Stacking filters

[dpanicc1]

Okay, searched but no luck. Install a UV filter on a permanent basis to protect the lens; i.e., leave it on the lens all the time. Now you stumble across the need for a CPL, ND or GND filter. The question is: do you remove the UV filter or install one (1) of the above "additional" filters over the top of the UV filter? This way, the UV never comes off. Any impact that you have seen?

[nosquare2003]

I have never stacked UV with other filters. So I don't know the effects :)

But it will certainly increase the chance of lens flare by stacking filters.

[KennyG]

I never keep a filter on the lens, hoods provide better protection. The lemming approach to using filters for protection is something I fail to understand.

One filter is bad enough, but two is asking for problems.

[G3]

Yes, there is a problem with vignietting, in addition to the fact that depending on what filters you are stacking, each can introduce some level of image quality loss which may be imperceptible with one filter but adds up with additional filters, and the loss of light transmission inherent with things like polarizers, ND filters, etc.

[CoolToolGuy]

Vignetting can be an issue in the film world, as the lenses are designed for that format, and size (of the lens) is sometimes kept to the minimum required to meet the spec. However, in the EOS digital world the only ones who have to worry about that are the 1Ds users. The crop factor makes it a non-issue. :wink:

The filter issue rages on. My personal view is I want something in front of the front element of my (sometimes very expensive) lenses to protect it from harm. The two most-often mentioned are UV and Skylight. Neither one will alter the image severely - provided it is a good filter. Again, my take is I want to have the best filter I can afford in front of the expensive glass which I have paid so much for. :)

A hood will provide some protection, but I can imagine some circumstances when the filter is the better choice - rain, which could get between the edge of the element and the lens body; mud flung from a car or other source, again around the edge of the front element; and a stone or other projectile which could strike the glass and damage it. :(

The protection issue goes beyond when the lens is on the camera. Even though I religiously attach the lens cap when changing lenses, sometimes the rough-and-tumble environment of moving around with all of the gear in the gadget bag results in the lens cap popping off. I want another level of protection, and the filter is screwed onto the lens, not snapped on with a spring-loaded catch. :)

I am a big fan of consistency with protection filter types and filter manufacturers - if you want a filter for protection, use the same type (UV, skylight, whatever) on all of your lenses unless you see a reason for a specific filter on one or more lenses. Don't just pick a skylight on this lens because that's what the seller had this week, and a UV on that one because that's what was on sale when you got it. And pick the brand you like and stick with it. Coating formulas vary, and incompatibilities could occur (accent could, not will). 8)

I, personally, am not concerned about stacking a polarizer in front of a UV. It takes more time to take off the UV and put on the polarizer and stow the UV, and by then I may have missed the shot. But truth-be-told, if I have enough light to use a polarizer, it will likely stay on for a good while, and act as my hood to reduce flare. :wink:

But that's just me. YMMV :wink: :) :D :lol:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[DaveG]

I never keep a filter on the lens, hoods provide better protection. The lemming approach to using filters for protection is something I fail to understand.

One filter is bad enough, but two is asking for problems.

A UV or Skylight filter is like a seatbelt in a car. You drive all the time and nothing happens so why do you need a seatbelt? Then in split second you do. If you could plan that "second" then you could put on the seat belt or by metaphor put on the filter.

A snapping branch, a kid with an ice cream cone or you just drop something on your camera while it's in the camera bag. All of those things could use a filter to protect the front element of your lens. And on the day you want to sell your lens the buyer will look through the back and see all of these micro scratches on the front element and will keep walking.

When you start off with a new lens and a new filter both are in great shape and if the filter is a good one, won't degrade your image one bit. After awhile the filter will show signs of damage, and you can replace that filter cheaply. Now any damage that has been done to the filter at this point would have been done to the front element, with or without a lens hood.

I guess you'll have to decide about what is worse, choosing to use a new excellent quality filter, or using a scratched front element without a filter. Those, in my opinion those are your two choices. Have a look RIGHT NOW through the back of your lenses and see all of those micro scratches for yourself. Optically are they better than the filter or worse?

[Tom W]

It probably not the big damage so much as the little, day to day stuff that makes the filter useful as protection. How many times do we have to clean dust off the front of the lens? Each cleaning, even with care, introduces the opportunity to scratch the front element if a piece of grit gets on the lens tissue. I'd rather scratch the filter than the lens.

Now, there are some instances where a filter can present problems in a picture - flair is one of them. That filter is right out in front - harsh sunlight, even at a slight angle, can drastically reduce contrast if it hits the filter directly (of course, a hood can help prevent this). You may want to remove the filter when you think that flair may be an issue.

[KennyG]

I never keep a filter on the lens, hoods provide better protection. The lemming approach to using filters for protection is something I fail to understand.

One filter is bad enough, but two is asking for problems.

A UV or Skylight filter is like a seatbelt in a car. You drive all the time and nothing happens so why do you need a seatbelt? Then in split second you do. If you could plan that "second" then you could put on the seat belt or by metaphor put on the filter.

Dave, in over 25 years of pro/semi-pro photography in some of the most severe and hazardous conditions, nothing has happened to my lenses that the hood did not protect. In fact, a filter would not have provided the protection the hoods did. I judge by pure experience.

I fear it is becoming more important these days to keep the equipment in pristine condition for re-sale on e-bay, than it is to get the most use and best possible image quality out of it.

Just my view, and I know others who would rather keep a filter attached for the comfort factor.

One interesting fact. It cost a friend of mine less to have the front glass replaced in an L lens (70-200 IS I think) than it would have done for a high quality filter for it.

[defordphoto]

Everyone has their own preferred method for keeping care of their glass. None is right or wrong. Use what you feel comfortable with. Not sure about UVs? Try an identical shot with and without. Some folks think filters are the scourge of the world. Others swear by them. Beautiful photos are produced both ways.

[DaveG]

I never keep a filter on the lens, hoods provide better protection. The lemming approach to using filters for protection is something I fail to understand.

One filter is bad enough, but two is asking for problems.

A UV or Skylight filter is like a seatbelt in a car. You drive all the time and nothing happens so why do you need a seatbelt? Then in split second you do. If you could plan that "second" then you could put on the seat belt or by metaphor put on the filter.

Dave, in over 25 years of pro/semi-pro photography in some of the most severe and hazardous conditions, nothing has happened to my lenses that the hood did not protect. In fact, a filter would not have provided the protection the hoods did. I judge by pure experience.

I fear it is becoming more important these days to keep the equipment in pristine condition for re-sale on e-bay, than it is to get the most use and best possible image quality out of it.

Just my view, and I know others who would rather keep a filter attached for the comfort factor.

One interesting fact. It cost a friend of mine less to have the front glass replaced in an L lens (70-200 IS I think) than it would have done for a high quality filter for it.

OK I'll match your 25 years of experience with mine and say that my filters HAVE been damaged. I wonder if your friend would think that replacing the front element of his L lens would be such a good deal the third time he had to do it. All I can say is that your gear must stay out of places mine gets to go.

[dpanicc1]

Okay everyone, I really appreciate the detailed responses. I am going to read this and decide. Thanks again.