Bunkershot Loc: Central Florida

When I purchased my D7100 the on-line vendor advised that I should use a UV filter on all of my lenses, which would also serve to protect the lens. He also advised that I can use a polarizing filter over the UV filter with no effect on the image quality. I'd like some advice on whether the UV filter should be removed before using a polarizing filter.

tsilva Loc: Arizona

Throw all the uv filters away, or use them as coasters on your coffee table. It's just sales bs to part you from your money use lens hoods to actually protect your lens.

corryhully Loc: liverpool uk

Yep.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Very varying opinions here on that subject! The biggest thing you need to watch when placing it over the UV filter is if there is any vignetting at wide angle settings due to the added thickness of the filter combination. Otherwise, you probably won't notice any difference as long as both are clean. If you do get corner vignetting, remove the UV.
I too keep a 1A or UV on my lenses for protection, but that is also a very divided subject.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

While it is possible to stack filters and get good results, it is not advised. You will be putting two additional layers of flat glass in front of your lens that can cause reflection problems and deteriorate your image by having extraneous light bouncing between the pieces of flat glass. It also adds to the possibility of vignetting. There are about 40% of the people on this site that will tell you a filter will not protect your lens and can hurt the quality of your shot. Those people either do not use filters at all or use them when there is a chance of blowing dirt or sand. I think it has been demonstrated over and over that a filter is no protection from drops or hard knocks but will protect the lens in underbrush and from blowing dust and sand. A high quality multi-coated filter will have little or no effect on the quality of your shot, but be prepared to spend 60 to 120 for a UV and 80 - 200 for the quality of filters I'm talking about.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Assuming you have a zoom lens, stacking filters can lead to vignetting, particularly on the wide end of the zoom. I would remove the UV filter before adding the polarizer.

When you take off the polarizer, using the UV filter is your choice. Filters protect lenses from some things, but not as much as people think. The lens hood provides more protection from impacts. A filter will provide protection from blowing sand or salt spray or maybe young inquisitive fingers. A filter will not protect your lens if you drop it. For the most part, the disadvantages of the UV filter outweigh the advantages (unless you're on the beach or on a boat or around a lot of small kids).

And it looks like Bridges beat me by about 40 seconds.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

UHH members have argued to no end on the topic of using UV (# 0, 1A, 1B) filters for lens protection or not. Filtering out UV was for film. The only use for them on a digitally used lens is for some lens protection. Though primarily in my opinion for finger smudges and for use with shorter focal length lenses. The filter provides little impact protection, and for longer focal length lenses the deep lens shade provides a good portion of protection and so a UV filter there provides no purpose.

Personally I usually leave a UV-type filter on as most of my lenses are physically short and have "exposed" front elements. Except for critical uses, then I'll take the filter off and go "naked."

To be positive I'd take any UV filter off first before mounting a Polarizing filter. First each extra piece of glass degrades the image slightly. Secondly, it is possible to get vignetting from the PL or any other filter on some lenses if mounted in front of another filter. Some people leave a PL filter on at all times. The PL adds a little neutral density and to my tastes give an uneven sky, if not darker.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

But if you happen to still shoot film they might be useful.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Probably "no" or "wrong" to both. But I do get the feeling that too many people on UHH only picture photographers running around with long focal length zoom lenses. Short lenses, zoom or prime may have lens shades only a few mm's thick or deep that would provide no protection from dirty fingers.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

First, understand he told you to do this because UV filters are a high profit item. In general, the use of a lens hood will provide more lens protection. There is much controversy over this issue. Some people swear by protective filters and say they saved a lens from destruction. Some will never use them on any lens for any reason. Still others like myself generally don't use them but recognize that on some occasions they can be useful like on a sandy beach in a windstorm. Tests have indicated that because the filters are thin and fragile and lenses are quite robust they don't really do much to prevent front impact damage. In the end you need to make your own decision.

Check out his video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds&feature=youtu.be

Generally stacking filters is frowned on.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Don't throw the UV filters away! They make much better lens caps than the snap-ons. Just be sure to remove them before taking a picture!

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

The arguments, pro and con, about protector filters is eternal.
Stacking filters is not a good idea.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Nice video. I wasn't surprised at how little it took to break a filter. After all, they're just a thin flat piece of glass. I was surprised at how much it to break the lens. I guess the convex surface adds strength, and of course the lens element is much thicker than the filter.

Note that he talked about UV filters. One of the first things he showed was that his camera wasn't particularly sensitive to UV. So you don't need a UV filter. For the rest of the testing it really didn't matter whether he was using a UV filter or a clear glass filter (or even a CPL or ND filter).

His conclusion reinforced my previously stated position. The filter (of whatever kind) was protection for blowing sand, [salt spray], fingerprints, and maybe underbrush when walking in the woods. Other than that, there was risk of flare or ghosts when point light sources were in the scene. So protective filters should be used when needed, but not otherwise.

The interesting thing he mentioned at the end was that he bought his filters used, and they were really really cheap. Maybe something to consider.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I use Hoya clear or UV for protection on my lenses. If I'm shooting something special, I remove it, just in case it makes a difference. I use Xume magnetic adapters, so the filters are on and off in less than a second - easier than a lens cap.

I would never put one filter over another.

Polarizers are great for cutting down reflections and enhancing color, but they have to be used at a 90° angle to the sun. I use Marumi polarizers.

Rather than buying a polarizer for each lens, get the largest one you need and use adapter rings for the other lenses.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The general rule is that anything you put in front of your lens could degrade the quality of the image. With good quality filters that should not be an issue.
I do not use UV filters, not even for "protection." A good quality UV staked with a polarizer should be OK but why use them both? I would buy a polarizer and use it when needed to improve my photography.
Never put a dirty filter on a clean lens. I do not use filters if I have to shoot against the light. Nikon does not recommend using matrix metering with dark filters because they can confuse the meter.
Buy only a good quality polarizer and learn how to use it if you do not know how to use it. I see no reasons to buy UV filters.