When I bought my polarizer, a friend told me that I should get a circular one, because the linear ones can mess with the autofocus. Is this true? What should each be used for?


5 Answers 5


A polarizer works in the way that it will let through only the light that is polarized in the same direction as the filter is currently turned. It is true that many AF systems have problems with this. To solve this, circular polarizers have a layer behind the linear polarizing filter that "re-polarizes" the polarized light in a different way so that the AF can function properly. The linear polarizer does not have this extra layer. The wikipedia article explains this quite well, I think.

As far as I know, there are no cases when you would want a linear polarizer instead of a circular one within the context of placing it on a camera lens. On any camera that a linear polarizer will do the job, the circular one will work just as well, but not the other way around.

  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ The inside layer doesn't unpolarize the light — it just polarizes it in a strange, non-intuitive way. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Mar 6, 2011 at 15:43
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The terminology used on photo sites is all messed up. What they call a "circular polarizer" is in fact a linear polarizer stacked with a circular polarizer. The second layer is not a de-polarizer as your post would suggest. \$\endgroup\$
    – Szabolcs
    May 23, 2014 at 13:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is it then also that circular polarizer can be turned to adjust polarising effect? I thought only linear did that? \$\endgroup\$
    – Gnudiff
    Dec 20, 2017 at 7:43
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Gnudiff There is no difference in that functionality between circular and linear, both can be adjusted by rotating the filter. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 20, 2017 at 7:58
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Szabolcs What they call a "circular polarizer" is in fact a linear polarizer stacked with a quarter-wave retarder. A linear polarizer stacked with a circular polarizer (another linear polarizer + a 1/4wave retarder) is what the photo sites call a "variable neutral density filter". \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Feb 3, 2018 at 0:28

Yes, it's true - sometimes. Some AF systems work OK with a linear polarizer under some or all conditions, and others fail all the time. You'd have to try it and see.

When would you want a linear polarizer?

  • They are often cheaper.
  • Since there's only one polarizing layer, not two, light transmission is often greater.

Because many AF and metering systems have problems with polarized light, circular polarizer has an added layer which "re-polarizes" the light by transforming the the polarization of the light wave into a sort of helix shape. Therefore you should only get circular polarizers in usual cases.

The exception is when you want to use two polarizers to create a tunable ND filter. In that case, the front polarizer has to be linear, and then you can control the darkening effect by adjusting relative position of the two polarizers.

  • \$\begingroup\$ The inside layer doesn't unpolarize the light — it just polarizes it in a strange, non-intuitive way. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Mar 6, 2011 at 15:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mattdm: So it like rotates polarization of the light? Because if it did another "round" of polarization, it would further reduce light transmission, wouldn't it? \$\endgroup\$
    – che
    Mar 8, 2011 at 10:03
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ yeah, there's a quarter-wave plate which transforms the polarization of the light wave into a sort of helix shape. It's not another filter layer, so there's no more light loss (other than the addition of more optics). \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Mar 8, 2011 at 12:46

A 'circular' polarizer is just a linear polarizer with a quarter-wave plate behind it that repolarizes the light in a circular kind of way. But the polarized light removed by passing through the linear polarizer is gone, and thus is not reintroduced by the "re-polarization" of the remaining light.

A quarter-wave plate is not another linear polarizer. It is arranged 45° with respect to the linear axis of the polarizer. As the polarizer is rotated to alter the effect of the filter with regard to light from a particular direction, the quarter-wave plate is attached (bonded) to the linear polarizer and rotated as well. The quarter-wave plate is always turned 45° with respect to the polarizer's linear axis.

The polarization of the light by the quarter-wave plate allows phase detection autofocus (PDAF) systems and light meters to function properly. PDAF systems often fail when trying to focus light that has passed through a linear polarizer alone. Light meters placed past the viewscreen in reflex¹ cameras are also affected by linearly polarized light.

There is no effect of the quarter-wave plate on the appearance of the photo compared to a linear polarizer without a quarter-wave plate. Neither film nor digital cameras record in which direction light is polarized when it strikes the sensor or film. The linear polarizer allows light polarized in one direction to pass through it. The light that is not allowed to pass through is gone. The quarter-wave plate can only act on the light that has been allowed to pass through the linear polarizer in front of it. It can't recreate the light that the linear polarizer blocked. So the light striking the film or sensor is the exact same light either with or without a quarter-wave plate behind the linear polarizer (other than the minimal amount of light lost due to transmission through a refractive medium as happens with every lens element in the optical path).

Two linear polarizer filters arranged 90° out-of-phase with one another will (theoretically) block all light from passing through (with or without a quarter-wave plate behind the second one). So-called 'Variable Neutral Density' filters are actually two stacked polarizers. As one is rotated with respect to the other, the varying angle between them blocks more or less of the light striking them.

¹ 'Reflex' is the 'R' in SLR and DSLR and refers to the reflex mirror used to divert light from the lens to the viewfinder.


Circular polarisers have an additional layer creating "unpolarised" light from the polorised light the first layer admits. If you have any kind of beam splitter (like an optical viewfinder) or phase detector autofocus afterwards or TTL sensor working from light reflected back from film, this may make a difference. With most digital cameras these days, it doesn't. This may change when the usual contrast-based autofocus systems these days get replaced or supplanted by phase-based ones on higher-end cameras.

  • \$\begingroup\$ To say that circ. pols. created "unpolarised" light is incorrect. The additional layer in circ. pols. (the quarter-wave plate, QWP) introduces a phase change between the transverse waves, inducing a circular polarization. Circularly polarized light is still definitely polarized, and can be circularly unpolarized with another QWP, resulting linearly polarized light. \$\endgroup\$
    – scottbb
    May 13, 2019 at 20:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.