john_valjean Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 <p>quick question, would it make sense to place a polarizer on top of a UV filter, or it is better to remove the UV filter first, thanks ...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 <p>Always remove the UV filter. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newmanuk Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 John It makes sense not to stack filters.Possible exception would the most expensive on the market .. even so it is but a moments extra work. Enjoy your shooting . Regards miken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathangardner Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Remove uv. The more extraneous glass you have the more the image quality will suffer. UV's do very little other than offer protection. I don't use them at all. A polarizer and ND are the only two filters I own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 <p>There would be absolutely no value in stacking these two filters. (You might make a very weak case for it if you shoot film, but only in very limited situations... and it would be a truly weak case.)</p> <p>There is no value in filtering UV light with DSLRs in any case, and the supposed protective value of the UV filter would be superfluous with the CP filter attached. More flat glass surfaces in the light path mean more opportunities for internal reflections and flare and loss of contrast.</p> <p>Dan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 <p>There's a couple of reasons to stack them: it's quick, and if you're really concerned about protecting the front element: leaving the UV on will ensure no inadvertant finger prints.</p> <p>As to quality loss, I doubt anyone could tell the difference between blind test shots: one with with the stacked UV, one without.</p> <p>The big negative is vignette: wide enough focal length and you will. I found with a couple of lens that get down to 24mm, on full frame, one did vignette, the other was ok.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 <p>To follow up on ML's post, this is yet another good reason to lose the UV filter - it interferes and/or complexifies your use of the CP filter. Lose the UV. Seriously.</p> <p>Dan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_valjean Posted June 15, 2011 Author Share Posted June 15, 2011 <p>thanks to all for the valuable feedback, the UV is coming off ...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now