Stacking Filters

[Max74]

I like the idea of always having at least a UV or polarized filter on my lense for protection. Can I stack these two together? Should I? Which one would you leave on most of the time? Pros and cons of each?

Thanks

 

[astroNikon]

totally depends upon the quality of the filter
here's an extreme example ==> LensRentals.com - Good Times with Bad Filters

 

[astroNikon]

more info ==> LensRentals.com - The Glass in Front of Your Glass: All About Filters
and ==> Lens Filters – One Size Does NOT Fit All

 

[Overread17 5]

A few thoughts:

1) filters are made of very thin glass. As a result they will crack and shatter very easily compared to most front element glass, which is considerably thicker. The problem here is that if you use a filter for protection it will only protect against light debris and liquids. Anything hard or a significant drop will crack the filter and that means shattered glass - highly abrasive shattered glass likely blowing all over your front element.
Note there are lots of claims of people dropping a lens with the filter on and the filter "taking the fall" and cracking and not the front element. Its highly likely that the filter had no part in the protection at all, might have actually caused more harm than good with cracked glass shards/dust and also can very often end up getting its filter threading caught on the cameras - which makes it hard to remove and also can end up messing up your lenses filter thread.

2) A UV filter cuts down on UV light entering the camera, however most digital cameras already take account of UV and have built in blockers. Thus UV filters really only cut down on UV once you're in higher than average conditions - such as above 5000feet.

3) A Polarizer polarizes the light. This has the effect of cutting down on reflections from non-metalic sources. IT can be great for getting shots on water without reflections playing a part in the shot. When used at right angles to the sun it also helps give a nice deep blue cast to a clear sky.

The downside is that it will take away between 1 and 2 stops of light (varies between models). This will, as a result, affect your exposures so you might find if you're shooting action or in dimmer conditions that the 1 stop loss is a hindrance.


In the end there is nothing to stop you stacking filters (although note some brands make ultra thin filters that have no front thread on them - so they would not stack unless placed on last); however I would say that unless you're going to need and benefit from the effect the filter has, then there is no point using it.
If you want one for protection a clear glass filter is all you need. Remember though its only going to stop light objects. Ideal at a sandy beach on a windy day or in wetter conditions - no use for stones or paintballs nor drops to the ground.

Note that in most situations a lens hood provides all the protection you'll need on an average day.

 

[Max74]

Thanks for the links.

 

[The_Traveler]

Let me summarize the links for you-

• Putting additional layers of relatively cheap glass over the introduces more dust, diffusion-causing scratches and glare inducing reflective surfaces without adding anything positive to the image.
• Physical protection accorded by a thin piece of glass is minimal compared to the shelter provided by a metal lens hood.
• Digital images already have a uv filter.
• Polarizing filters are good but at a cost.

 

[Vince.1551]

I don't drop lenses (it's a conscientious effort). Either you drop a lens with the filter glass scratching your front element or you drop the front element on hard objects. Either way I prefer scratches from shattered glass then a direct scratch or impact to the front element on hard objects.

I don't like cleaning my front element. It gets dirty easy. With regular cleaning, I rather rub off the multicoating on my filter then my front element.

IQ difference ... get a good quality filter and you'll barely notice any change in image quality (for UV or clear filter).

And yes I use filters on all my lenses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[astroNikon]

FYI, on my general walk around lens, I do use a Heliopan UV 0 filter. nothing on the other ones unless I'm doing something specific, Lenses may have different sizes in which case I have a set of "stepup" rings to use my 77mm filters on.

here's a website that tested UV 0 filters ==> UV filters test - Description of the results and summary - Lenstip.com

 

[Vince.1551]

I hoped that site updated the latest version of filters like the B+W Nano


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[astroNikon]

I hoped that site updated the latest version of filters like the B+W Nano


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's like 5 years old I think But at least it's a comparison. I figured OP wasn't looking for TOP Dollar filters so it's still relevant.

 

[Derrel]

"Protective filters" are not needed. See the video for proof.

 

[Vince.1551]

If anyone here would do that to their premium lenses and shoot a video I'll agree. The video barely shows all the scratches ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Look again...it takes the CLAW side of the hammer to make any noticeable impact on the front element. Besides, as we know, damage to the front element causes almost no noticeable degradation of image quality. You can cut a postage stamp in half and lick it and stick it onto the front element of a lens, and its presence is barely seen in the photos.

"protective filters" are basically a huge,huge profit center for photo dealers. I know this because I used to work for a large chain photo store; we bought filters by the case, verrrrrrrrrry cheaply, and sold them at huuuuuuuuuuuuge mark-up; that is the way filters are sold!

Does anyone really believe that a flat piece of coated optical glass in an 89-cent brass mount is worth $109 because it says B+W 77mm on the rim? There are many people who have payed big money for "high quality protective filters", and cannot seem to overcome their problems with cognitive dissonance on this issue, so they insist that protective filters really ARE a necessity.

I used to use UV filters, Nikon L37c almost exclusively, for years. I stopped, 20 years ago. No issues since. None. Not one, single problem.

Oh, by the way, I'm wearing a condom, right now...you know, in case I have sex later tonight. "Always wear protection!"

 

[Vince.1551]

Well anyway to each his own. We all take our own risk so no point arguing over this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

I know. Video proof, industry insider insight, thoughtful questions, personal experience with and without, a thought problem example...and yet despite that, cognitive dissonance keeps people convinced of the need for buying "protection" for imaginary hazards. Your attitude is a perfect example of how a $2.99 filter can be sold for $29.99, and the salesman given a $12 spiff on each sale.

Filters and made-in-China camera cases and bags are two of the largest sources of profit for camera dealers. And because customers are such lambs, they are easy prey for good salesmen.

"Don't you want to protect your investment with a good filter?" is an easy way to pad your paycheck big-time as a sales guy selling photo or video gear. Believe me, I know this from behind the counter experience. The more expensive the lens, the easier it is to hook and land the customer, then bring him on-shore and knock him in the head, like a fish. This is how the $109 UV "protective filter" industry was born.