UV filter and polarizer

[john_valjean]

<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>

[phule]

<p>Always remove the UV filter. </p>

[newmanuk]

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

[nathangardner]

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.

[g dan mitchell]

<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>

[mendel_leisk]

<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>

[g dan mitchell]

<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>

[john_valjean]

<p>thanks to all for the valuable feedback, the UV is coming off ...</p>