Draco Loc: TX

This may seem a like a very newbie question, but I’m also new to this site, but not new to photography, just moving up. I’ve ask this on other site and never really got a good answer. So here goes, I have good UV filters on all my lenses (well 3), do I need to take it off if I’m going to put another filter on, say a CP or a ND? I usually have got conflicting answers on this one. Any help will be most welcome.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Need to? No. Should? Yes. The reason being you now have four glass services that can produce reflections and/or glare so you may or may not see a degrading of the image. The other thing you really need to watch for is with wide angle lenses. Stacking the filters may cause some vignetting on the corners of the frame.

OLDCOOT

You are not the only newbie here.
No you don't need to take the uv filters off when adding another filter to the lens.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

This should read:
Need to? No. Should? Yes. The reason being you now have four glass surfaces that can produce reflections and/or glare so you may or may not see a degrading of the image. The other thing you really need to watch for is with wide angle lenses. Stacking the filters may cause some vignetting on the corners of the frame.

I completely agree.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

UV filters may have been a little value under certain circumstances for older films. Some films captured some UV light causing some haziness. The difference was very small and useless for most pictures. People then rationalized their use by using them or clear filters to protect lenses.

I suggest that you shoot on a sunny day to see if a UV filter matters. And then shoot without it and adjust the picture to match the one taken with the filter. A second filter may absorb the UV light making that filter unnecessary.

As for ND filters, I am not quite sure why you need them anymore. Change the ISO. Or adjust the picture in post-processing.

I love polarizers. However, digital reduces their need for darkening skies and increasing saturation. If you want to avoid post-processing, then use them. Otherwise, fix the pictures later. If you want to eliminate reflections, then use them.

Good luck.

OnTheFly Loc: Tennessee

I haven't really found the uv filters to help me much as far as uv goes. I think they are more effective at higher elevations and near the ocean. I do however keep one on my lens just to help keep the lens clean and safe from scratches. It would make sense though, that the more glass that your image sensor has to look through, the more likely you will have image degradation.

OLDCOOT

I have always felt that the greatest use for a UV filter was to protect the lens.

lynn1

No need to remove the UV filter. Both the UV and any other filter should work well together. Here's another thought: Filters degrade the image some and I talked to a newspaper photographer who doesn't use the UV filter because of this. I think he is being picky because I've not seen this. Maybe if I printed large like 20x30, I'd think differently.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

The simple answer is to use coated glass UV filters and then test to see if you get any vignetting in your pictures (or any weird stuff). If they look good no need to remove the UV, if you see weird stuff then there are issues and you should yank it off of there. There is no hard fast rule and anyone that tells you so is a rookie, try stuff out digital film is really cheap these days.

In a DIGITAL SLR there is no need for a UV filter as far as removing UV since the Sensor utilizes a Low Pass Filter that limits the light frequency that will pass through (or be detected by) the sensor. UV light is simply "programed out" but the filter still offers protection for that front element.

I have said in past posts that the reason I have good quality filters on my lenses is that when you clean them regardless of how gentle or what gimick you use you are wiping microscopic grains of rock across that glass and eventually it will wear a hole through the anti-reflective coatings and ruin the lens. I'm not really worried about damage since I always use a hood I am using the filter to take the wear and tear.

There are uses for ND filters if you need a slow shutter speed and have a bright area such as the sky. And as far as post processing after the fact the only filter that cannot be accurately duplicated is a polarizing filter. They can do much more than darken skies.

JerrysPhotos Loc: Arkansas

I never stack filters, the more glass you have between your lens and your subject the more your photo will be degraded....... but then I don't use a UV filter either, I use a lens cap to protect my lens, take it off when I am ready to take a photo and then put it back on. This has worked for more than 30 years in all kinds of conditions.....

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

"And as far as post processing after the fact the only filter that cannot be accurately duplicated is a polarizing filter. They can do much more than darken skies."

A polarizer does one thing and one thing only: reduce non-coherent light. In photography, that means darkening skies and objects having a certain orientation to the sun and polarizer and reducing reflections on reflective surfaces.

I submit that in this context, as soon as you add any filtration, you are no longer duplicating accurately the scene. And then, accuracy depends upon what you saw, what you remember you saw, and what you recorded. I am not a purist. All I want is a pleasing and interesting picture. To that end, I do not care if I tweak it in the camera or on the computer.

I leave accuracy to the photojournalists.

Mel Winner

Draco, don,t worry about it. Shoot your camera, learn from it and enjoy this disipline of photography.

Draco Loc: TX

Thanks everyone for all the use full information.

OnTheFly Loc: Tennessee

You probably wouldn't think differently even then. I have a waterfall photo I had blown to 24 *36 and it is sharp as a tack. I had uv filter on when I took it.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

I am a "Newspaper" Photographer and I always have a UV0 filter on all the lenses I can put them on. Have you seen the "quality" of a newspaper? Not the best medium for high definition images (please). You can't tell the difference if you use a good filter like a B+W or a Heliopan. I've taken thousands of shots with and without and they don't change a thing. And for those that "use a lens cap" to protect the lens instead of a UV Filter, try taking 3,000 pictures a day and see how long that plan works for you.