Using a UV & polarizer together?

[Mat Sneddon]

Sorry for the noob question but i've read both sides to this and im not sure what is correct!

I have both a pretty good polarizer and UV filter and of course im only using the polarizer during daylight.

I also keep reading how they (the UV) are great lens protection, so it stays on all the time but should i be removing the UV filter when i use the other one?

Currently im not! From my very noob POV it doesnt seem to make too much difference but yer.

Cheers, Mat

[kahkityoong]

It's a no no using the two together. I hardly ever bother with the UV for protection either. I have heard people damaging the glass on their lens and finding it cheaper to replace than an expensive UV filter even. You may be interested in this article I wrote on UV & polarizing filters which should answer any questions about them.
http://www.travelphotographers.net/articles/articles0802/ky0802-article.html

[Analog6]

I use both together. The UV stays on all the time, and I carry lens cloth and use it often. I just add the polariser. This is what I did for 30+ years of film phjotogra[phy and I think it's the way to go.

If you are doubtful, put your camera oin a tripod and shoot a scene with no filters, UV only, polariser only, and then together. You can compare in the computer and decide for yourself.

[kahkityoong]

Mat as you can see this is not a noob question, having received two opposite answers. I have to respectfully disagree with the above however for several very important reasons.
1. Many digital sensors can't 'see' UV light or at least are far less sensitive to it than film. So at least in the digital photography, cutting UV light ceases to be a reason for using a UV filter. There may be a stronger case for using both a polarizer and UV in the realm of film but this is still far from being normal practice.
2. About 50% of people keep their UV filters on for protection. The other half, including myself, don't as the extra-glass has the potential to degrade the picture. This may not sound like a big deal but I like to do 30 inch prints and I need every bit of sharpness. When you put a polarizer on, the need to protect the front of the lens is no longer there so why the extra glass?
3. Having an extra piece of glass between the polarizer and lens will increase flare. Any flare that gets through will bounce around between the polarizer and UV as well as the UV and lens.
4. Put on your UV filter and the polarizer over your widest lens at the widest focal length and take a shot. You will probably see some a very hard dark line around the edges. This is external vignetting caused by the polarizer/UV combination being visible in the frame.

[Jedo_03]

Just my two-pennorth...
Quote from kahkityoong "Many digital sensors can't 'see' UV light or at least are far less sensitive to it than film. So at least in the digital photography, cutting UV light ceases to be a reason for using a UV filter..."

This is true for levels of UV light at or near sea level - too low for a sensor to "see" ... However at higher altitudes the levels of UV light increase and the light becomes more 'blue' - it's here where the UV filter can be useful in decreasing the blue-ness of the exposure... eg pics in the Blue Mountains...
(Ahhh... so That's why they're called the Blue Mountains...)
Cheers
jedo

[Jedo_03]

Just my two-pennorth...
Quote from kahkityoong "Many digital sensors can't 'see' UV light or at least are far less sensitive to it than film. So at least in the digital photography, cutting UV light ceases to be a reason for using a UV filter..."

This is true for levels of UV light at or near sea level - too low for a sensor to "see" ... However at higher altitudes the levels of UV light increase and the light becomes more 'blue' - it's here where the UV filter can be useful in decreasing the blue-ness of the exposure... eg pics in the Blue Mountains...
(Ahhh... so That's why they're called the Blue Mountains...)
Cheers
jedo

Added: FWIW - I keep a 1A skylight on the end - adds a tad of warmth..

[kahkityoong]

"This is true for levels of UV light at or near sea level - too low for a sensor to "see" ... However at higher altitudes the levels of UV light increase and the light becomes more 'blue' - it's here where the UV filter can be useful in decreasing the blue-ness of the exposure... eg pics in the Blue Mountains...
(Ahhh... so That's why they're called the Blue Mountains...)"

That's correct Jedo. This is all covered in my article linked to above if anyone had bothered to read it.

[Jedo_03]

"This is true for levels of UV light at or near sea level - too low for a sensor to "see" ... However at higher altitudes the levels of UV light increase and the light becomes more 'blue' - it's here where the UV filter can be useful in decreasing the blue-ness of the exposure... eg pics in the Blue Mountains...
(Ahhh... so That's why they're called the Blue Mountains...)"

That's correct Jedo. This is all covered in my article linked to above if anyone had bothered to read it.

Yes - I have read all - thanks for all your knowledge...
In my experience a UV filter does indeed decrease the perception of blueness even at low altitude - eg of hills and 'mountains' at distant horizons... However, for close to medium distance shots I would concur that a UV filter makes little perceptible difference to the exposure/hue... And strongly agree that less glass in front of the lens is optimal... But I prefer a little protection which is why I use 1A skylight... which I don't feel bad about rubbing with my sleeve or my shirt tail when I see a coating of dust...
cheers
Jedo

[kahkityoong]

The 1A would indeed be a good way of adding a bit of warmth to a shot with that blue haze. You can get a similar look with post-processing and my preference is to minimize the filters I already carry, about 12.
Getting back to the specific question asked by the original poster though - you wouldn't use the skylight and a polarizer?

[Mat Sneddon]

Thanks guys. Much appreciated :)

Like i said, i was using both at once as the conflicting POV's were doing my head in! In fact i have noticed the external vignetting.

Will definitely have a play around with the 3 options as you pointed Analog6. Good way to experience it myself!

Its not really a hassle changing filters so thats what i shall do in the future!

[davidc]

"That's correct Jedo. This is all covered in my article linked to above if anyone had bothered to read it. I certainly did read it and found it most helpful, and would recommend it to anyone. Thank you for sharing it with us.

[Jedo_03]

The 1A would indeed be a good way of adding a bit of warmth to a shot with that blue haze. You can get a similar look with post-processing and my preference is to minimize the filters I already carry, about 12.
Getting back to the specific question asked by the original poster though - you wouldn't use the skylight and a polarizer?

Arghh... No... not both... that's too much glass and maybe loses 2+ stops as well as introducing vignette. The 1A stays on until I find myself in polarizing situations then off it comes and on goes the polarizer. And I don't use any other filters than that. though I do have them...
cheers
Jedo

[Mouskie]

From someone that has accidently scratched two lenses on my old Canon 350d camera - take it from me - UV's protect your lens!

[kahkityoong]

From someone that has accidently scratched two lenses on my old Canon 350d camera - take it from me - UV's protect your lens!

Never scratched a lens in my 2+ years of photography despite not using UV filters much. When my lens get damaged they tend to get smashed to pieces instead.:D

[Mouskie]

Maybe it's a female thing - three rings on the ring finger and long fingernails!