Re: Circular Polarizers, A Filter You Need

In article <NN2dnZ1nD_DyQyTbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 "Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:


> The circular will tend to give slightly _poorer_ results, as it's
designed 
> to let some polarized light through, as some camera's autofocus systems
(and 
> ttl metering) depends upon it to get the job done.
> 
> --
> www.mattclara.com 

No. They polarize exactly the same. All the quarter wave plate does is 
allow some light to be processed properly by the AE or the AF, or both, 
systems if your camera has a beam splitter in the optical path.

There are other factors that would make one type of polarizer more 
effective then another. For instance a Kaesmann polarizer, linear or 
circular, would be marginally more effective as the foil in a Kaesmann 
is stretched tight in all directions and lies flatter then a simply 
laminated polarizer. To keep the foil stretched tight the Kaesmann has 
edge sealed glass rather then just laminated glass.

A properly hard coated polarizer with a modern MC that repels dust and 
moisture while also passing up to 99.9% of the light hitting it to the 
image plane (less what the polarizer eliminates of course) like the 
Heliopan SH-PMC coated polarizers will be more effective then a coated, 
uncoated or Kaesmann polarizer due to the coatings used. As well as the 
quality of the foils used.

There are several grades of polarizers for optical use in photography. 
Better polarizers use higher grades which are more color neutral and 
have less effect on resolution then cheaper foils. The less expensive 
polarizing filters may not be as effective due to the foil quality as 
well as to the coatings and glass used.

-- 
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.