UV filter with polarizer?

[houselizard]

Hi,

If a len is mounted with polarizer, is there is need for UV filter? Will polarizer protect the len as well?

Thanks

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

 

[Octarine]

Short answer: No. Digital cameras do not need any UV filter at all, regardless whether CPL is involved or not.
Long answer: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=803029 - Use the right filter for the right job
UV filters have practically lost their job, they are still used by overly concerned people who listen to overly eager sales men instead of using lens hoods.
In addition: stacking filters is just calling for trouble, they easily stick together.

 

[houselizard]

Thanks. That info was helpful.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

 

[Mythmaker]

Lens hood is bulky. UV filters does the job of protection much better.

 

[Octarine]

Lens hood is bulky. UV filters does the job of protection much better.

I disagree. Smack the rim of your lens with filter attached on some hard object. Observe. Repeat the same with a lens hood. I will do the latter one without hesitation. This is the most common impact on lenses, e.g. when the camera is carried using shoulder strap. A straight hit onto the front element is rather uncommon.
Most lens hoods can be reverse mounted for transport.

 

[Mythmaker]

I disagree. Smack the rim of your lens with filter attached on some hard object. Observe. Repeat the same with a lens hood. I will do the latter one without hesitation. This is the most common impact on lenses, e.g. when the camera is carried using shoulder strap. A straight hit onto the front element is rather uncommon.
Most lens hoods can be reverse mounted for transport.

Lens hood reversed makes it harder to zoom or MF.

Smacking the rim of the lens (aka filter) vs smacking on the hood has no difference. I tried both, using solely a hood on a 2 weeks trip to Israel and a clear protector on a 2 weeks trip to Taiwan. Both came back damaged and full of scratches/paint peeling anyway. In both cases, the lens's cosmetics was unharmed (well, mainly). But in the case of the hood, it was a less pleasant experience overall because of the bulkiness and it kept hitting into things. Not to mention it's hindering the composition (because it kept knocking into things when I was framing) and attracting attention.

The only problem I have with filters is that sometimes it gets stuck onto the lens. There was once it got so stuck that I had to smash the uv filter into pieces with a screwdriver in order to get it off the lens, but that's the only case so far.

I'm not saying hoods are completely useless; I still use them for star trails when it looks like it's gonna drizzle. But for protecting the lens, I'll go with a clear protector. Heck, even a step up ring would be better IMO.

 

[nexShot]

the hood and UV filter is to prevent extra light and alter light into the camera --> mainly for photogaphic purpose.
Protecting the lenses is a side effect of the hood or the UV filter. For very good protection, get a rubber hood. just mount and do not need to remove. these are folderable, so u need then you put out, otherwise fold it back.

https://www.google.com.sg/imgres?im...-XMAhUFLo8KHUvNAU0QMwg_KBowGg&iact=mrc&uact=8

something like that. very good protection as these hood will not break.

 

[Nikonzen]

One time I made a snap with UV filter on and same snap with UV filter off. Now all my L37C's are on lenses I don't use very much.

I try not to shoot into the light and haven't thought much about contre-jour so I don't know about hoods either.

If I hurt it then so be it...as long as I get the shot!

I do like wearing my eyeglasses however...lol

All that said if I were going to sport a filter I would rather use a practical filter eg CP, ND, Warming filter, etc. than some old UV filter.