DSLRUsers.com

OK - I've got both, but should I just keep the UV on the front of my lens or the polarizer (or both) - seems a hassle to take the CPL off all the time

Cheers

If you leave the CP on you're losing about 1 stop so your images will be darker. Plus you may get CP effects like vignetting when you don't want them. I suggest you leave the UV on most of the time except for when you want the utility of a polariser. That's what I do

You use them for different purposes.
The UV is primarily physical protection for the front of the lens.

The polariser's primary goal is not physical protection. You don't always want to have the polariser on as one of the side effects is that it will cost you about 2 stops of light. You may want to polarise the light when shooting landscapes if you want a bright rich blue sky. You may want to polarise the light if your shooting waterfalls with lots of light bouncing around and reflecting off the wet surfaces. You probably won't want the polariser on when shooting with flash at night.

There are heaps of other posts and articles around about what a polariser does and when to use it.

Cheers
John

Pls. do a search.
Thanks

I did search - but nothing in the 2 pages of results appeared to answer my specific question

I wasn't asking what a polarizer does

I was asking do people keep it permanently on the lens in some cases

pharmer wrote:I did search - but nothing in the 2 pages of results appeared to answer my specific question

I wasn't asking what a polarizer does

I was asking do people keep it permanently on the lens in some cases

My answer is no. If you want the reason for my answer, see above.

I use a polariser alot, but would never keep it on my lens constantly. I do always have a UV filter to protect the very expensive glass. When I am outdoors, in daylight and there is plenty of blue sky, that's the time I will stick it on and usually only for landscapes. It only takes a few seconds to screw it on and adjust it to the right angle. I do make sure that I carry one at all times.
________________
Cheers,
Paul.

pharmer wrote:I did search - but nothing in the 2 pages of results appeared to answer my specific question

I wasn't asking what a polarizer does

I was asking do people keep it permanently on the lens in some cases

Well, not really - what you asked was

pharmer wrote:OK - I've got both, but should I just keep the UV on the front of my lens or the polarizer (or both)

And the answer to that one would be, if it works for you, do it!

Personally, I would never keep any filter on my lens permanently.

Cheers

digitor wrote: Personally, I would never keep any filter on my lens permanently.

Why not? Not even to protect the lens?

When I was heavily into my film stuff, I had a skylight filter attached to my lenses permanently, for physical protection.
Now I always have a UV filter on my "digital" lenses. Mainly to protect the glass.

If you want to put on your CPL then it's up to you if you want to take off the UV when you do this. I found that at 18mm the CPL on top of the UV filter means you get dark corners in your photo - the edge of the CPL frame (being wider and out further with the UV there as well) being "seen" by the lens.
Therefore, for wide angle stuff, I'd take the UV off, other than that it's easier just to mount the CPL on top of the UV.

My 2 cents.

Id rather purchase a new UV filter then a circular polarizer if i happened to damage it in anyway by keeping it on 24/7 those circular polarizers are quite expensive.
~William

tasadam wrote:

digitor wrote: Personally, I would never keep any filter on my lens permanently.

Why not?

Because two extra air/glass interfaces can only degrade the performance of the lens. If the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of fitting a polariser, I'll put it on. Skylight or UV filters don't really do anything to help an image, using today's modern films, or digital.

tasadam wrote:Not even to protect the lens?

Nope.

tasadam wrote:When I was heavily into my film stuff, I had a skylight filter attached to my lenses permanently, for physical protection.

Did you ever break one? I did that for a while, years ago, and then realised that I didn't need to do so, and continue to enjoy less flare and more contrast from my lenses as a consequence.

Cheers

digitor wrote:

tasadam wrote:

digitor wrote: Personally, I would never keep any filter on my lens permanently.

Why not?

Because two extra air/glass interfaces can only degrade the performance of the lens. If the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of fitting a polariser, I'll put it on. Skylight or UV filters don't really do anything to help an image, using today's modern films, or digital.

tasadam wrote:Not even to protect the lens?

Nope.

So, you're perfectly happy to get greasy finger smears all over your expensive multicoated lens elements then.

Hmmmm ....

I'd rather clean a $50 filter than elements of a $3K lens any day.


Further, have you never, ever, bumped a lens? No matter how careful you think you are, there is always a risk of physical damage occurring, and I've got plenty of first hand evidence where a cheap filter has saved an expensive lens from damage.

Don't want the extra air-to-glass surfaces when taking an image? No problem; it takes but a half second to remove the filter before taking the image.

And for the record, skylight/uv filters can and do reduce some atmospheric haze effects under certain conditions.

tasadam wrote:When I was heavily into my film stuff, I had a skylight filter attached to my lenses permanently, for physical protection.

Did you ever break one?

As a working photographer, giving camera a hard life, yes. More than once. As I said, I have first hand evidence of the protection afforded by keeping a filter on the front of an expensive lens.

And as a student, Leigh has first hand evidence too. Our old 55mm micro was damaged by him during his student days. Still works fine, but the evidence remains.

And as a final comment, how do you thik I've built up my opinion as to the durability of various types of cameras and lenses? Again, as a working professional, one's cameras are sometimes subject to abuse that we'd ordinarily prefer they not endure. It's through the extensive use, over many years, of a number of different brands of cameras (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, etc ) and a wide variety of OEM and TP lenses that one learns which ones are better than others in the durability stakes.

And I've found that only one brand survives drop tests wihout requiring a visit to the repairer.

Just as well that Wendell doesn't use Canon gear.

gstark wrote:Just as well that Wendell doesn't use Canon gear.

God that's small! I had to copy and paste it into Notepad to read it!

