Using Polarising Filter with UV Filter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn NK

I've been a filter proponent since I started photography. But I will be honest - there is one occasion when a filter WILL affect the images - when shooting into the sun.

---

Hi Glenn,

Probably worth mentioning that it's not "shooting into the sun" per se - it's whenever one is shooting extreme contrast scenes - ie one can also get the same issue from high intensity light sources at night.

Generally, removing the filter makes things better, but doesn't eliminate them altogether.

PS: Personally, I shoot sunsets and sunrises when the sun is still below the horizon :)

rpcrow and glenn...............you have more or less summarized the whole thread. I have been tagging along reinforcing my early thoughts on this subject. All posters have had their points in order. I really have been able to get a handle on this subject thanks to everyone. I sure do not like to spend my good money on half baked opinions twice to arrive at reasonably correct. I was surprised when someone suggested this site to me. I'm seventy six years young having the time of my life with some very good quality photographic equipment. It keeps me alive and active beyond the understanding never achieved by many. I am very fortunate to have one good friend and associate photographer locally and a club that is really good. This thread will no doubt be my base for a healthy discussion on a walking shoot next summer.

I should clarify my statements - shooting directly at any light can have the effect I mentioned.

The sun is the most common source of problems in everyday use (not in everynight use of course ;)) and being pretty well the most powerful light source we see, it is the most problematic - particularly for photographers that shoot primarily outdoors (as I do).

As for waiting for the sun to go below the horizon, our local climate has a strange quirk - it often has light and dispersed cloud cover (the Olympic mountains are 15 to 20 miles away). The quirk is that at about sunset, we very often see a dense bank of cloud forming on the western horizon - when the sun hits this cloud bank, the sunset lights are out. Just prior to this the sun that's partially into the cloud bank casts a strong golden glow over the water (I live about a five minute drive from Juan da Fuca Strait)

Although not a great image (the 70-200 has little dof), it shows the problem cloud bank - wait a few minutes, and the show is over.

The Olympics are to the left, the foreground hills from centre to the right is the southern tip of Vancouver Island.

There is a common expression here in Victoria BC "Don't like the weather? Just wait for a few minutes"

http://i46.tinypic.com/2efuvee.jpg



Glenn

Forgot to post a demo:

http://i49.tinypic.com/nlzc52.jpg

Don't you just love the circles and stars bottom centre? :rolleyes:

30D + 24-105 @ 100 mm, f/22 with UV filter.

Glenn

Oh dear. Having followed various discussions on this topic I'd convinced myself that I didn't need a lens protecting filter, now maybe I need to change my mind. However, leaving aside Donald's point about ease of cleaning and dust exclusion, has anyone experience of saving a lens by virtue of having a filter, or even damaging a lens by having a filter shatter in front of it (one of the points made by the no filter camp)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidedric

However, leaving aside Donald's point about ease of cleaning and dust exclusion, has anyone experience of saving a lens by virtue of having a filter

---

Yep.

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...9/original.jpg

Aw - you shouldn't have :) Thanks for posting - I'll be ordering them tomorrow!

How is this about stacking filters. Basically provided that you buy good filters then stacking is not a problem (within reason)

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/201...th-bad-filters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken MT

How is this about stacking filters. Basically provided that you buy good filters then stacking is not a problem (within reason)

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/201...th-bad-filters

---

Provided one doesn't introduce excessive vignetting or outright obstruction ...

http://i45.tinypic.com/qoadmu.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Provided one doesn't introduce excessive vignetting or outright obstruction ...

http://i45.tinypic.com/qoadmu.jpg

---

"The proof is in the pudding"! Nice result using vignetting.

Hi there, as a relatively new photographer I have read all the posts here and am very glad I did. The very helpful and knowledgeable replies were very good indeed. I use uv filters on all my lenses as a cheap protection for the lens and it has saved them on several occassions from serious harm. :) I do take a lot of sunrises and sunsets and usually leave the filter on but will try it without after reading this. Will see what difference it makes to the pics. Happy clicking to all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blueegyptian

Hi there, as a relatively new photographer I have read all the posts here and am very glad I did. The very helpful and knowledgeable replies were very good indeed. I use uv filters on all my lenses as a cheap protection for the lens and it has saved them on several occassions from serious harm. :) I do take a lot of sunrises and sunsets and usually leave the filter on but will try it without after reading this. Will see what difference it makes to the pics. Happy clicking to all

---

Steve
You can leave on the UV Filter and use it with a Heliopan Circular Pol with a Lee Filter Holder or similar brand ("Cokin X Pro") this will be larger than your UV Filter so you will not have a vignetting prob with wide angle lenses. You also do not have to buy any more Circ Pols to fit your other lenses only adaptor rings.
Nigel

