polarizing filter on a rangefinder

hello, I use polarizing filters on SLR cameras.

I rotate those, and I find when I can see the polarization effect, for example, sky is darker.

Then I understand, that is the position of the ring, when I get the polarization effect.

 

Now, how about rangefinders?

I noticed on some of my filters, there are small marks. If I rotate the ring, so that those two marks are horizontal, and if I draw a line between those, that would be a line of a horizon, then the polarization will have effect on shots.

 

However recently I got a b+w filter which has no such marks. How can I find out in which position to use it, given that I use a rangefinder camera?

 

 

I believe RF Polarizers get used in a holder permitting to flip them in front of the VF for adjustments and back in front of the lens for shooting.

If you look through your polarizer before you mount it any reference point no matter where will be fine.

If you want to replicate the points you have on other filters try stacking till you have a faded image mark the to be marked filter 90° off the marked marks.

The !marks you are referring to are just screwdriver slits to be used during assembly. I dobt that all polarizers by that brand in position 2 o clock will show the same effect / orientation.

If you Google 'Rangefinder Polarizer' you'll find many strange inventions designed to make up for the inherent problem; that you can't see what the lens sees on a rangefinder, which, if nothing else, illustrates that a polarizer isn't really practical for rangefinders.

If the workarounds don't discourage you, then the search results will provide you with ideas for many different ways you can approach the rangefinder/polarizer challenge.

If the glass filter doesn't rotate inside the ring, you can mark the ring according to the polarization angle. A white paint marker works well on dark metal. You might mark it at the top when reflections from a body of water are at a minimum. That would be parallel to the polarization angle. For blue sky, point that mark in the general direction of the sun.

 

You could also hold the filter in your hand, and judge the effect by eye, then rotate the mark to the same general position once mounted on the lens.

 

Polarizing filters consist of a membrane (or two) between two layers of glass. Only Kaesemann style filters, ie edge sealed, are reliably fixed in the ring.

Only Kaesemann style filters, ie edge sealed, are reliably fixed in the ring.

Huh? Kaesemann is simply a maker of polarising foils (now a subsidiary of Schneider/B+W). They have nothing to do with edge sealing the finished filter, and besides all polarising filters are fixed into their rotating ring. You'd have to deliberately tamper with or dismantle a filter in order to move the filter glass relative to its mounting ring.

 

None of which matters anyway, since the visual effect of a polariser depends on its relative angle to the subject, and not on any absolute angular position.

 

Also, most polarisers have some sort of index marker on the rotator. For example; older Hoyas have a silver line cut into the rotator ring, and the new Pro 1 digital range have a small arrow printed next to the lengthy description lettering. While some Heliopan polarisers have a whole series of numbers printed around the ring.

 

I'm really not seeing too much of a problem here. You just look through the filter off the lens, rotate it to the desired effect, note the position of the edge marker (say, 1 o'clock, 8 o'clock or whatever) then screw or bayonet the filter to the lens and rotate the edge marker to whatever position gave the visual effect required.

 

A bit long-winded perhaps, but if you have time to determine the polarising angle visually, then it doesn't take much longer to fit the filter to the lens and rotate it.

 

BTW, since the polarising effect mirrors itself after a rotation of 180 degrees, there will always be an orientation of the edge marker that's visible from above the camera. No peering underneath the filter required!

Edited October 9, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

I have owned filters where the glass was retained by a snap ring, in which the glass rotated easily in the ring. Threaded spanner rings are more secure, but often loosen with repeated use.

 

Kaesemann filters are indeed owned by B+W (Schneider), and are specifically advertised as being edge sealed. No other manufacturers make this claim, to my knowledge. The main purpose of edge sealing is to exclude moisture, which permanently damages conventional polarizing filters. Sealing has the added advantage of immobilizing the foil (or foils) within the glass sandwich and within the frame.

 

None of the polarizing filters I own have a mark indicating the plane of polarization. That plane seems to be randomly oriented with respect to the filter ring. The only exception is with variable ND filters, which have two polarizing foils, one moveable. B+W variable NDs are marked according to the strength of the effect.

 

Without a mark of some sort, you lose any frame of reference when you screw the filter into the lens. Previewing then attaching the filter with a push-on adapter would work. It's a moot point with TTL viewing, and these filters were never fashionable with rangefinder cameras.

One would think it would be possible to view the subject through the filter, mark filter with a Sharpie, install on the lens and work from there. Simplistic, maybe a little trial and error, but likely workable.

hey, people!

thanks for your responces.

 

so i took my b+w filter, and rotated near the laptop screen.

 

i have noticed that it cuts most/all of the polarized light at the position when b+w marking is at the top. so now i know.

No other manufacturers make this claim, to my knowledge.

That doesn't mean they don't do it.

Advertisers will clutch at any straw to make their product appear unique or better than a rivals - especially when their product carries a hefty price tag.

 

None of my polarising filters - mainly Hoya, but I have other makes - has a sloppy spring-ring retainer for the glass. And threaded retaining ring are a devil to shift, even with the correct spanner. I've certainly never experienced one coming loose in normal use.

None of the polarizing filters I own have a mark indicating the plane of polarization.

Really? I find that totally incredible.

Every single one of mine has some sort of index printed or engraved on the rotating part of the mount.

It may not align with any theoretical 'plane of polarisation', but it doesn't have to. The best angle is found visually, and the reference mark is simply that - a visual reference.

so i took my b+w filter, and rotated near the laptop screen.

 

I noticed that it cuts most/all of the polarized light at the position when b+w marking is at the top. so now i know.

Yes, great if you're only shooting your laptop screen. Natural polarisation takes place at all angles.

Edited October 9, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

Sandy +1 -- and that was how it was often done before SLRs and such-like.

 

Here's another gadget:

1956-09 USC

 

(any ideas on what that is in the pan in the ad? Looks like kibble to me)

Kaesemann was noted for producing high-quality, low absorbance foils and edge-sealed filters long before Schneider acquired the company. Hoya polarizers do not have sealed edges. Hoya also uses aluminum rings, which are more prone to flexing and galling than B+W's brass rings, potentially making them hard to remove. I have perhaps half a dozen B+W polarizers in various sizes, and there is no orientation mark, nor consistency in the plane of polarization.

 

B+W makes premium filters, along with Heliopan. The price is more competitive now, due in part to competition from Amazon. The glass is sawn from the block, annealed, ground and polished parallel within 1/4 wave, to the same precision as Zeiss lenses. Polarizers are the only filters I use other than for protection. Why put a cheap filter on an expensive lens?

I stopped using polarizers on my RF bodies years ago as small increments were too hard to achieve. Leitz made a series of RF polarizers, the swing out and I think one similar to the one JDM referenced. If doing landscapes with the camera on a tripod, screwing a polarizer which has reference markings onto the lens, so that you can visually set it is probably reasonably dooable. The other thing coming to mind is that if your camera has TTL metering...watching for maximum deviation of exposure before shooting might also achieve the desired result. In any case experimentation will be your friend until you discover what works best for your system.

I like B+W and have had a few Kaesemann and Hoya MRC nano coated etc polarizers. As far as I can tell they work and produce identical results, although the B+W are more expensive (although the difference is not as great as it used to be). I tend no longer to buy high transmission polarizers as I usually prefer them to serve some of the function of an ND filter too. I still carry one around but rarely use it as I find little benefit to them in the digital world.

Hoya polarizers do not have sealed edges

And you say this on what authority?

 

Just out of interest, I recently dismantled a cheap Tiffen circular polariser that I wasn't too worried about. The two cover glasses, polariser foil and 1/4 wave plate were all firmly cemented together as a single laminate. The edges had obviously been ground flush after the cementing process. So, short of soaking the filter in whatever solvent might attack the optical cement, I don't think it's going to come to much harm in normal use. I certainly can't see what extra protection 'edge sealing' might be necessary or beneficial.

 

I'm sure that if Tiffen make their low-end filters this way, then Hoya, Heliopan, Kenko, Marumi and all the rest of the name brands are made to the same or a higher standard.

I have perhaps half a dozen B+W polarizers in various sizes, and there is no orientation mark, nor consistency in the plane of polarization.

Not so great then?

But if there's no index mark, how can you compare them?

 

There's a lot of BS talked about filters. Let's not add to it here. And none of this actually answers the OP's question.

 

I see nothing difficult or insurmountable in using a polarising filter 'blind'. If the filter doesn't have an edge index mark on the rotator - scratch one on! Put the filter to the eye and rotate to the effect wanted (which often won't be full polarisation of sky, water or whatever). Note the position of the mark, and after the polariser is fitted to the camera, rotate the mark to the same position.

 

You could even synchronise a second filter to the first by scratching marks with the two polarisers aligned. Then use the spare to view through. Jeez it's not rocket science!

Edited October 11, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

But if there's no index mark, how can you compare them?

Polarizers polarize. Non-metallic reflections polarize. Up is Up. Put them all together, and you easily determine the orientation of the filter and the relationship to the labeling on the ring.

 

No company except B+W advertises edge-sealed polarizers. It's obviously an advantage, so I can't imagine others would forgo this claim if their filters were sealed. I had a polarizer (not B+W)) get wet between layers after being outdoors in the rain. The damage was visible even after the water had evaporated.

 

A dot of white paint is visible under even adverse conditions. Paint pens, sold in art stores, are easy to use and stay viable for a very long time (at least 3 years, for the one in my desk drawer). I use it to label chargers with the matching device, body caps which must be oriented just so (e.g., Sony), hard drives with an index number, etc. Just about any surface can be marked with a contrasting color, and it doesn't fade or fall off like a label.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Ed_Ingold