That probably won't work well. If you do that, you'll very likely get vignetting/shadow around the corners and maybe edges depending on how much farther the converter gets raised/offset from its intended position, which will defeat the purpose of the wide converter. You can try it, but I doubt it'll work out, especially w/ the polarizer.
Polarizer probably won't work too well at super-wide angle anyway -- you'll easily get uneven colored skies for instance.
That depends on how wide the "wide angle convertor" is. For example, I have no issues using a polarizer on my 17-70mm lens, which is 27mm equivalent at the wide end. However, I do see some issues on the wide end using a CPL on my 10-22mm lens (16mm equivalent on the wide side).
If your wide angle convertor is no wider than around 24mm (35mm equivalent), you should be okay, IMO.
I do agree with Man, though, on not placing the filter between the lens and the convertor. You can try it, but I think you'll have vignetting problems, as he mentioned.
You may cause vignetting, but will certainly screw up the focus range. It will probably eliminate the ability to focus to infinity. Personally, I generally haven't used a polarizer on lenses wider than about 35mm equivalent, when there is a lot of open sky.
You can always try it and see. Doesn't hurt to try. However, in my experience w/ the Canon G3 + the matching Canon 0.7x wide converter (and 1.7x tele converter), even a step-up ring was enough to cause vignetting -- or increase it at the wider end in the case w/ tele converter.
An easier way to do it is to buy square filters, and then stick those to the very outside of the lens using something sticky, like blue tack. I use this for sunset, ND filters, ND grades, etc. on my Mamiya 37mm fisheye (medium format) - which is about 4" across.
This technique also works for stacking filters, as stacking round filters (or square in say a Cokin mount) can cause vignetting fairly quickly. Stack square filters by using blue tack to get much more consistent results
One thing to note about UV and haze filters -- unless you are seeing a need to remove UV from your photographs, it's best not to use one.
A lot of people buy them and leave them on their lenses as "protection" -- they've been talked into this by salespeople. Every air-glass surface reduces the ultimate quality of your photographs, and unless you're using nice, expensive filters, the quality dropoff can be astonishing.
Sure, if you're in a sandstorm or ocean spray situation, use a filter to protect your lens. But in general, lens coatings these days are very tough and don't require protection.
I couldn't agree more. I never have a filter mounted "for protection" - even with my expensive "L" series Canon lenses. I shoot with a hood whenever possible, which gives some protection to the lens surface without introducing artifacts.
I shoot in salt air all the time, and never consider that reason enough to mount a filter.
In general I agree and frankly, the lens adapters for the S3 aren't so expensive that it would be a major blow to replace them, if necessary. But the first major test for this camera is going to be our anniversay trip to Hawai'i in a few weeks. I know from experience with my old Pentax K-1000 that UV, glare and reflections are going to be a major issue, particularly around the water.
Picking this back up late (possibly too late) -- glare and reflections are not things that a UV or Haze filter will take care of. In fact, they will absolutely make both of those things worse unless their coatings are as good or better than your lens coatings.
I don't know much about Hawaii, geographically -- is it that high up that you get visible UV/haze?