else, including my MFDB work (which also has a mix of linear polarisers for Hasselblad V cameras and circular polarisers with lenses on a Linhof camera). I've never done side by side comparison shots, but looking back I've never noticed one class of polariser delivering noticeably improved results over the others.

Like I say, it's only a partial answer without direct comparisons, but my instinct is that a polariser is a just a polariser.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up