To my mind, the thing that protects your lens from damage is a lens cap, not a thin piece of glass. I keep my lens cap on except when I am shooting the photo, and I have never had any problem with my lenses. Of course, if you are shooting in a corosive environment like blowing sand or salt air, that is a different kettle of fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tclune

To my mind, the thing that protects your lens from damage is a lens cap, not a thin piece of glass. I keep my lens cap on except when I am shooting the photo

---

I keep my lens cap on whenever the lens is packed away too, but - of course - it needs to be off to shoot - and that's a period of time (usually several hours) when it's potentially vulnerable to all kinds of accidents that the "thin bit of glass" protects it from. In fact it's FAR more likely to be damaged during that time.

good info everybody-I'm in the protective filter on all lenses all (never say never/all) the time camp too.

haven't seen this point but I like the "clear" versions like.....http://www.amazon.com/77mm-XS-Pro-Cl.../ref=pd_cp_p_2.... as I understand things there is a glass filter over the camera sensor (most cameras) already taking care of UV wavelengths among other things anyway, so why double up...

also Canon actually requires a front filter on some of their lenses to complete weather sealing so-can't be bad..

and I'm surprised by the number of forum posts about folk's experiences with scratched front elements-and with responses like "don't worry about that because they won't show up in your print" with dreadful examples of damaged/cracked even front elements and prints therefrom-but the same person saying they would NEVER put a UV filter on-just in case-because it'll ruin the shot..
sorry-end of rant..:-((

cheers.

I don't understand why ANYONE would EVER want to use a filter on the front of a lens :).

Graham
(Also played briefly with Nik Software without knowing what I was doing. Lens NEEDED cleaning after this.)
Saltwater

http://i50.tinypic.com/y0dd.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timplog

and I'm surprised by the number of forum posts about folk's experiences with scratched front elements-and with responses like "don't worry about that because they won't show up in your print" with dreadful examples of damaged/cracked even front elements and prints therefrom-but the same person saying they would NEVER put a UV filter on-just in case-because it'll ruin the shot..
sorry-end of rant..:-((

---

I agree. To me, it's just so nonsensical.

- Some say "I don't need one because I'm careful" - that's like saying "I don't need to wear a seatbelt because I'm a careful driver". Accidents happen to careful drivers too.

- Some say "That flimsy & easily broken piece of glass doesn't offer any protection" - well I don't know about them, but any impact that's severe enough to break that "flimsy piece of glass" is already something that's waaaaay past what I want coming in contact with my front element!

- Some say "scratches and dents don't make any optically detectable difference" - well maybe so - just like dents and chips in my car don't affect it's performance either - but - (a) it's sure as heck going to affect the resale value and (b) just isn't how I like to treat my equipment.

- Some say "it degrades the recorded image" - well "in theory", MAYBE. In THEORY the oceans of the world rise when I throw in a stone too, but in practice it's been demonstrated time after time after time after time after time that given 2 control photos (one with, one without), nobody can tell the difference. It's also been demonstrated that it can increase ghosting in extreme contrast shots - it can - it absolutely can - no denying it. And for those situations the answer is simple - doh - remove it for those kinds of shots.

- Some say a hood provides better protection - well - nothing says you can't use both, but in my experience the hoods attached to wide-angle lenses are too shallow to protect it from most things, and on longer lenses with deeper hoods the hood breaks away from the mounting threads with anything more than a minor knock.

Did I miss any?

What Colin said +1!

I don't take a new lens out of the box without having a protection UV glass ready to screw on. I use all Heliopan multi coated, and have never noticed any degradation in IQ, either with or without the polariser screwed on top of the UV.

BTW, one of the unsung benes of Heliopan is the brass mount [rather than soft aluminum] which gives Heliopan much harder, better threads and enables a much easier, smoother attachment than with the cheaper aluminum mount. Yes, a bit pricier, but well worth it.

I'd have no trouble recommending stacking filters - provided you use a good quality glass.

Good luck. Regards,

Zen:D

Okay - Can we now draw to a close this discussion about whether or not to fit a UV. Those with strong views on one or other side of the debate will never convince those in the other camp and we don't want this to degenerate into a circular argument in which folk start getting frustrated and angry.

Now - Do you think Nikon sensors are better than Canon, and are zoom lenses inferior to primes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald

we don't want this to degenerate into a circular argument in which folk start getting frustrated and angry.

---

Or a circular polarised ("CP") argument even :D

Quote:

---

Now - Do you think Nikon sensors are better than Canon, and are zoom lenses inferior to primes?

---

No, and no. Macs are definitely inferior to PCs though :eek: