Using Polarising Filter with UV Filter

[dineshscbs]

I have just purchased Marumi DHG Super Circular Polarizer CPL PL.D 67 67mm Filter to use with my Canon 70-200 f/4.0 IS USM lens and perhaps with my 18-55 lens with filter adapter.

I got the delivery just today; however, as it is a thin mount filter it does not thread properly if I try to put it directly on my 70-200 lens. I normally use B+W 67mm UVA (Ultra Violet) Haze MRC Filter for lens protection and leave it on all the time. The Marumi DHG Super Circular Polarizer CPL PL.D 67 67mm Filter fits fine on top of the B+W 67mm UVA (Ultra Violet) Haze MRC Filter.

I guess people have mixed opinions on stacking filters. I was wondering if anyone has used these filters or similar filters together, what their experience is. Will sincerely appreciate your feedback.

I bought the filter from EBay and from a US based seller. I live in Australia and so returning the filter and then trying to get another one can be a bit of hassle. And it is not exactly a cheap filter. Unfortunately I had not thought about this issue before ordering.

[Donald]

Dinesh

I've got a UV on all my lenses and everything else - polariser occasionally, NDs, GNDs - sometimes all in combination - go on top. And no-one has ever suggested it affects the quality of my images. That's just down to poor ability!

EDIT -
Should've added - You are right. There is a debate. And I'm sure there is some scientific formula somewhere that proves beyond all doubt that there is image degradation resulting from stacking filters. Fortunately, I prefer to look at pictures than at scientific formulae. If you've got yourself good quality filters (which you seem to have) then go for it.

[Trevalex]

Id think that as long as you were using good filters, it wouldnt degrade much. Id be more worried about vignetting once id get past 2-3 filters. Unless they were supposedly built to be very thin for stacking like that.
Id say to apply all the filters you find appropriate for your shot. However, note that vignetting may occur if you stack more than 2-3 and some filter effects can be done very effectively in post. Thats also a money saver. If you like the warming filter effect in post, you dont need to shell out the money for a nice filter. Imo, polariser, uv, nd are filters you really cant replace digitally.

[dineshscbs]

Thank you for reassurance, Donald and Trevor.

At this stage I don't have other filters. Only recently I have switched to manual mode and I am gradually building my equipment. I have a GND filter next on my list but I intend to buy only a good quality filter when I can afford it and only after I learn how to use the polarising filter effectively.

[louise830]

Hi, Im new to digital photography and cambridgeincolour But Ive been reading everything I can on filters and this thread seems to be answering my questions the best so I hope you don't mind me joining? I brought a D300s with 70-300mm, a AF 24-85, 50mm (I got a really good deal in the middle east and got what I could at the time) and since then a Dx 16-85mm lens which I'd like to use mostly but tend to have the 50mm on more often because as I say I'm a babe at this and am terrified of wrecking the more expensive lenses still!!!! while I learn to play with the camera. I'm thinking I should get some filters or at least one for the Dx lens mainly for protection but just don't know where to start other than I need a 67mm filter and I'm get more confused the more I read. Any (simple) advise would be really helpful keeping in mind I would like to add on more filter effects as I progress. I notice Donald says he uses UV for all his lenses maybe this is the place to start???? Thanks guys

[Colin Southern]

I'm thinking I should get some filters or at least one for the Dx lens mainly for protection but just don't know where to start other than I need a 67mm filter and I'm get more confused the more I read. Any (simple) advise would be really helpful keeping in mind I would like to add on more filter effects as I progress.

Hi Louise,

Folks are divided on the use of filters for front-element protection, but in my opinion, it's a no-brainer. Contrary to popular myths, using a filter won't degrade your images in any way, shape, or form (with the possible exception of issues with high-contrast (eg night) scenes, at which point one simply removes the filter for those kinds of shots and them puts it back on again) - on the plus side, it's much easier to clean a filter than a front element, and it provides a good degree of protection against things marking / scratching the lens. I like to think of it as being like wearing a seatbelt, even though we're careful drivers and don't plan on having an accident.

The golden rule on filter selection is a simple one -- don't buy cheap. Buy a good quality multi-coated UV filter. Personally, I use Heliopan SH-PMC; B+W are another top brand, and others have also often recommended other brands such as Hoya Pro-Digital series.

Hope this helps!

[louise830]

Thanks for the reply Colin, It seems UV is the best place to start which leads to my next question- is it advisable to get a filter for each lens size (as I can afford it) or get one that will fit all the lenses and if so so what should I be looking for with that. Another question is what is considered good in a filter??????.

[Colin Southern]

Thanks for the reply Colin, It seems UV is the best place to start which leads to my next question- is it advisable to get a filter for each lens size (as I can afford it) or get one that will fit all the lenses and if so so what should I be looking for with that. Another question is what is considered good in a filter??????.

Hi Louise,

Ideally they're something that you fit on a lens and then (essentially) forget about it - swapping one around between lenses isn't really practical.

In terms of "what's good in a filter" - basically - low reflectance. Hopefully other will chip in with some good makes and models, but as a rule of thumb, it needs to be a brand name, and one thats "multi-coated".

This is the ones I use ...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ze_SH_PMC.html

... but they're at the higher end of the price range - there are definately cheaper ones that will still perform very well.

[Donald]

Louise

Like you said I did write about having a UV filter on all my lenses ... and never taking them off. I'm like Colin in think about the seatbelt analogy - I hope I never need to put it to the test, but I feel safer with it on.

For example, I've just bought a Sigma 120-400 lens. I bought a UV filter for it at the same time. The very first thing I did, before I completed unwrapping it from the box and before any dust or grit could get near the lens, was to screw on the UV filter. And it will remain there. Any other creative filters I want to use in a shot; e.g. Graduated Neutral Density or Polariser, will go on top of the UV.

Like Colin says, other folk disagree. So you have to make up your own mind about what you'd like to do. I use the Hoya Pro-Digital filters

[louise830]

Thanks this is all really helpful. Donald do you use a special adapter to screw a second filter on to the first (ie CPL onto UV) and if so what is the adapter (is it even called an adapter?) or do the filters or, some filters, have the capacity to fit one on top of another with out an adapter. Thanks for the web link to Colin, your right those filters are top end ie expensive but Im beginning to get insight to what is available and that all helps before I purchase some kind of (UV) filter/s. Cheers Louise

[Donald]

Louise

My UV filters are screw-in type on the lens. All the rest are built on the Cokin modular system. This means I fit a filter holder onto the lens by means of an adaptor ring. And then the filters get placed into the holder.

Cokin is just one manufacturers of such systems. There are others.

[louise830]

Thanks for the reply Donald Im now of to research the cokin modular system and any others I come across in the process You have a good day there Louise

[Thrillmetoo]

I'm pretty sure that any filter you put in front of your lens is a UV filter. Therefore, you don't need the UV filter when you use another.

[Donald]

I'm pretty sure that any filter you put in front of your lens is a UV filter. Therefore, you don't need the UV filter when you use another.

Whether it is or not, the point is that you can't keep every other type of lens on as a front element protector. And given that there is no image degradation caused by putting, say, a polariser on top of a UV, then it seems unnecessary to remove the UV in order to use the polariser.

[RockNGoalStar]

Don't look at the UV filter as a filter that filters UV. On that score it is almost redundant, according to everything that I have ever read. But think of it more as a lens protector. On that front it is invaluable.

I have one on all of my lenses too. occasionally I will remove it if I am shooting into the sun, or other bright light, and want to minimise lens flare.

But for general shooting you'll never tell from the photo that you had one on. I've never ever seen on any forum someone say, "that photo would have been better if you didn't have a UV filter on your lens"...

[dineshscbs]

Thank you for joining in the discussion Louise and everyone for responding.

All my own lenses have UV filters permanently (or almost permanently) on. In terms of quality, I have followed suggestions mentioned above in terms of specifications although not always as expensive brands as some mentioned here. I have Canon, Hoya, B & W and now Marumi brands. For UV filters I always buy the size specific for a lens. I will use adapter only for other filters which are generally lot more expensive. At this stage all my filters are screw-on type.

