UV and polar filter combination

[RD400]

Hi
This maybe a daft question but I`ve fitted UV and skylight filter to my lens`s
now can I fit the cir- polarizing fliter on top of these or do I have to first take off the other filter to get the best out of the polarizing filter
cheers
Mick
Sorry for the double post I posted it first in the wrong forum

 

[Tricky01]

Hi Micheal,

Although you physically can attach a filter onto another filter, you will get the best image quality by limiting the additional number of lenses/elements. By lenses/elements I include both teleconverters and filters.

Where you are looking to get a particular effect (e.g. polariser or ND filter) then obviously it's necessary to add this filter to the lens, but otherwise it's unwise to add additional layers for the light to pass through.

UV and skylight filters typically serve to protect the lenses they used on. One thing to confirm though, I assume by this:

fitted UV and skylight filter to my lens`s

You mean you fitted either a UV filter OR a skylight filter to each of your lenses rather than both on each lens?

 

[RD400]

Thanks for that
Yes I`ve got a UV filter on one lens and a skylight filter to the other lens but was wondering about the polarizing filter

 

[hollis_f]

Take the so-called 'protective' filter off when using the polariser. And don't put it on afterwards.

 

[Tricky01]

And don't put it on afterwards.

Up until a few months ago I was getting told this from all sides and was starting to lean towards this point of view. Before I actually changed tack though, this happened:

I haven't been tempted to remove them since - but I would recommend spending good money on them. Cheap filters ruin IQ, but expensive ones are cheaper to replace than expensive lenses.

 

[lensflair]

Up until a few months ago I was getting told this from all sides and was starting to lean towards this point of view. Before I actually changed tack though, this happened:

I haven't been tempted to remove them since - but I would recommend spending good money on them. Cheap filters ruin IQ, but expensive ones are cheaper to replace than expensive lenses.

Is that a broken filter. Just shows how fragile those thin filters are and how little 'protection' they provide. So now you've got broken filter glass on your front element? I imagine the slight knock it took to do that wouldn't have done anything to the lens and you wouldnt have the glass to contend with if the filter wasn't there in the first place. Anyway, personal choice but I'm a no filter guy

 

[String]

Up until a few months ago I was getting told this from all sides and was starting to lean towards this point of view. Before I actually changed tack though, this happened:

I haven't been tempted to remove them since - but I would recommend spending good money on them. Cheap filters ruin IQ, but expensive ones are cheaper to replace than expensive lenses.

Looking at the edge damage, the camera was dropped and landed on the filter.

A lens hood would have provided significantly more protection in this case.

Always use a lens hood would be my advice.

 

[RD400]

ouch but why do people seam to not want to use filters when the above can happen

 

[String]

ouch but why do people seam to not want to use filters when the above can happen

Read post #7

 

[RobertP]

ouch but why do people seam to not want to use filters when the above can happen

All I did was take a picture with the UV filter on and then take the same picture without it. I haven't used one since.

 

[chivers67]

Mick, if your lens is a wide angle with both filters on you can get vignetting (darkening in the corners if you're not familar with the word) so in some instances it's definitely worth just having the polarizer on

 

[Oggy]

The only time that filters may give worthwhile protection is from airborn crud and detritus (rain, mud etc).

In the case of a frontal impact the filter will shatter very easily. This will result in razor-sharp shards of galss hitting the lens, probably causing more dammage than a relatively blunt object would.

 

[odd jim]

Up until a few months ago I was getting told this from all sides and was starting to lean towards this point of view. Before I actually changed tack though, this happened:

I haven't been tempted to remove them since - but I would recommend spending good money on them. Cheap filters ruin IQ, but expensive ones are cheaper to replace than expensive lenses.

Or use a hood? You would have been able to carry on using the hood after that as well.

 

[Tricky01]

Looking at the edge damage, the camera was dropped and landed on the filter.

A lens hood would have provided significantly more protection in this case.

Always use a lens hood would be my advice.

Cheers String, but I always do. This was when the lens cap was on and the lens was being stowed away in a bag. I'm pretty careful with my gear but accidents happen.

 

[Tricky01]

The only time that filters may give worthwhile protection is from airborn crud and detritus (rain, mud etc).

In the case of a frontal impact the filter will shatter very easily. This will result in razor-sharp shards of galss hitting the lens, probably causing more dammage than a relatively blunt object would.

I get what you're saying Oggy, but the lens would have taken all the impact and almost certainly have cracked. In the event, the filter took the strain. I used an air blower and then a brush to clear the lens once the filter was off but there were no abrasions to the front element.

Everyone is careful with their gear and thinks it won't happen to them. I hope it doesn't, but I'm happier picking up a cost of £60 for a new filter than than £700 for a new lens. In tests I've done I haven't found any issues with the IQ pre and post filter, but that might be my eyes

 

[dejongj]

Amazing how a lot of people after seeing that still come up with reasons that having that filter on actually caused more damage.

I'd be happy to have the filter on. Like you tricky with my hoya hd uv on or off I can't see IQ difference. Yes perhaps an itsy weeny tiny adjustment in exposure, but IQ...nope can't see it.

As per the original question, no I don't combine them. I leave them separate, so one or the other.