How many filters at the same time?

[cguaimare]

<p>Dear friends. I was wondering if I can put my Polarizer filter on top of the UV filter? Will I have any vignetting? My lens is a 35 mm. Thank you very much</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>UV filters are usually unnecessary with digital, other than to protect the lens from some types of damage - usually due to sea spray, or blood, sweat and beers at bars and boxing events. There's usually no reason to combine a UV and polarizer, unless you want to protect the polarizer too - in which case, the UV filter needs to be on top. If I had an expensive polarizer I'd probably use a protective filter on top of it if I was shooting at the beach, on a boat, under trees leaking sap, etc.</p>

<p>Regarding vignetting, try it and see. Usually any significant vignetting is visible in the viewfinder. With APS sensor cameras it's seldom an issue, especially with lenses designed for full frame. I stack multiple filters on my Nikon D2H (APS sensor, DX format) for infrared and long exposure daylight photography. I never see any vignetting. Even if the combination of filters might vignette with 35mm film or full frame digital, it's cropped out with the DX format using most lenses. A rare exception might involve using some ultrawide or fisheye lenses designed for APS sensor dSLRs.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Lex forgot to mention champagne. And I have been sprayed with it while shooting. Otherwise, his post has everything you need.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I was wondering if I can put my Polarizer filter on top of the UV filter?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

There's no point. You gain nothing by stacking them. Use them one at a time or not at all.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Lex forgot to mention champagne."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And also dogs licking the ends of lenses. And kids shoving ice-cream in the end of the lens. (That happened to the second camera which was slung over my shoulder at the time: yes the dog cleaned up the ice-cream.)</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>To the original question – No. As already mentioned, there’s usually no advantage on stacking a UV and a CPL - except to protect the CPL - which BTW I do not do and I do often work at the sea-side or at a swimming pool or on a boat.<br /> Re salt spray on filters (I use a filter when shooting near the salt water): I find a little bit of water to reduce the salt and then a wash is quite OK for a good filter clean: so long as one doesn't rub the dry salt to scratch the filter, then is all OK.</p>

<p>***<br>

<br /> Sorry for being a bit off topic: but the kid and the dog and the ice-cream were quite funny at the time that it all happened.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Will you have vignetting? You might. Impossible to tell without experience with the same 35mm lens and the same filter combination. </p>

<p>But as indicated you'll lose nothing bar a few seconds taking the UV filter off when you need to polarise. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Unless you know better, do not judge whether or not the filter pack vignettes by looking through the viewfinder.</p>

<p>In all but the most top-end cameras, and not in all of those, the viewfinder view is less than 100%.<br /> (for Canon summarized at http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00c80p )</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>For digital cameras, the LCD is usually sufficient for checking for vignetting regardless of the viewfinder coverage.</p>

[henryp]

<p><img src="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2011/06/mounted.jpg" alt="" width="652" height="265" />http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters<br /> Apparently someone thinks 50 is just about right. :-)</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I used to always always always keep a UV filter on a lens to protect it, but since I switched formats, I haven't gotten around to buying filters for my lenses yet. </p>

<p>but... guess what, I'm not fingering them or scratching them... so I don't think I'll bother. THat said, I think having a UV filter on a lens at all times is a good plan for a beginner.</p>

<p>WHen I used to switch, I'd take the UV filter off and put the Polarizer on, just to keep my image from going through too many pieces of glass.</p>

[cguaimare]

Thanks a lot. I thought You HAVE to have ALL the time a filter in front of your main glass

[JDMvW]

<p>In a few cases of 'weatherproofed' lenses, the manufacturer does recommend a front filter as a seal.</p>

<p>For physical impact protection, a lens hood alone is often good enough, but (as said) blood, champagne, iced milk cones, and other dangers often make it a good idea to have a clear filter on.</p>

<p>For most shooting in non-critical situations, a clear or UV filter on the front won't hurt much, but aside from protection from crap, it won't do much to help on digital cameras either. <br /> Film was very sensitive to UV, and that was one reason for using UV filters back when.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I thought You HAVE to have ALL the time a filter in front of your main glass<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you do NOT need to keep a filter on your lenses at all times. I rarely use filters. Most of the time the front of my lens is exposed. I use lens hoods to add a level of impact protection.<br>

<br>

Henry Posner - thanks for making my day!</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Henry, this site REALLY needs a like button, love that pic. ;)</p>

[girishmenon]

<p>B+W make a 'slim' polarising filter specifically to eliminate vignetting (fantastic for wide-angle lenses).<br>

As far as using multiple filters goes, the best answer I have come upon was right here on photo.net a long time ago. A wise man said something to the tune of, "whether on a lens or in the bar, an additional glass is never a good idea!"</p>