[Dwaine]

Newbee here............Thanking all of you for this line of thinking. I would like to add one question that may not have been answered. Does a UV filter in place steal any light. I am frequently working in low light older gyms that find me F2.8 wide open with high ISO to overcome horrible lighting. No flash permitted. I use CS4 & Elements 9 for PM.

[Colin Southern]

Does a UV filter in place steal any light.

In a word, no. Their only practical use in DSLR photography is for front element protection.

[rpcrowe]

Louise,

Most screw-in filters (with the exception of some ultra thin filters designed for ultra wide lenses) have two sets of threads. There is a male set on one side of the filter which is designed to screw into the female threads at the front of most (if not all) lenses. Then there is a female set on the other side of the filter. A second filter can be screwed into the female set.

In the real olden days (when I started in photography - about the time of Mathew Brady), most photographers did not use filters which had threads to attach to the lens. Instead they used filters with plain rings in different sizes, usually numbered from Series 5 for smaller lenses to series nine for larger lenses. You then used a filter holder which screwed into the lens and into which you placed the numered series silter. The second half of the filter holder screwed into the first half and retained the filter in place. Some cameras like the Rolleiflex twin lens reflex models used proprietary bayonet mount filters.

Other things that CAN be screwed into the female filter threads are some types of lens hoods, some types of lens caps and close-up lenses. I have no problems with screwing a second filter into the first but, that is just about as far as I would take that. I would be dubious about screwing a third filter in line because that might start to deteriorate the image and it could very easily begin to vignette the image depending on the type of lens, focal length and f/stop,

Now, about using one filter that will fit on your largest circumference lens and then using step rings to fit this filter on lenses with smaller circumference. This is perfectly acceptable and will not cause any image degradation. It is also a less expensive way to buy your filters. However, I personally would restrict this arrangement to filters which I use only occasionally, such as neutral density filters.

Using this arrangement with filters (such as UV or protection filters) can propose problems because every time you need to change lenses, you would need to change the filter also. I prefer to have individual filters for each lens. Since I shoot with two cameras, mounting two different lenses, I have a CPL and a UV filter for each size lens. That way, when switching from the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens to the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens by changing the camera I shoot with, I don't have to switch the CPL or UV from lens to lens.

Top line filters are expensive, but important for image quality. Using a cheap filter can and will most often degrade your image quality. Top-line filters are expensive but the UV or protection filters are the least expensive type of filter.

BTW: when we were shooting film, we would often use a UV filter because film was particularly sensitive to UV rays. The UV filter would sometimes (depending on the light and the angle of the light) improve the imagery. Digital sensors do not have that sensitivity to UV rays and the only reason a photographer would use a UV filter is for lens protection. I especially recommend the use of these filters with lenses which use quite shallow lens hoods. The shallow lens hood will allow the front element to be more vulnerable to dirt and damage than will a lens with a deeper lens hood. As an example, the hood for my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is quite shallow and I consider it imperative to use a lens hood for safety while the stock Canon lens hood for my 70-200mm f/4L IS is quite deep. This lens hood would provide more protection to the front element than the hood for my 17-55mm f/2.8 lens.

Finally, I ALWAYS shoot with a lens hood whether I am shooting outdoors or indoors. The hood will not only protect the lens fron stray light but will protect it from damage and to a certain extent from dirt and fingerprints.

[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.

Why shoot into the sun? Because I've always found it difficult to not shoot into the sun when shooting a sunrise/sunset.

What happens (at least it has happened to me on several occasions with four different lenses) is that the sun's rays go through the filter, then reflect off the front element, then reflect off the inside of the filter and then reflect back onto the sensor. And that process of reflections doesn't just happen once - I have several images with four or five little bright pink and/or green bright spots trailing down to the bottom of the image. Never have been able to remove them.

Now when I shoot sunsets (who gets up early enough to shoot sunrises ) I remove the filter, but it soon goes right back on.

I ALWAYS use a lens hood, but there are situations where light will fall onto the surface of the filter - watch out for them.


Addressing the title of this thread - some lenses with two filters will vignette - even if the filter are the ultra-thin type (some lenses vignette without filters but that's another story).

Glenn