Polarizing Filter

rickp

Hey guys,
I have a Singh Ray polarizing filter that I pretty much just keep on my lens except when indoors.
Am I really getting much out of it if the sun is not at 90 deg from the lens? The reason I ask is I want to start using other filters like a color intensifier and I want to know If I should stack them or just remove the polarizing filter.

Also, I always have a UV filter on my lenses but I read that that's a no no since i degrades the image, true or false?

THanks
R.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

zoomer

Some people feel naked without some kind of filter cause they think they are going to damage their lens without one.

A uv has the potential to degrade your image....for sure it is not going to improve your images in any way.

Take the polarizing filter off. That is a specialty filter, not for just leaving on all the time.

Yes the effect varies and is strongest at 90 degrees from sunrise and sunset and for managing reflections and for generally slowing down your shutter speed as it does rob some light (not to be confused with a neutral density filter).

My advice is to save your money on filters until you have a greater photographic knowledge, you may find you don't need any.

The only one I recommend you may want to get is a 2 stop graduated neutral density filter for shooting landscapes, you already have a polarizing filter.

WillCAD

ANYTHING you put in front of your lens will reduce the amount of light that enters the lens. As such, there is always the potential for a filter - especially a cheap one - to degrade your image.

However, I do like the idea of having multple lines of defense against lens scratches. First line is a lens hood, which reduces glare and acts as a bumper. Second line is a good quality UV filter.

Some photogs will tell you that modern lenses have front elements that are high enough quality that scratches are not as big a worry as the potential image degradation that UV filter might cause; after all, do you really want to stick a $20 or $30 piece of glass in front of a $1,000 piece of glass? I agree with this up to a point, but since my lenses represent a large investment for me, imprefer to go by this philosophy: I'd rather scratch a $20 or $30 piece of replaceable glass than a $500 lens.

It's all up to you how much risk you want to take, and WBA kind - rsk of image degradation, or risk of lens scratches.

kevincaophotography

The two posts above me are spot on. Anything you put infront of the lens will degrade your shot. The market assumes that the more you spend on filters, the less "degrade" you will get. I'm sure there is some truth to that.

I never like to stack my filters. Mainly because sometimes they will get stuck to each other and you will have a hell of a time separating them (learned the hard way). A color intensifier filter (or any other filter) will serve the same protection duties as a UV filter.

ABCL

I've seen no dicernable difference to shooting with and without a UV filter, sure, my images are a 'tiny' bit brighter, but I fix that by boosting my exposure compensator a touch.

However, some of my pixel peeping buddies tend to think otherwise. Wonder if they'll be saying that when they scratch their lens (I've come pretty close but a UV saved it)

GadgetRick

This is something I've always done--used an UV filter on my lenses to, "protect," them from scratches. As I've gotten more into photography, however, I'm starting to wonder whether I really need to, "protect," my lenses. I mean, I don't read/hear about a lot of people scratching their lens glass or their filters. I really wonder if this is a bit paranoid.

I do, however, like to use a polarizing filter when shooting outside under certain conditions and also plan to get an ND filter one of these days.

Just curious as to just how many people have damaged their lenses/filters. I'm quite careful with my gear and use a hood almost all of the time as well.

ziggy53

To the original poster, keeping a polarizer on as a protective filter is a fairly expensive proposition, as the filter is often not need as a polarizer and it makes the lens much less efficient for gathering light.

I generally keep a multi-coated UV filter in front of my best lenses in addition to using a lens hood. I remove the filter as necessary under conditions that would otherwise degrade the image.

Regularly cleaning the front element of a lens will lead to micro-scratches that "will" affect optical lens performance. I use the protective filter approach to help reduce the lens cleaning cycles as much as possible.

I do a fairly large number of social event shooting and it's surprising how often the filter gets stuff on the front. A filter is so much easier to clean in that case too.

Larger, singular visible scratches actually have little impact on image quality except in conditions that produce lens flare where the scratch generally dramatically contributes to reduced contrast.

Chris Geiger

GadgetRick wrote:

Just curious as to just how many people have damaged their lenses/filters. I'm quite careful with my gear and use a hood almost all of the time as well.

I was shooting a off-road racing event once and one of the trucks hit the gas and shot a small bit of mud right at me while I was shooting. There was a rock mixed in with the mud and it put a small chip in the front glass of my 18-200 lens.

Normally I would have had my polarize filter on but I was shooting in the shade and had just taken it off.

I don't use or even own clear filters as I don't like the results of the extra glass layer. I've shot hundreds of thousands of photos and that is the only time I have damaged a front element. Damage can happen but I won't use a uv filter.

Art Scott

I used to use a uv filter when I first got into photography...during the troglodyte era, any way..... I need to clean my lens as I had a wedding coming up and could not remove the filter....cheap as hell ($25 or so) filter...so I had the shop I purchased at remove and eas sold a filter wrench....cleaned lens...shot weddings....put filter back on....out at the lake my strap came un done and down went the camera ...lens and all.....first to hit the rocks was the lens hood and it shattered.then the filter made contact with something that broke it and the filter glass scratched the hell out of the lens......so I no longer use any type of protective filters....I have cir. polas and some other special effects filters.....Ihave tried several filter plug ins and they just aren't the same as on lens filters to me........I have fun placing the the dividing line of a GND where I want it and it makes people ask what you're doing.....my filters are hold overs from my film days.........................

That has been the only lens of mine to be damaged on the front element due to a fall.......I have had one destroyed falling over a cliff and one that went into a lake and was left in Davy Jones Locker........I don't own any diving gear so it stayed..................

EDIT:
Instead of investing in a set of ND's or GND....learn to shoot HDR's ......if done properly they are fantastic...........a cir. pola is still a very good investment to quickly subdue glare off water, glass an other objects...but not as a protective filter...........still a good 4 or more ND is great for turning running water into cotton.............................

Baldy

I stopped using filters for protection on my lenses and have never scratched a lens in 40 years of shooting, even though I'm rough on them. You have to remember to take them off when shooting into the sun or get extra flare, etc.

lightyear

Filter or not

Baldy wrote: »

I stopped using filters for protection on my lenses and have never scratched a lens in 40 years of shooting, even though I'm rough on them. You have to remember to take them off when shooting into the sun or get extra flare, etc.

There are as many opinions about filters as there are photographers. Joseph Meehan has written several books on filters both for film and digital cameras. I personally agree with Ziggy about the debris and stuff depositing on filters which would normally hit the front lens surface. Polarizing filters all markedly diminish the light transmitted by the lens, so they require longer exposures or wider apertures. All my lenses have filters.
Stan