I was hoping that someone could help me with this. Is it acceptable to use a polarizer filter at the same time (stacking) as a UV filter? If so does it matter if one goes before the other?
I was hoping that someone could help me with this. Is it acceptable to use a polarizer filter at the same time (stacking) as a UV filter? If so does it matter if one goes before the other?
You can stack filters as long as there are threads. However, it may cause increased vignetting (especially on wider focal lengths). As far as which should go on first, I vote for the UV filter on first (I have my reasons, but they seem a bit feeble...I want to see what everyone else says first to see if I'm justified in my reasoning).
i too always have my UV filter on first, for the simple reason that - "it never comes off the lens."
[]
Originally Posted by Bronzefoot
Generally, you want to shoot through as little glass as possible. And even though it's a bit of a hassle, I always remove my UV filter before I put the polarizer on (but when I put the polarizer on I usually keep it on, I don't frequently put it on and then take it off). IQ is one reason. The second one is vignetting, as it's already been said before. But this depends on the lens (on three of my lenses I can stack at least two filters without vignetting, on my 10-22 I can only put one). If you want to stack both, assuming they are of similar (good!) quality, I'd say put the polarizer on top, 'cause it'd be the one you might want to take off (i.e., you should keep the UV filter on all the time).
Tony
I tried stacking on both my Canon 24-70 2.8L and Canon 10-22. Both of them have UV filters on (the latter being thin). My advice is to buy a thin polarizer to prevent vignetting. I use a Hoya Pro1D 77mm thin CIR POL on both lens. On my 24-70 2.8L, no vignetting, but it vignettes well on my 10-22 at 10mm. Just stop down at 12mm and vignetting will be gone. Why did I stack? I was riding on a fast boat, splashes everywhere. BTW, I'm using Canon 50D.
If you get good quality, multi-coated filters (e.g. B+W MRC or the high-end Hoya filters) then you can stack them without loss of image quality, as long as you're not vignetting. Stacking even slim filters on a UWA lens like a 16-35mm on FF or a 10-22mm on a crop body is likely to vignette at the wide end. Keep in mind that a slim CPL is the same height as a standard filter.
Personally, I keep B+W MRC UV filters on my lenses at all times. The F-PRO mount is pretty thin, and on my 10-22mm I use the XS-PRO mount, a slim filter that retains front threads. If I need a CPL or ND filter, have time to set up, and I'm in a dry, non-dusty environment, I remove the UV and put on the other filter. If I'm short on time, or at the beach, etc., I stack other filter onto the UV.
Pardon my filter ignorance, but a UV filter really doesn't do much on modern lenses and digital cameras other than protect the lens and arguably reduce image quality. Correct?
Whatever IQ improvements (if any) a UV could provide would also be achieved with a polarizer. Correct?
Then why would it be necessary to use both? It seems this would just reduce IQ for no good reason.
I agree with the rest -- better to remove the UV when using the pola.
Yes. Most modern lenses already block UV, and for the ones that don't, the sensor cover glass blocks it. Any UV that makes it pass that will fail to register as the sensors themselves also have low response to UV (unlike film).
</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>Daniel is, of course, completely correct. So, why then would anyone buy a UV filter, for the sole purpose of protecting the lens (and keep in mind that a filter of some sort is required to complete the weather-sealing of all 'weather-sealed' non-supertelephoto L lenses). Partly it might be because most of the discussions on this issue center around UV filters vs. no filters, and not many people mention clear protection filters. But, there are some other reasons.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
- At least in the B+W line, multicoated UV filters are slightly cheaper than equivalentlymulticoatedclear 'protection' filters. So, for example, on Amazon a B+W 72mm MRC 010 UV is $63, while a 72mm MRC 007 Clear is $74. On the other hand, for the Hoya DMC Pro1 filter line, clear filters are cheaper. But then, I use B+W, not Hoya.
- UV filters are more widely available - for example, on Amazon the B+W 67mmMRC 007 Clear is currently listed as unavailable.
- Your Canon EOS lenses also work on Canon EOS film bodies. Although from an optical point of view, there's no difference between an UV filter and a clear filter for a dSLR, there is for a film SLR. Who knows - maybe you might decide to grab a roll of 35mm Ektachromeand start shooting, or loan your lens to someone who does...
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
On a dSLR, the UV filter is entirely about protection, not IQ improvement. While a UV filter (or a clear filter, for that matter) does have an effect on light transmission, with high-quality multicoated filters the light attenuation is of neutral density (no color shift) and is less than 3%, effectively unnoticeable. A polarizer reduces light transmission by ~2 stops - that's not something I want to leave on my lens all the time.
I am a little hesitant when replacing the UV filters that I always have on all my lenses with C-Pol filters, specially in harsh conditions as I always prefer to clean a filter instead of a front element. Having said that, I end up not stacking as Iratheravoid vignetting or more flare or ghosting than otherwise unavoidable.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote