guide needed on polarizing filter

[Yisehaq]

Thanks T.I. and EJC, that was helpful.

[jabber]

I don't know if anyone mentioned yet that you will lose a stop due to the diminished light coming through the lens. Great examples, tirediron.

[kkjensen]

IMHO I've always made a circular polarizer the 1st filter I buy after a UV to protect the lens from dust and damage. While untrained with them they do help out a lot and on some vacations I've just left it on the lens for the duration of most sunny days.

One thing to remember about them is they rotate! "no, really?!?" I only say this because the kit lenses that come with most cameras do not have an internally focus mechanism so the polarizer will get rotated out of alignment anytime the camera focuses on something, making it a bit hard to capture a moving subject and get the full effect of the filter. I try to take two shots, one to get the camera focused and as insurance that I don't completely miss the moment and then (since the lens won't rotate too much if the focus point stays the same) again once I've taken a second to dial in the cp for the effect I prefer.

[jhuang999]

If i have both the polarizer and UV lens, what order should they go onto the lens? Thanks!

[Mad Aussie]

If i have both the polarizer and UV lens, what order should they go onto the lens? Thanks!

If it's a Circular Polarizer you need to be able to turn it so I'd be putting it on last.
Generally speaking, the UV/Skylight filter goes on first and stays there.

[Andrew]

I put my UV filter on last and only to protect the polarizer. With a polarizer I dont think you need a UV filter for any other reason. UV only cuts the blueish haze from dense water vapours (lakes, ocean, altitude, long distance landscape shots) which the polarizer should eliminate most of anyway.

http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f7/...ras-13134.html

[Mad Aussie]

Actually I think UV's do very little if anything at all other than provide something to scrath other than lense front element. As a UV filter (protecting the camera's sensor from UV rays) it's useless as all camera sensors have a UV filter directly over them these days.

[Iguanasan]

I wasn't going to say anything in this thread at first but this is one of those habits that I really don't understand. Why anyone would put a $20 filter on a $300, $800, or $1500+ lens? If all you are trying to do is protect the lens from bumps then I would suggest a lens hood. It should protect the lens from any bumps and drops without getting in between your lens and the subject. The less that comes between the sensor and the subject the better.

[Peter]

This was so helpfull guys. Thanks

[Mad Aussie]

I wasn't going to say anything in this thread at first but this is one of those habits that I really don't understand. Why anyone would put a $20 filter on a $300, $800, or $1500+ lens? If all you are trying to do is protect the lens from bumps then I would suggest a lens hood. It should protect the lens from any bumps and drops without getting in between your lens and the subject. The less that comes between the sensor and the subject the better.

Not always Iggy .... have a look at the lens hoods on wide angle lenses. The hood on my 10-22mm wouldn't help much at all. Mind you ... I usually don't use any filters at all on my wide angle due to the vignetting you get if you stack them and they can add to lens flare etc in certain lights ... like night time.