For the record, I generally leave my CP on the 12-24, as it's mostly used for landscape shots (and I kindof like the very slight vignetting in the corners). Other lens I generally keep a UV filter on for protection. Occassionally I'll take the filter off if I feel it may be detracting from the shot (not too often).

If I'm going to be in a controlled environment, I'll take the UV filter off. Same as when I think the filter is getting in the way of the quality of the shot (not very often!!!).

If I'm traipsing about on holiday, especially if there's water, sand, dust or foiliage in the vicinity, I wouldn't dream of NOT having a protective filter on. You take all due care of course, but accidents will happen.

Leon,

sheepie wrote:Occassionally I'll take the filter off if I feel it may be detracting from the shot (not too often).

With a good quality filter, I'd defy anybody to find differences in a pair of prints made from a lens with and without a filter attached.

With filters it's important to get one with good coatings to reduce reflections, as they are what will introduce flare and hurt the contrast.

By the way, some "weatherproof" lens designs such as Canon's EF 17-40mm/4 L USM need a filter on the front to complete the rain protection.

gstark wrote:I'd rather clean a $50 filter than elements of a $3K lens any day.

Agreed! And it's not just rain, dust, sand, salt-spray, minerals from waterfall spray, animal saliva (ever tried a closeup with a wide angle of a Jersey calf? ), etc that needs to be cleaned off. I've had my share of plants that have had a go at my gear. BTW, with a good coating of salt or minerals the first thing you want to do is rinse it off with clean water. Trying to wipe it off will just scratch the glass. I'm happier pouring water over a filter than over a lens: if any was to go down the side of the front element it could be a disaster.

Don't want the extra air-to-glass surfaces when taking an image? No problem; it takes but a half second to remove the filter before taking the image.

Well, it's usually more than half a second (and then you need somewhere safe to put the filter in the meantime) but in general you're correct.
About the only time I'll consider removing the front element is when I'm going to be shooting into the sun.

And I've found that only one brand survives drop tests wihout requiring a visit to the repairer.

Sounds like a generalisation to me. I don't know of a single brand that I haven't seen broken examples of!

sheepie wrote:

gstark wrote:Just as well that Wendell doesn't use Canon gear.

God that's small! I had to copy and paste it into Notepad to read it!

For the record, I generally leave my CP on the 12-24, as it's mostly used for landscape shots (and I kindof like the very slight vignetting in the corners). Other lens I generally keep a UV filter on for protection. Occassionally I'll take the filter off if I feel it may be detracting from the shot (not too often).

Hey Sheepie, do you use a standard CPL on your 12-24? I'm about to pick my standard Hoya CPL up for my 12-24, and have been reading the you have to use the extra thin one to avoid vignetting. Personally, I don't mind a slight amount of edge vignetting, and can always treat it in the RAW workflow as long as it's not too much.

timbo wrote:Hey Sheepie, do you use a standard CPL on your 12-24? I'm about to pick my standard Hoya CPL up for my 12-24, and have been reading the you have to use the extra thin one to avoid vignetting. Personally, I don't mind a slight amount of edge vignetting, and can always treat it in the RAW workflow as long as it's not too much.

I have the 12-24dx (Nikon) and a standard Hoya CP filter. The amount of vignetting is so small it's un-noticeable most times. Certainly not a case of the filter actually blocking the corners, more a slight darkening. IMO you'll be ok without the additional cost of a thin filter.

DaveB wrote:

And I've found that only one brand survives drop tests wihout requiring a visit to the repairer.

Sounds like a generalisation to me. I don't know of a single brand that I haven't seen broken examples of!

While your last statement is certainly true in a more general sense, I'm talking here about my own personal experience, with cameras (Nikon, Canon, Bronica, Olympus, etyc) being dropped onto surfaces such as ashphalt, carpet, concrete, or bumpoed into trees, wooden fences, brick walls, or being thrown around the interior of a car when one has needed to stop quickly ....

There's a myriad of reasons why a working camera may not be given a gentle life, and in my experience, Nikon equipment is less likely to be adversely affected by such mishaps than other brands that I've used.

Is that better?

sheepie wrote:

timbo wrote:Hey Sheepie, do you use a standard CPL on your 12-24? I'm about to pick my standard Hoya CPL up for my 12-24, and have been reading the you have to use the extra thin one to avoid vignetting. Personally, I don't mind a slight amount of edge vignetting, and can always treat it in the RAW workflow as long as it's not too much.

I have the 12-24dx (Nikon) and a standard Hoya CP filter. The amount of vignetting is so small it's un-noticeable most times. Certainly not a case of the filter actually blocking the corners, more a slight darkening. IMO you'll be ok without the additional cost of a thin filter.

Thanks for that advice. I'm relieved to hear it.

And Gary, through my personal experience with Nikon, Canon and Olympus, I tend to agree with you. I've managed to destroy two Canon EOS cameras and lenses and one Oly C-2500 digi SLR. The one exception to this is my wonderful Oly C-5050 which is built like a tank and has survived quite a bit of punishment so far. If only it weren't so bloody slow!

My Nikon lenses and bodies have withstood more rough handling than the previous cameras with barely a rattle. That's why I'm here

Fair enough Gary - we're each just reporting on our personal experiences and they're not necessarily the same.

DaveB wrote:Fair enough Gary - we're each just reporting on our personal experiences and they're not necessarily the same.

Dave,

I'd be bloody frightened if they were.

gstark wrote:

DaveB wrote:Fair enough Gary - we're each just reporting on our personal experiences and they're not necessarily the same.

Dave,

I'd be bloody frightened if they were.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking, B1?