Poll: Circ Pol stacked with UV or Pol only for Fine Art Landscape Shots

[dudedudedude]

I have read that in order to achieve the most detail some of the more known landscape photographers won’t stack a UV under a polarizer, especially if using grad ND filters; the idea being that more glass equals less resolution. What do you guys do and have you seen a difference with stacking?

[DrPablo]

I use a UV filter when I shoot film at high altitudes. I never use one under any circumstances when using a digital camera. And I would never stack one with a polarizer, because the polarizer will cut out some UV light anyway. And yes, more glass will introduce more aberrations, lower resolution, lower contrast, introduce flare, but this will not necessarily be visible. That said, the wider angle lens you're using, the greater resolution requirement you have because large real world subjects will be rendered extremely small on the sensor.

[Mark_Cohran]

Why would you ever stack a UV on a polarizer. It simply makes no sense to do so. Read what Paul said carefully, then heed.

[dudedudedude]

Well, since I started SLR photogrpahy I just got into the habbit of keeping a UV on for protection at all times, especially now that I have a few Ls, and when the lighting was appropriate for a polarizer would stack the polarizer on top rather than taking the UV off an introducing dust onto the lens while outside. Also, I live in the blue ridge and often need to cut down on the haze so my thinking is that unless it was a shot framed on clsoe objects I needed to cut the UV. However, I did not realize that polarizers could filter out some UV. Does anyone have an idea to what degree higher end polarizers cut out the UV compared to a dedicated UV filter? Thanks for the input so for.

Sean

[René Damkot]

From here (http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv_sensitivity): "In fact, few digital cameras are UV-sensitive enough to reap a noticeable optical benefit from UV filtration, even in the most extreme UV conditions—at very high altitude (well over 10,000 feet) or in very long shots over water. A good quality multicoated neutral UV filter is as good a choice as any for a lens protector if you feel compelled to use one, but don't expect to see much of a benefit in your digital images."
Further: Here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml)'s a read.

[DrPablo]

Your lens elements themselves cut out the vast majority of UV light, and the filters over your sensor also cut out a lot of the remainder. Your sensor is apparently sensitive to some wavelengths of UV, but not much -- all you need to do is look at what lengths people go to for reflective UV photography (i.e. taking a picture using only UV light) -- you need a $3000 quartz lens (Nikon makes one, mainly for forensic scientists), you need a filter that cuts out all non-UV light, and you need loooong exposure times. So the amount that actually reaches a DSLR sensor through DSLR lenses and coatings is insignificant compared with the amount of visible light.

As for protection, I wouldn't get in the habit unless you're in hostile conditions. I have three Carl Zeiss lenses and a Zeiss UV filter, and even in that case I only use the UV filter at high altitude -- I've happily used my Zeiss lenses filter-free on the beach with no problem (I just used a lens hood).

[dudedudedude]

Thanks for the responces. I definately will only throw out the UV in extreme altitudes from now on.