Don't Miss Out On Top-Selling Deals From Park Cameras - Find Out More
Filter layering?
Hi all,
Just purchased a polarizing filter as I understand it will give me bluer skies etc.
But do I screw my polarizer on top of my UV filter or do I take my UV off?
Do I only use my polarizer when taking pictures that includes pieces of sky or do I leave it on all the time.
Any advice would be appreciated......
Just purchased a polarizing filter as I understand it will give me bluer skies etc.
But do I screw my polarizer on top of my UV filter or do I take my UV off?
Do I only use my polarizer when taking pictures that includes pieces of sky or do I leave it on all the time.
Any advice would be appreciated......
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
I do the same as you Randle - if I leave the UV filter on my Sigma 10-20mm you can see it when using the lens at 10mm.
Although I have had severe banding issues with you the polarizing filers on my Sigma lens.
Although I have had severe banding issues with you the polarizing filers on my Sigma lens.
I couldn't give you a serious run-down of the science (although I'm sure any internet search engine could) but the polarising filter works by filtering out, as the name would suggest, some light reaching the lens. For that reason I wouldn't leave it fitted all the time, especially with our weather in the UK. (The loss of light may lead to longer exposures, increasing the likelihood of camera shake etc).
If shooting in a studio with flash, or on holiday in a sunny country for instance, no problem, as the benefit it gives is a boost to your colours. Perhaps not for natural portraits; personal preference I s'pose.
If shooting in a studio with flash, or on holiday in a sunny country for instance, no problem, as the benefit it gives is a boost to your colours. Perhaps not for natural portraits; personal preference I s'pose.
Leave your UV on whenever you haven't got the Polariser on. Take your UV off if using the polariser, the more bits of glass that the light has to go through the worse the image gets.
Don't leave your polariser on for the reasons given above.
If you want to judge when to use it, get it out, look through it and rotate it. If the image darkens at one point as you rotate and then lightens again it's probably worth putting it on. This can be to give bluer skies and accentuate cloud details or to reduce reflections on water surfaces etc.
Don't leave your polariser on for the reasons given above.
If you want to judge when to use it, get it out, look through it and rotate it. If the image darkens at one point as you rotate and then lightens again it's probably worth putting it on. This can be to give bluer skies and accentuate cloud details or to reduce reflections on water surfaces etc.
Filters for "protection" are an emotive subject but all the user polls I have seen and the vast majority of photographers I meet do not use them.
Specifically on UV's for the last 25 years colour film has had negligible UV sensitivity, digital sensors incorporate a UV filter, many modern lens glass types stop UV and any decent multi coating stops UV.
This is probably why Nikon stopped making UV's and market the clear NC, Canon advise using there clear Regular except with silver based B&W film and older lenses and Hoya make the clear Protect series. Some UV's stop some blue colour making them less than ideal for some landscape work.
For most amateurs for theft and lens breakage for around £2 a year for each £100 value provides more protection for less money than filters.
Obviously an extra layer of glass reduces contrast and in consequence apparent sharpness. By how much depends on the lens, the filter quality and the light but up to half a stop is not uncommon into the light with a good quality filter on a wide angle zoom.
Some of the cheaper filters cause atrocious degradation - with Nikon providing an example on their web site.
I do not know how many Canon lenses cannot be "protected" with a filter due to no front filter thread, but with Nikon it is around 9 current lenses.
As already mentioned stacking filters increases the amount of image degradation, the chance of reflections off a sensor if shooting digital, and the chances of getting hard black corners to the image - so remove the UV when conditions are right for a pol effect.
Specifically on UV's for the last 25 years colour film has had negligible UV sensitivity, digital sensors incorporate a UV filter, many modern lens glass types stop UV and any decent multi coating stops UV.
This is probably why Nikon stopped making UV's and market the clear NC, Canon advise using there clear Regular except with silver based B&W film and older lenses and Hoya make the clear Protect series. Some UV's stop some blue colour making them less than ideal for some landscape work.
For most amateurs for theft and lens breakage for around £2 a year for each £100 value provides more protection for less money than filters.
Obviously an extra layer of glass reduces contrast and in consequence apparent sharpness. By how much depends on the lens, the filter quality and the light but up to half a stop is not uncommon into the light with a good quality filter on a wide angle zoom.
Some of the cheaper filters cause atrocious degradation - with Nikon providing an example on their web site.
I do not know how many Canon lenses cannot be "protected" with a filter due to no front filter thread, but with Nikon it is around 9 current lenses.
As already mentioned stacking filters increases the amount of image degradation, the chance of reflections off a sensor if shooting digital, and the chances of getting hard black corners to the image - so remove the UV when conditions are right for a pol effect.
I found this thread handy as I am considering buying a polariser. Thanks to everyone.
