Polarizing Filter

[Boss Hogg]

Have come across this filter from Hoya - Hoya UV+PL.

Normally I would leave a UV filter in the lens at all times, to protect it as much as anything else. So in this instance I would also have a polarzing filter on. Are there any reasons why I should not leave it on all the time?

Cheers
Matt

 

[0bli0]

a lens hood is going to give you the best lens protection with zero optical impact. if you're looking to use

make sure you're using a circular polariser - both to help prevent AF issues and to adjust for the best effect.
if you are using a very wide lens, you will get horrible banding in the sky. also, unless the filter is low-profile, you can vignette your images, too. personally, i'm not a big fan of using polarising filters for portraits. otherwise, using them is not really going to hurt. make sure you are getting decent quality filters - especially if you're using nice lenses. there is nothing worse than seeing a reflection in the shot from a filter - or worse, haze or distortion.

btw the only time i use UV filters is for protection during paintball games.

 

[jann1033]

not really sure why this happened but when i tried to use a c polarizer inside a building at the zoo it was too dark . not sure if that could be a problem normally but it was in that low light. i thought i would use it for the glass glare but it didn't work

 

[Anewman]

Only times I ever consider a polarizer is when shooting CAR Shows, to help control glare off of hoods and such. But usually I tend to adjust my shot to work around it. Also Landscapes but I never really shoot them unless it is homework or something.

I agree with OBLIO, Best optics and protection = a good lens hood.

not really sure why this happened but when i tried to use a c polarizer inside a building at the zoo it was too dark . not sure if that could be a problem normally but it was in that low light. i thought i would use it for the glass glare but it didn't work

With polarizers you tend to lose about a stop of light, obviously on a bright sunny day there should still be enough but INDOORS every little bit of light counts.

 

[Boss Hogg]

Thanks guys, after coming across, the combined filter I have found somewhere to but a polarizing and skylight at a good price.

As far as a lens hood is concerned, that will be taken care of as I am getting the Sigma 18-125 lens which comes with a hood.

I'll be interested to see how this combines with a pl filter, as I like the effect that a pl filter makes to the sky.

 

[Charade]

Hoya makes it. I'm guessing it's fairly new. Any thoughts?

 

[Donald is #1]

Interesting. I have never heard of a combined filter before. You are right. Hoya makes them. http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/gf-05.html My only concern would be the impact of the polarising filter has on shutter speed. I wonder if your polariser is always on and therefore will cause a slower shutter speed. Normally when I use a polarising lens, I am not using a fast shutter speed. As a matter of fact, I have some times used a polarising filter when I wanted to slow my shutter speed down further than the bright light was allowing (before I bought a neutral density filter).

 

[boBQuincy]

I don't see the point. Digital SLRs do not need a UV filter, about the only thing they add to is the bottom line of the filter manufacturer.

A polarizer however, is a very useful filter, but should not be left on the lens at all times. Any filter should be multi-coated to reduce the possibility of flare and ghost images.

Except in Haunted Mansion, where ghost images are desired.

 

[Charade]

Why don't digital SLRs need a UV filter? I've never heard that before.

 

[boBQuincy]

Why don't digital SLRs need a UV filter? I've never heard that before.

Between a sensor that is not sensitive to UV, a filter in front of the sensor, and lenses that don't transmit much UV, the filter is just not providing much (if any) benefit.

 

[Master Mason]

Between a sensor that is not sensitive to UV, a filter in front of the sensor, and lenses that don't transmit much UV, the filter is just not providing much (if any) benefit.

Here is what the UV filter provides to me... I would much much rather scratch a 15-40 dollar piece of glass, then a 100-1500 dollar lens..... every single one of my lenses has a filter and will always have one.

 

[Charade]

Here is what the UV filter provides to me... I would much much rather scratch a 15-40 dollar piece of glass, then a 100-1500 dollar lens..... every single one of my lenses has a filter and will always have one.

That's my thought. You'd want one that's mulit-coated so it doesn't introduce problems.

