User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  3
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Polarising and UV filter together

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    07 Jul 2010
    Location
    Hillsdale
    Posts
    379
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Polarising and UV filter together

    I have a UV filter permanently on my lens for protection.
    I also use the Cokin P series specialty filters, i was given a cokin CP that fits into the filter holder for christmas (good on you santa).
    Is there any reason that i cannot use the two filters together, along with the other cokin P series ND grad filters when required.

    Your advice is appreciated

  2. #2
    Member pcbermagui's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 2010
    Location
    Bermagui
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Racoon, thats 2 extra air glass surfaces with the strong possibility of image degradation. Make sure your're using the cokin lens hood at least. You can test this by shooting the same image in bright light with and without the extra filter and comparing the result. In soft light I doubt it would matter. Its suprising what you can get away with if you use the maximum lens hood, I have an old Nikon #2 close up lens where the coating has been damaged and looks like an oily smear but inside the deep lens hood of my 75 300G it take the most brilliant close ups. Have fun experimenting.
    pcbermagui

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Take the uv filter off, take a hammer, and smash it
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi View Post
    Take the uv filter off, take a hammer, and smash it
    don't do that........if you start shooting film at high altitude, a UV filter will actually be useful.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Lol, I'll try to remember that tenzing Tom

  6. #6
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by raccoon View Post
    I have a UV filter permanently on my lens for protection.
    Ah, don't do that. See this thread for reasons why a UV filter is as useful as tits on a bull:

    http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...-of-UV-filters

    Quote Originally Posted by raccoon View Post
    I also use the Cokin P series specialty filters, i was given a cokin CP that fits into the filter holder for christmas (good on you santa).
    Is there any reason that i cannot use the two filters together, along with the other cokin P series ND grad filters when required.
    It is not a good idea to stack multiple filters together, mostly due to vignetting.

    In the case of a UV filter, it serves even less of a useful purpose if there is another filter on top of it.

    If I attach a polariser or ND filter (screw-in variety in either case) to my 16-35mm lens and then attack my Lee creative filter system, I see pronounced vignetting, even at f/11.

  7. #7
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,633
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Avoid filters in general unless they give you something your really need.
    With digital that now means a CPL for glare, or NDs to reduce light, grad NDs to tame the sky, reverse NDs to tame the sunset horizon.

    Every time you put something in front of the lens you impact the light and IQ to some extent.

    Even on top of Everest the UV filter is redundant on a DSLR as the sensor has one anyway. (Film - use a UV)
    regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
    Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff



  8. #8
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,701
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by raccoon View Post
    I have a UV filter permanently on my lens for protection.
    .....
    Is there any reason that i cannot use the two filters together, along with the other cokin P series ND grad filters when required.
    IQ and vignetting, adding the cokin adapter ring onto a filter pushes the ring further out from the front lens element already, add a multi cokin filter holder and you'll end up seeing the edges of the filter holder if you do this!! Do as Kiwi says

    Quote Originally Posted by TOM View Post
    don't do that........if you start shooting film at high altitude, a UV filter will actually be useful.
    AFAIK(from the gear the OP has used so far, the 18-200VR is not really useful on film bodies, so Kiwi's advice still has a lot of merit. I'm not sure there are all that many Nikon(or other) lenses for film that can use a 72mm filter either.

    Conclusion: do as Kiwi says

    As for your Cokin set. Is it the P-series, or the Z-series filter? If P-series, lose the UV filter. It serves no purpose, and invest in a few good quality micro fibre cloths for cleaning the 18-200's front element.

    you should always try to minimise the number of obstructions n front of the lens. Try to use filters only for a specific purpose. UV filters serve no purpose on digital cameras(as TOM says tho, useful for film). If the UV filter is used for protection(against what I don't know? ) .. but the logic is this method is completely lost on me. If you have the UV filter attached to the lens to protect the lens from whatever is apparently damaging it, then what are the Cokin filter's doing? Protecting the UV filter perhaps? with the Coking filters attached to the UV filter the UV filter is not really functioning correctly as a protective device as the Cokin filters are already protecting the front of the 18-200.

    lens cleaning is something you should be doing on a regular basis anyhow.

    As for the idea of UV filters as a protective apparatus, I remember a while back a chap on another forum having posted images of his Nikon 35/1.4(ais) lens after dropping it and the lens falling square on the front element. The filter ring was subsequently 'fused' to the lens filter's threads, and with lots of nice sharp shards of fine glass still attached to the filter!
    Had this chap used a lens hood(and the 35/1.4's is a metal one!!) the lens would have been undamaged except for the lens hood. but instead, he's lens is now going to have permanent damage to the filter threads..... probably easily fixable, but why would you place your gear in such a precarious situation.

    To answer your question tho.. there is no reason why you can't use the filters all in combination. Stack as many filters as you need to achieve a desired effect. I do that all the time, sometimes having stacked as many as 4 or 5 filters, GND's coloured grads and polarisers all in unison .. but all for a reason. Protection is not a reason to use filters, the lens is far stronger and cleans easily and safely.

    I can see some(rare) situations where 'protective' filters could be useful in certain conditions, and the only one that comes to mind immediately is, for example, a situation at the beach where time is critical and it's much quicker to replace a dirty protective filter than to waste time in cleaning the lens on a regular basis. Lost time could mean lost opportunities or money or whatever.. but in this case the time factor is the important consideration.
    So!.... this would be for practical reasons, not as a panacea for the paranoia that your lens is being damaged.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    .... Do as Kiwi says .....so Kiwi's advice still has a lot of merit.......Conclusion: do as Kiwi says

    mantra of 2010 right there folks, lol

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    AFAIK(from the gear the OP has used so far, the 18-200VR is not really useful on film bodies, so Kiwi's advice still has a lot of merit. I'm not sure there are all that many Nikon(or other) lenses for film that can use a 72mm filter either.

    Conclusion: do as Kiwi says
    that's pretty much what I was really trying to say, just trying to put it another way

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •