dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I know I don't need a UV filter but choose to use one anyway. The simplest reason is because when I clean my lenses I am cleaning the filter so any damage done by over cleaning etc. is done to the cheap filter rather than an expensive lens. THAT is the protection I look for by using an unnecessary filter. I also use a lens hood but prefer to do it my way. No harm done and I sure as hell see no negative effects to any of my photographs.

Have a wonderful day,

Dennis

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I only use a "protective" filter in harsh environments. My CPL is only use to portect against reflections

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

IR Jim,

You didn't mention lens hoods, but do you really need filters on the lenses for protection if you keep the hoods attached. Some years ago, on You-tube I believe, they had a film of testing filters for lens protectors; it didn't work. The front filter is so close to the main lens, that if it got hit hard enough to break it, the force went through to the second lens shattering it too leaving any unknown pieces of glass deeper in the lens, so it's off to the repair shop in either case.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Why would you want to add a CPL to a UV filter or even use a UV filter? UV filters serve no photographic purpose whatsoever on a digital camera. They are pushed on people by the industry on the false premise that they protect your lens from damage and because they are a very high profit item.

UV filters were designed for color photography for film cameras to cut through atmospheric haze often found in mountains and somewhat attenuate the blue cast that resulted from color film that was sensitive to some light frequencies in the ultra-violate range. Digital photography does not have that issue. The best protection for your lens is a lens hood and lens caps. Use the CPL as a standalone filter. Polarizing filters are far superior to UV filters on both film and digital cameras for taking care of any haze problem.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Generally speaking, use as few filters as possible...

I assume you are using a digital camera, in which case a UV filter actually serves little purpose. It doesn't even give much "protection".

(See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

But best to not stack filters, to remove the UV before installing the C-Pol.

louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

While Dr. Land invented the technology for both polarizing filters and the Polaroid camera, the 2 technologies are NOT the same technology by a long shot. Dr. Land had already developed the technology for polarizing filters before and during WWII and formed a company that he used the name "Polaroid" to produce polarized filters, sheets, etc. for automobile headlights and other applications. It was after that when he invented the instant camera, which he called a "Polaroid" based on the name of his company, but the instant camera he invented uses different technology from polarized filters--it was a technology that developed images taken on on special film using a totally different process for developing film from that used to develop film in a darkroom. See https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/land-instant-photography.html for a complete explanation and history.

IR Jim Loc: St. Louis

Lens hoods protect from bumps. Not sand, dirt, people's fingers, the elements, etc.

If I only did photography in a studio, I wouldn't use a filter.

Stash Loc: South Central Massachusetts

So he said Polaroid instead of polarizer. So what? We know what he meant.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Yes. However, one person needs ego gratification.

Stash Loc: South Central Massachusetts

Mike Holmes Loc: The Villages Fl

So does getting rid of the UV filter and keeping a polaroid filter on all the time for lens protection and adjusted when needed to eliminate glare?

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

To further lead this thread away from its original intent, I give you the following link: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/02/how-the-inventor-of-the-polaroid-saved-the-patent/385617/
Enjoy your wayward journey!

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Keeping a polarizer on the camera all the time doesn't make sense as there is a loss of a couple stops of light when the filter isn't really needed for glare.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

A few misconception to be pointed out.

Generally speaking, a LENS SHADES is not intended for protection of the lens against physical damage. It is supposed to prevent stray light form striking the lens and causing flare flare. It can, however, offer some protection against minor impacts or abrasions that might occur. If the lens is impacted significantly enough to causes serious damage it is likely that the hood would not withstand such an impact and may even cause more damage. Many photographers that work in chaotic conditions prefer rubber flexible shades that give way rather than transferring impact to the front of the lens.

Stacking filters in not advisable as any experienced commercial photographer can attest to. In the film days when multiple filter back were required for precise color correction on transparency films, extremely thin gelatin filters were used and often placed at the rear element of view camera lenses. This would reduce the potential for flare and negate the problematic issues of adding multiple glass surfaces to the light path.

The FILTER controversy! It's silly. Keep it simple- Use them when you have to and don't use them when they are unnecessary. Is some cases they can somewhat diminish the image quality. If you do not enlarge your images to any great and and only view them on a small screen or only make moderately enlarged prints, any slight loss with not be apparent. Always use high quality filter to minimize theses issues.

Protections filters(?) The use of any filter does not make you lens "bulletproof"! serious impact, a serious fall, a flying projectile of any kind will penetrate the filter and probably cause more lens damage due to the shards of glass that result. As a commercial photographer, I use my protection filters in industrial environments where airborne abrasive particles, dust, over spray from painting operations, welding operations or any chemical "gassing off" may be present. I use them out of doors if water/salt spray or sand may strike the lens. When I shoot food,in the studio or on location, when working close, there might be steam or splatter from cooking oils or other hot foods. For regular still life and portrait work, I do not use filters, unless very necessary, especially if the job calls for high degrees of enlargement.

Lens cleaning- If you clean you lenses frequently with such intense pressure to the point of damage, you are doing this incorrectly. If you "scrub" you filters you will also impair their performance. Clean all optical equipment with care- use only special lens tissue that is intended for photographic lenses, avoid eyeglass cleaners and cloths. Avoid over use of liquid cleaning agents and make certain that the ones you do use are especially formulated for camera lenses. Before any direct contact with the lenses while cleaning, make sure all surface dust or any foreign matter is removed by gentle air blowing or a specialized lens brush.

A Polarizing filter should not be permanently installed on lenses for protection or possible reflection control. The introduce neutral density to the tune of at leas 2 stops. There are many aesthetic scenarios where reflections should not be altered or negated.

ejones0310 Loc: Tulsa, OK

While this article doesn't address filter stacking, it does explain how a polarizing filter works and when to use in as well as when not to use it.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/polarizing-filters.htm

My 2 cents is don't stack them since more glass adds more opportunity to degrade the image.