 

[0bli0]

i'm also in the generally no filters on my lens category. when necessary, i use a polarising filter or a neutral density filter. to protect the lens element, i have found the lens hood has worked well over the years.

the reason i don't use UV or skylight filters is the various noticeable affects it can have on an image. with the filters i do use, i get multi-coated ones. the multi-coating don't make the filters optically any better - rather it cuts down on the cross lens surface glare and reflections from the inside of the filter back to the sensor. the filters i prefer are B+W SMC. i have one hoya pro polariser, but there is a noticeable difference in the colour cast between that one and the B+W

generally speaking, filters are made cheaply and are generally not the same optical quality as lenses. if i do happen to scratch a lens element, it can be replaced. but distorted/hazed/miscoloured/decreased saturation & contrast images are something i can't live with. so i don't ever use a UV filter on my lenses - even the $3,000 ones.

 

[jann1033]

my.5 cents...i think even if you want to use a uv for protection (i'm not even getting into that can of worms )you wouldn't want the polarizer on at all times( ie inside, low light etc) so probably not the best filter to get

 

[MICKEY88]

i'm also in the generally no filters on my lens category. when necessary, i use a polarising filter or a neutral density filter. to protect the lens element, i have found the lens hood has worked well over the years.

the reason i don't use UV or skylight filters is the various noticeable affects it can have on an image. with the filters i do use, i get multi-coated ones. the multi-coating don't make the filters optically any better - rather it cuts down on the cross lens surface glare and reflections from the inside of the filter back to the sensor. the filters i prefer are B+W SMC. i have one hoya pro polariser, but there is a noticeable difference in the colour cast between that one and the B+W

generally speaking, filters are made cheaply and are generally not the same optical quality as lenses. if i do happen to scratch a lens element, it can be replaced. but distorted/hazed/miscoloured/decreased saturation & contrast images are something i can't live with. so i don't ever use a UV filter on my lenses - even the $3,000 ones.

I agree 100% I also come from the purist school...I prefer to get the best possible picture without any degradation from a filter, in 30 years I've never scratched a lens..
but to each his own..

 

[Groucho]

After some research, I decided to forgo using UV filters on my DSLR, as well. I'm not so worried about the lens getting scratched - the only way that'd happen would be if I dropped the camera, and if I did that, a scratched lens might be the least of my worries! I actually just bought a new neck strap and am probably going to get the matching wrist-strap, which velcroes on to your wrist tightly and uses the same quick-releases as the neckstrap. So even if the camera flies out of your hands for whatever reason, it won't go far. I figure that it might be handy if I decide to take any on-ride rollercoaster pictures.

The uv-filter-as-protection thing reminds me of someone I once knew who claimed to know someone who was in a car fire and wasn't able to unbuckle their seatbelt. This was justification for them to not wear a seatbelt, somehow convincing themselves that it was safer for the one-in-a-million case where you're stuck in a burning car AND your seatbelt won't unbuckle, vs all the times where a seatbelt WILL save your life. OK, that's not a very good comparison - but lenses generally lead a pretty safe, pampered life, especially if you have a lens hood on and the cap goes on when you're not shooting.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

This thread reminds me of a comment from an old photojournalist - "lenses are looking through, not looking at." Tiny smudges, dust specs, and even tiny scratches on the front of a lens are usually very hard to see in most photos.

 

[MICKEY88]

This thread reminds me of a comment from an old photojournalist - "lenses are looking through, not looking at." Tiny smudges, dust specs, and even tiny scratches on the front of a lens are usually very hard to see in most photos.

and easily photoshopped out in most cases..

 

[pxlbarrel]

Hmmm...I'm very careful with my lenses....the only major thing that usually happens is a big fingerprint which is easily remedied by my handy duty lens cloth.

However, while working with my work camera (not my own thankfully), I was walking down some stairs, stumbled and went camera lens first into a wall. It was a partially demolished wall (it was broken drywall) so my lens went partly into the wall. I actually had to pull it out. Lens filter on the camera was dented, dusty and probably scratched but I didn't care...it was the lens filter and not the lens so I wasn't going to get chewed out by the boss if I had to order another lens. (I also didn't care because it wasn't my own camera....if it had been my own...without a filter on it....I would have freaked.)

I went through this debate a year ago too....in the end I ended up putting multicoated UV filters on my lenses.

 

[Golf4food]

Tiffen 62mm Cirular Polarizer Filter

Anyone use or know good or bad things about Tiffen filters, specifically this polarizer filter?