Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
CPL on top of a UV protect?
Page <<first <prev 5 of 8 next> last>>
Dec 30, 2023 15:26:19   #
User ID
 
jcboy3 wrote:
Extra glass, possible vignetting. Go ahead. Because you know, if you remove the UV filter, you might drop the lens and break it.

Reason enuf for Do Not Disturb.

Reply
Dec 30, 2023 15:27:26   #
User ID
 
Longshadow wrote:
So how many people can discern "extra glass" in a shot?

Depends on the MP count.

Reply
Dec 30, 2023 15:29:02   #
User ID
 
billnikon wrote:
Remove the UV filter, while you have it off, blow off the front element of your lens, clear and store UV filter, before attaching the CPL filter, check and clean if necessary, use the CPL filter, when done, store CPL filter, check front element of lens and clean if necessary, reattach the useless UV filter, attach lens hood.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Reply
 
 
Dec 30, 2023 15:33:20   #
User ID
 
Longshadow wrote:
Curious - If everything was clean before the protective filter was attached, and it was not removed (for a long time), how would the front element get dirty? The only thing that might be dirty would be the front of the protective filter.

World Award Winner Famous Pete Williams, in all his 22 great books, advises "Never miss an opportunity the squeeze your Rocket Blower".

Reply
Dec 30, 2023 15:38:45   #
User ID
 
Jeffcs wrote:
Personally I put as little extra glass as possible on the front of my lenses especially on wide/extra wide angle lenses due to vignetting

Really poorly designed lenses. Glass is too crowded by filter threads. Most commonly found on top tier OEM lenses. Usual sorry excuse: standardizing to fewer filter sizes. Real Photographers all use stepping rings.



Reply
Dec 30, 2023 15:47:11   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
User ID wrote:
Real world ? No. Hawgsterland ? Depends on whether the viewer has been informed about the illegally stacked filters. Which holds sway legally, the confession or the evidence ?


My sides hurt!

Reply
Dec 30, 2023 15:48:39   #
User ID
 
CliffMcKenzie wrote:
A different take, when I started in photography in 2019, I began with a heavy investment in lens. I made sure I had protective glass on each lens. Study, research and working with master photographers it became clear they do not use protective glass. I insured all of my equipment instead. I have never had a photography claim. Clear filter for blowing sand...OK, but that is not the same thing. Have I seen a person drop their camera and lens is saved by $200+ filter, one time. Why do not the manufacturers of expensive lenses not push one more piece of glass as a solution?
A different take, when I started in photography in... (show quote)

There is no such thing as a dumb question ... according to those who ask them.

Reply
 
 
Dec 30, 2023 15:53:59   #
User ID
 
Longshadow wrote:

NOPE!
Not at all.

A UV really cuts a half stop?
Whooda thunk it, it looks clear.

Not a habit, simply not worried about it.
There's a difference.
I had three choices, skylite, clear, UV.
Eenie, meenie, minie Moe.
Lets pick this one,
and away we go.
img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

Theres no half stop loss. Test it for yourself rather than trusting any UHH advice gurus.

Reply
Dec 30, 2023 15:58:41   #
User ID
 
larryepage wrote:
Photography is full of self-taught practitioners. I have been in two classes (well...a workshop and a class) with a published photographer who also represents one of the "big three." He openly admits to being self-taught. I like his classes, and I like him. But I've learned to weigh what he says. Especially when he discusses complex processes. Because sometimes he becomes more procedural than logical. And...he admits that there is usually more than one way to do a thing, but he only teaches one way.

The same thing was true in the two photography classes I took many years ago. Most of the big ideas were taught spot-on correct. But some of the details were absolutely wrong. Usually because the instructor didn't understand the underlying mathematics.

No glass filter is going to reliably protect a lens from catastrophic damage. But it will protect from careless scratches or spills.

I fell with my camera a year and a half ago. Landed on the hood and pushed it back over the barrel of the lens. The filter ended up with some grass stuck to it. There was no damage to the lens or the camera. DO NOT TRY TO TELL ME that filters and hoods are useless for protection. (And yes...the lens cap was off because I was actually taking pictures.)
Photography is full of self-taught practitioners. ... (show quote)

Your teachers never warned you against actually taking pictures ?

Reply
Dec 30, 2023 16:14:07   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
User ID wrote:
Your teachers never warned you against actually taking pictures ?


No. Guess we were accustomed to living on the edge. We played with fire in chemistry class, too.

Reply
Dec 30, 2023 16:41:15   #
wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
 
soxfan941 wrote:
I have a UV protect filter on one of my lenses. If I decide to use a CPL filter, should I remove the
UV filter or is it OK to use both at the same time?
TIA


You can use both at the same time. But if you are not above 5000' elevation or in a weld shop or other source of UV, why are you using a UV filter? Until you get into the mountains out here in Colorado, most of the time one does not need a UV filter. Camera sensors tend to be very UV insensitive. A UV filter is only really needed for very intense UV.

Reply
 
 
Dec 30, 2023 16:49:23   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
wdross wrote:
You can use both at the same time. But if you are not above 5000' elevation or in a weld shop or other source of UV, why are you using a UV filter? Until you get into the mountains out here in Colorado, most of the time one does not need a UV filter. Camera sensors tend to be very UV insensitive. A UV filter is only really needed for very intense UV.

OR, it is one of three that can simply be used as a protective filter.....

Reply
Dec 30, 2023 17:07:27   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
Longshadow wrote:
OR, it is one of three that can simply be used as a protective filter.....


My choice is a clear filter. But I've had trouble finding one a time or two, so have gone with a UV instead. I've never considered it a critical mission to replace a good UV filter with a clearcine.

Reply
Dec 30, 2023 17:20:46   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
larryepage wrote:
My choice is a clear filter. But I've had trouble finding one a time or two, so have gone with a UV instead. I've never considered it a critical mission to replace a good UV filter with a clearcine.


Either one of three types will do for me.
I've no definitive preference.

Reply
Dec 30, 2023 17:39:42   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
larryepage wrote:
My choice is a clear filter. But I've had trouble finding one a time or two, so have gone with a UV instead. I've never considered it a critical mission to replace a good UV filter with a clearcine.



Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.