Ultraviolet filter mounted on top of circular polarizer

[JimmyLyding]

I recently installed a Sunpak ultraviolet filter on top of a circular polarizer on my Canon XTi. Anyone (Joel?) have any ideas on that?

[joebartels]

comme ci comme ca

[JimmyLyding]

Don't leave me Joe! We'll see a movie every Tuesday! However, you'd better not cross the Green Line!

[JoelHazelton]

The more filters you put in front of a lens the more the image quality degrades. I've mainly heard of photographers using UV filters to protect their lenses from getting scratched... Can't really think of much advantage to putting it in front of a polarizer.

[JimmyLyding]

Some guy @ Ritz Camera recommended it. My photos have turned out fairly nice since I installed the system, and I most certainly like to keep at least one after-market filter on top of the lens because a $19.95 filter is a lot easier to replace if it gets scratched than the actual camera lens. The "sundog window" is certainly smaller, however.
I am an admitted "shotgunner." A disclaimer: I take 200+ photos on a hike, and only keep about 30-40 shots so I'm not that concerned with getting a "perfect" shot unless it's of something really interesting.

[JoelHazelton]

Did he recommend it to improve photos or protect your lens? If the pictures are turning out good, I say keep with it. Stacking filters will affect sharpness when your photo is blown up large, but for web compression I'm sure it doesn't matter. What kind of polarizer do you have?

[JimmyLyding]

It's a SunPak 58mm polarizer.
I typically take photos "on-the-hoof" without a tripod. A lot of them

[johnr1]

In the old days the film was sensitive to the ultraviolet in sunshine that we cant see but it caused a haze on the film. By blocking it with a UV/Haze filter, the pictres had more contrast in the colors we do see. BW also had less noise in the outdoors. The real use that I recall was protecting the expensive lens coatings and I would not take them off to use a polarizer or other filter. The filters do different things so you can use them together

A polarizer was a real handy filter as it allows you to "blue up" the sky and sometimes reduce glint.

I have no idea how sensitive the DSLR focal planes are to the UV but the polarizer should be useful for the sort of landscape imaging that you do. However, you have to be able to see what the camera sees to use it effectivly.

While you are spending money on filters, look for a star filter for some neat effects.

Or you can just invest in a image manipulation tool like Photoshop and apply the effects afer the fact.

[dysfunction]

I still use 1a's to cover the lens... then apply filtration on top of that...

btw given that I've replaced more than a few filters over the years (and still have fully functional lenses back to AI(d) series.. I'd say it works ;) )... they've been serving their job well

[JimmyLyding]

Did he recommend it to improve photos or protect your lens? If the pictures are turning out good, I say keep with it. Stacking filters will affect sharpness when your photo is blown up large, but for web compression I'm sure it doesn't matter. What kind of polarizer do you have?

I asked the guy if he recommended a UV filter or a polarizer, and he told me that he uses both. I thought "what the heck," and bought both. I'm going to monkey around with it soon

[Jonnybackpack]

Depending on focal length stacking it will vignette also. I just think there are better methods( and other filters), unless you are going for an unconventional shoot.

[Dschur]

Also stacking filters can cause the light to bounce off each others surfaces so you can get some really weird reflections between the two. As well the digital cameras already have a filter on the chip itself for some UV protection. If you are using it to protect the lens that is one thing....

[Thoreau]

Did he recommend it to improve photos or protect your lens?

Ritz? Neither. They recommended it to improve their sales.

I used to keep a UV filter on all of my lenses for 'protection' too, but in the end, it's just one more piece of glass to do its magic at degrading IQ. Considering the two lenses I use, and what they cost (24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS) the LAST thing I wanted to do was negate that image quality. My shoddy photographic skills do enough of that already =). If I'm gonna be in a particularly dirty/wet setting, I might slap it back on, but for the most part it's a naked lens, with the occasional circular polarizer.

If you're truly worried about 'protecting' a lens, a good rider policy from your insurance agent can help put your mind at ease. I insured $5500 worth of camera equipment (yeah, i have more gear than I know how to use... total gear aerobic-instructor, hehe) for $130/year with state farm. My entire kit could fall over the edge of the Grand Canyon and I'd be covered.

[dysfunction]

You should see the damage on some of the equipment I carried when I shot daily ;) If I really want image quality (enough to where I'm seriously concerned about a layer of glass), I'll go right to my medium format stuff, which is carried in cases... thus not needing any additional protection. But that's a completely separate subject.

[joebartels]

Considering the two lenses I use, and what they cost (24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS) the LAST thing I wanted to do was negate that image quality.

my thoughts EXACTLY!

rider policy from your insurance agent

Good to know, I never thought of that and went a different route.
I used the $30-$50 individual insurance certificates through B&H for each lens & body. They range from 3 to 7 year policies. They work as I had to send in my 180mm after dropping it in Ash Creek. The down side is it takes 6-8 weeks for the complete turn around.
The rider policy sounds better if it covers theft and misuse.