Should I use a CP filter as my main filter instead of a UV one?

Hi!
Ill be soon buying a 50mm for street photography and candid shots.
I wanna get used to it and make it my "standard" focal length for when I have to take just one fast prime lens.
Well, my question is this: Should I get a regular UV filter or a CP filter? I dont want to change filters, I want only one, leave it there and forget about it.
So, do you think CP filter would bring me any advantages for the kind of work I want to do?

 

do you think CP filter would bring me any advantages for the kind of work I want to do?​

No. Almost none at all, and plenty of disadvantages (loss of light, internal reflections, etc.) Why do you need any filter?

 

To answer your question directly, a UV filter is typically a lens protector and that's about it, if your intention is never to change out filters then this is the one you want as Curt said a CP will reduce the light available to the camera's sensor.
Now the added bit, I don't see how one could go about capturing images in all shooting conditions and not expect to carry a couple of filters to match the conditions, can you get results without filters sure you can, will you get better results utilizing the correct filters for the conditions or setup absolutely.

 

I would be curious to know why you think you need this on a regular basis. Is it to cut atmospheric or window reflections
and the like? Otherwise, no, I don't think you need such an arrangement, but maybe for some things.

 

No, oo not. A polariser produces effects on your photographs that you want to choose frame by frame whether you want
them and to what degree. A filter to leave on all the time? My choice would be -and is- none. But if you want to protect
your lens then a uv or skylight will have little to no effect on your photographs.

 

The UV filter is commonly sold as insurance against damaging our valued camera lenses. Personally I never damaged a lens but I have seen scratched lens. Personally I would not mount one but I can understand the basic concept. The down side is, every filter has two surfaces that act to reflect some light away. The light loss is about 2 percent if the filter is coated and about 4% if un-coated. The back surface faces film or sensor and it ketches light reflected off the polished surfaces of lenses that follow. These will be reflected into the image forming rays by the filter. These are misdirected rays that reduce contrast. I am taking about flare and filters induce more flare. Flare is devastating so a good rule of thumb is, never add a filter unless the benefit outweighs the harm.
Now the UV is indispensable for film camera work if the subject is distant landscape, mountain views, scenes over water and aerial photography. What happens is, atmospheric haze is blue scatter light with a high UV content. Films are supper sensitive to these short wavelengths. A UV will mitigate haze allowing some detail to be seen in the distant mist. Unless your subject is quite distant the UV filter is worthless except to protect the underlying lens. The modern digital sensor is highly sensitive to UV thus the sensor sports a cover glass that protects the sensor from harm and stops UV before it gets to the sensor.
Now the polarizer is quite valuable. Fist it offers the same UV filtration as the UV alone. Next it mitigates reflections from some shinny surfaces. It is particularly valuable when shooting subjects behind glass and objects submerged in shallow water. Additionally the polarizer darkens blue sky enhancing white clouds. It can add saturation to a vista without changing the color balance. The polarizing screen is the most valuable of all the filters.
The standard polarizer is linear and these work just fine. Now some digital cameras use a polarizing screen in the focusing and exposure mechanism. If true the linear polarizing screen can interfere. Enter the circular polarizing filter. This design is two filters sandwiched together the side that faces the subject is a standard linear. The leading filter does the deed. The side the faces the camera is called a retarder. The retarder scrambles the polarized light so it won’t cause any impairment. The effects of the polarizing screen are not impaired by the retarder. The downside is you are adding two filters with 4 surfaces. Again, benefit outweighs the harm?

 

Alright guys, thanks! I had a wrong idea about polarizing filters. Think they wont add much to my photos needs in this case. Ill stick with the UV for protection.
Cheers!

 

You don't really need a protective filter unless you're shooting boxing and martial arts ringside, at a beach or on a boat with sea spray, under trees leaking sticky sap or in a nightclub with beer flying. For those situations, sure, a clear, UV or similar protective filter can be helpful. I usually carry 'em in my bag. For me it's mostly when trees are leaking sap - the stuff dries hard as resin and creates a tiny translucent pimple surface that can contribute to flare. It's easier to wipe off the filter and replace it every few years.
But for most street and candid photography, it's better to leave 'em off. With a low angle sun peeking between buildings or streetlights at night, filters just add another surface for flare.

 

Your "main filter" should in most cases be no filter at all.
But if you do want to keep a filter on your lens at all times, a circular polarizer would be a bad choice for several reasons. Stick with a high quality, multi-coated UV filter if you feel that you must have something mounted onto your lens.

 

Think I'm just not ready to leave my lens unprotected! I tried it once and I realized I was constantly checking the glass minute after minute to see if something had touched it or whatever. I'm a little OCD about my photography stuff...Hopefully that will go away if I ever start to make money out of it!

 

Allan, your lens is not unprotected without a filter. Lenses are not all that vulnerable, and a lot of filters are less scratch-resistant than modern lenses, I think. A lens front element does not just scratch all that easy, plus you should use a lens hood where possible anyway (which does also protect your lens a lot better than a filter will). As Lex described, I have UV filters only for lenses that I use in adverse condition to make cleaning easier - and then I am talking about sand, salt water, dusty and dirty enviroments - not fingerprints and bits of normal grease, which are no issue at all to clean. Realistically, get over the fear of damaging the lens, because good lenses are made to be used, and hence can stand a little knock here and there.
Nobody is suggesting to treat your gear badly, but you have to be realistic about the level of protection you expect from a filter, and how likely it is your gear will actually really get damaged by walking around with it.
A piece of non-requested food for thought: sure about a 50mm? If you have a APS-C camera, 50mm is quite long. Before committing to a single focal length, try with a zoom-lens which length you actually prefer. The bog-standard advice to get a 50mm prime (because they are cheap and because they were used a lot back in the days of film) is not that fantastic advice. Get a length you "feel" right with.

 

If you are going to use UV filters to protect your lens, don't be tempted to buy cheap ones. I do occasionally leave UV filters on to protect lenses - i often leave my camera on the seat of a dusty work truck for days and days, or have it out in the snow, or stick it in silly places, and UV filters are a bit of an assurance. But there is no sense putting an inferior piece of glass, that all light in an image transfers through, in front of your nice lens. The last UV filter I bought cost me $160.
I second Wouter's unsolicited advice - 50mm is a bit long on an APS-C camera. If you like that, go for it, but make sure you think about it first.

 

Well $160 is definitely very expensive for me to pay for a filter. I'll probably pick one from hoya, super HMC.
But thanks guys, I'll sure think about this and hopefully get rid of everyday-filters.
Now, regarding the 50mm, I already have a 35mm and I find it great, except for bokehs, which I love. With the 35mm, in order to make a good bokeh I usually have to come too close to the subject, and especially for people, it looks bad. Also, I think a little bit more range would be beneficial for street photography, although I still could crop stuff with the 35mm.

 

To answer your question about circular polarizing filters, my personal opinion is that they are utterly worthless for street photography.
Worse than worthless, in fact, because they'll cost you two stops of much needed shutter speed.

I won't try to talk you out of "protecting your lens" with filters. That's a personal decision. I feel that a lens hood is a better choice in most
instances except for environments where dirt, blowing sand, splashing liquids, or dog snouts are likely to come in contact with the front
lens element. I want the ability to mount my Lee filter holder quickly when required. I don't want to have to unscrew and then yptempoarily
store a glads filter first.

 

Willian, yes, it is. D7000 more specifically.
I'm aware of that. A time ago I remember reading somewhere the a 85mm 1.8 would be great lens for street/candids, used by lots of pros. 85mm would sure be too long for me with a D7000, so 50mm should be alright.
Also, take a look at this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/97039143@N00
He's just starting out with this kind of photography and most of the pics are taken with a DX + 50mm. I find his hots interesting for a beginner. Thought I could do the same.

 

Allan, before buying a lens, take a look at the EXIF data for your existing photos. Some photo editing software and metadata editors can help identify our tendencies. I discovered only after buying a 50/1.8 for my DX sensor dSLR that I rarely used that focal length. I was accustomed to the "normal" lens for my 35mm and medium format film cameras, but the 50 was too long for my preferences on the DX sensor camera. So it was a waste of money. I'd have gotten more use from a fast 28mm or 35mm lens, or a faster midrange zoom in place of my variable aperture zoom.
In fact, I bought that 50/1.8D AF Nikkor around 2006 for my D2H, and ended up using it very rarely until I got a CX sensor Nikon V1. On the V1 the 50mm makes a nifty and useful equivalent to a 135mm f/1.8 on a full frame or 35mm film camera. So I've been using the 50 on the V1 for low light performance photography.
By analyzing your EXIF data for tendencies you might find that you'll get more use from an even longer lens. I know of some photographers who prefer longer lenses, up to 200-300mm for street photography. Not my style, but it suits them. Just depends on how comfortable you are getting close to people, and whether you enjoy chattering with folks you meet out in public while snapping pix.

 

Hmm alright, good point guys. I really thought they were all taken with a 50mm, sorry about that.
But well, you do agree that 35mm is way too short for a nice bokeh without major distortions right? And that a 85mm would be TOO long for street, meaning Id be able to get mainly headshots, otherwise Id have to stay too far from the subject?
As far as I know there are only these 3 primes I could be taking into consideration.

 

The term "bokeh" is generally used to describe the *quality* of the out-of-focus parts of the photo, not merely the existence of out-of-focus areas. Bokeh is affected by many factors: optical design; whether the aperture is stopped down at all; the shape of the iris (although this is less important than is often described); distances between camera and subject, and between subject and background/foreground; shapes of the out of focus elements.
I typically shoot candids and street photos stopped down and often with wide angle lenses, so bokeh is irrelevant to most of my photos. Everything is more or less in focus. But I usually prefer a busier looking photo and the milieu is essential to the photo, not a distraction to be blurred out.
I've seen results from the 35/1.4 Zeiss Distagon used wide open that show both excellent sharpness and appealing bokeh. So it's possible to get both with a moderately wide angle lens, at least on a full frame format dSLR or 35mm film. And 35mm primes are usually well corrected to minimize distortion. Most I've seen have minimal barrel distortion, reasonably flat field and are usually well corrected to minimize chromatic aberration (although Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX is noted for purplish fringing in high contrast areas, such as around foliage against a bright sky).
If you prefer to shoot wide open for shallow DOF, and if the budget allows, go for an f/1.4 prime. The 50mm f/1.4 primes are usually fairly affordable, a little more than double the price of the f/1.8 versions. The 50/1.8 lenses are great values but not necessarily great lenses. Biggest mistake I made in settling on the 50/1.8D AF Nikkor several years ago was not ponying up a bit more money for the f/1.4 version. I already had the 50/2 AI Nikkor and the 50/1.8 offered no real advantages, other than the clunky screwdriver autofocus.

 

85mm would be TOO long for street, meaning Id be able to get mainly headshots​

I wouldn't call this a head shot, and I wasn't very far away.