Stacking Filters

[Vince.1551]

Yes my attitude ... 26 years filters saved my lenses from acid splashes, scratches from sharp edge rocks and salt water. Do not assume everyone shoots under the same condition as you. Recommending your belief based on your regular shooting conditions is totally flawed.

I buy what I deem necessary after thorough exploration. Not based on some sales talk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Overread]

Acid - salt water spray - sand - high levels of dust - these are all great examples of when a filter can be a protection for your front element. Though for most of those they are not what people will encounter on a day to day basis. So they don't need the filter on all the time - just when they need to.

Of course if you're living in a coastal area shooting on the beach lots - or in a desert then yes you will find that you could benefit from the filter more often (even then its mostly only keeping your front element from getting lots of small scratches).


Note even though we know we can shatter the front element and still get a decent shot - we still hate to think of the optics marked. If nothing else its protecting resale value

 

[Vince.1551]

Acid - salt water spray - sand - high levels of dust - these are all great examples of when a filter can be a protection for your front element. Though for most of those they are not what people will encounter on a day to day basis. So they don't need the filter on all the time - just when they need to.

Of course if you're living in a coastal area shooting on the beach lots - or in a desert then yes you will find that you could benefit from the filter more often (even then its mostly only keeping your front element from getting lots of small scratches).


Note even though we know we can shatter the front element and still get a decent shot - we still hate to think of the optics marked. If nothing else its protecting resale value

Totally agree...I'm just lazy to remove them or find it unnecessary to remove them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[astroNikon]

someone fairly recently took pictures of an egg exploding (shot). He found out later that liquid pieces of the egg were in his lens somehow. Another good example of maybe a filter, or in this case a complete camera/lens cover would have helped. ==> Talk about having egg on your face... | Photography Forum

 

[TCampbell]

The camera cannot focus on anything located DIRECTLY on the lens surface. So if you're nervous... take a 3M "post it" note or a piece of masking tape... cut it down to a small square of perhaps 1/4" x 1/4". This is your "simulated dirt spot". Stick this on your lens glass (directly on the glass). Go take a picture. Inspect said picture. You may be surprised to notice that you can't actually tell that there's a piece of tape on your lens.

It turns out for some specs of dust, etc. you can get "flare" caused by light catching the edge of the dirt -- but it won't be focused.

If, on the other hand, you stack filters on the lens, the "stacked" filters can create reflections and "ghosting". This is because the inner glass reflects an image back out to the perfectly "flat" filter on the outside... which reflects that same image back into the camera -- and since the image being reflected is of an object located much farther away (where the camera actually can bring things into focus) you can actually get focused "ghosting" effects caused by the filters.

So the irony is... "dirt" directly on your lens generally will have a much weaker effect (and often cannot be noticed at all) and yet "protective" filters can create very noticeable image quality problems.

With that said... some weather-sealed lenses recommend filters to "complete the weather seal" so there are _some_ conditions where it might be a good idea to have a filter. Most of the time, the filter will not help and often will harm image quality. I recommend photographers "go naked" and only use filters when there is a reason to use a filter (such as a polarizer, ND, grad, etc.) and avoid the use of "protective filters" unless you're in an environment which offers a really compelling reason to use a "protective" filter (and in those cases you probably want a rain-sleeve for the entire camera body and lens.) If you're not thinking you need a rain-sleeve for the camera... you probably don't need a clear "protective" filter either.

Glass is very hard and somewhat difficult to scratch or break (especially the thick glass they use in lenses).

 

[Vince.1551]

I think we tend to forget about the coating on the lens. It's not only about the 'actual' surface of the glass unless you want to use glasses without anti-reflective coatings. Good filters have a 98% light transmission value so internal reflections are negligible. All my images here are shot with a filter attached. Could you tell in plain sight? I disagree with the need for a rain-sleeve. 1 drop of mildly corrosive fluid will smear your coating perpetually. Damage on camera body? Nil to negligible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mr.Photo]

I personally don't use filters unless it's for something specific as mentioned above (grad, ND, etc). I don't normally use my stuff to make a living, and even if I do get a paid job here and there it's typically only a portrait shoot, or something low key that is very low risk to my gear. I'm also very conscientious of my equipment and take very very good care of it.

On another forum I frequent a member there was fighting an issue with some of his lenses. All the images he took just seemed to be very soft. At first he thought that he might have a front/back focusing issue but close inspection of the images revealed that the whole image was soft. He adjusted his AF fine tune, did test after test, asked people on the forum for advise, until finally he decided to send the camera and lenses to Nikon to have them check and calibrate them. Nikon returned all of his lenses, and camera saying that no adjustment was necessary. However when he returned to his normal shooting the images were all soft. There was actually a heated argument in that very thread about filters, and someone asked him if he had ever tried testing without them on (he used only B+W and Hoya). He decided to try and test without the filters installed and his images where suddenly as sharp as could be. He has since sworn off using filters unless it's for something specific or he wants the extra protection from flying particles/liquids.

 

[Vince.1551]

I don't think it's the filter's fault tbh ...unless he is using the very cheap versions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tecboy]

I use the filters as needed. If you are using circular polarized filter, you don't need a uv filter to stack on front.

 

[Mr.Photo]

I don't think it's the filter's fault tbh ...unless he is using the very cheap versions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This particular person is a long time professional photographer, and well respected member of the forum. He never gave a second thought that his extremely high quality (read: expensive) B+W and Hoya filters could ever be the problem. As I said there was a heated argument in that thread regarding the good/bad qualities of filters. The photographer who is the subject of my post was one of the ones who was fiercely defending his opinion with regards to the protective qualities of filters. Finally someone mentioned to him that when he sent his lenses to Nikon that Nikon request that all filters, and accessories not be sent with the camera/lenses. He then agreed to do a test without the filters in place. He posted side by side comparison's straight out of the camera, and the difference was astonishing. This was not just one particular lens/filter, but several different lenses all using high end filters as that was what he swore by.

 

[Vince.1551]

I can do a test for you and assure you it's most likely not the filter. Just look at some of the photos I posted lately ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bribrius]

don't use filters. I do have a scratch on a lens. what is weird is it seems like it is on the INSIDE somehow. Don't show up in the photos.
clean lenses almost every time I take it out. Lots of debris does seem to get on there, usually brush it off with a soft brush. worry about the zoom more I think. sometime I think I can hear the grit scraping in one from all the dirt I think has got in it. got them wet before too. Seem to work fine though.

I Also don't have expensive lenses. If I did I might be more concerned with protecting them.

 

[runnah]

uv filters are a waste and offer no value other than image degradation and wallet deflation.

 

[Tailgunner]

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.

Good info!

This is the first i've heard about UV filters helping above 5,000 ft. Do you have any more info on this area? I like to shoot mountain areas...just got back from shooting an Alpine lake around 8,000 ft in Colorado.

You're also right about the polarizer filter and loosing a stop or two. This can actually come in handy...if you forget your ND filters and your miles away from anything resembling a town. I was able to stop my camera down just enough to get my shot using my Polarizer. Weird but i'm glad it worked lol

 

[Overread]

Yep Polerizer filters make a good back-up ND filter (in fact the variable ND filters are, I think, simply an assemble of polerizer filters together) - or you can use them with ND for increased light stopping.

The point on UV light I read a fairly long while back, info stuck but source didn't I'm afraid. Though at a basic point of logic UV light increases the higher up you go and cameras are made for average conditions only. If you're up that high yourself I'd say break out a UV filter and give it a test and see what the real world result for yourself is (the difference might be marginal - esp after editing).