Using Polarizing Filter With Skylight Filter

Annika1980 wrote:
And my point is that when you're shooting you shouldn't have anything
on there.
Also, a $2 lens cap is cheaper than a $20-$30 filter.
Presumably, you paid big bucks for an expensive lens that you wish to
protect. If you're gonna muck up the image quality with a UV filter,
you've wasted your money.
It's like buying a beautiful new car and ruining the looks of it by
putting one of those bras on the front to keep the bugs off.

First off - friggin relax - what's your problem?

And what do you mean you should NEVER have anything on the lens - yeah,
us nature and landscape photographers are really stupid for using a
Circ Polarizers - also isn't UV filters that gives you that cool effect
when there is humidity in the air and you use a telephoto - sorry
Anniak - some of us like to be creative - and I buy used $300+ lenses
so I know I have a decent lens - can't afford pro lenses with the huge
max aperatures.

Also - muck up the image with a UV filter - huh? What - you lose what -
maybe 1/2 a stop - if you don't even know about the creative use of
filters - and I don't mean the cheater foilters - thwn I doubt you know
much at all - best not to comment.

Never experimented with vaseline on the lens? Never bought a cheap
used/damamged UV or skylight filter, smash it with a hammer and then
shoot with it - proabably not even aware of the compositions that would
lead to highly creative shots with those 2 suggestions - Like I said -
the rest of us are into creative photography - you keep shooting for
that newspaper shot!

Thanks to everyone for replying. It's interesting to read the different
responses indeed. I might try a shot with and without the skylight on the
polarizer just to see the difference.
"Jim" wrote in message
.com...

"Michael Yates" wrote in message
...
I just picked up a Hoya 49mm circular polarizer. The question I pose to
you is this, I use Hoya Skylight 1B filters on my 55mm and 135mm lenses.
I've read that with wide angle lenses you shouldn't use additional filters
with the polarizer. But with the 55mm and upwards am I at risk of
vignetting if I use the skylight as well as the polarizer?

Firstly I put the polarizer right over the skylight, but then thought if
I put the skylight over the polarizer it would be good for protection
mainly, but also warming the image slightly since the polarizer loses a
stop or two..
Am I heading for bad news?


There is no reason to use a skylight filter and a polarizing filter at the
same time.
Jim

Jimbo wrote:

First off - friggin relax - what's your problem?

I buy used $300+ lenses so I know I have a decent lens - can't afford pro lenses with the huge max aperatures.


LOL! You're worried about protecting a cheap used lens? Are you
buying them to take pics with or to resell? The point is that it is
quite unlikely that your lens will be damaged if you don't use a filter
on it. So why waste more $$$ on a filter that does nothing except sit
on the lens, degrades the image, and offers some perceived degree of
protection against something, presumably flying rocks or sand?

I have nothing against the use of filters like Circular Polarizers or
graduated ND filters since those actually accomplish something, unlike
most skylight or UV filters that are just another piece of glass in
front of the lens. I don't have much use for color filters since those
effects can be created in Photoshop. In fact, the latest version of PS
has a nice set of Photo Filters that do just that.

Jim wrote:

If you've paid much attention to lenses for sale on ebay, many of them
have bent filter threads. A UV or skylight would likely prevent most
of these types of damage.

I wonder how many of those filter threads were ruined by filters that
got stuck and were pried off?

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jimbo wrote:

First off - friggin relax - what's your problem?

I buy used $300+ lenses so I know I have a decent lens - can't afford pro
lenses with the huge max aperatures.


LOL! You're worried about protecting a cheap used lens? Are you
buying them to take pics with or to resell? The point is that it is
quite unlikely that your lens will be damaged if you don't use a filter
on it. So why waste more $$$ on a filter that does nothing except sit
on the lens, degrades the image, and offers some perceived degree of
protection against something, presumably flying rocks or sand?

I have nothing against the use of filters like Circular Polarizers or
graduated ND filters since those actually accomplish something, unlike
most skylight or UV filters that are just another piece of glass in
front of the lens. I don't have much use for color filters since those
effects can be created in Photoshop. In fact, the latest version of PS
has a nice set of Photo Filters that do just that.

Yeah....I bought a cheap, used 45 mm "pancake" lens that I use as a body
cap.....It keeps dirt out of my camera body, plus it has the added advantage
of being able to take a picture....:^)

Annika1980 wrote:
Jimbo wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:

Jimbo wrote:

if I don't want the skylight filter on for the shot
- I take it off, shoot, put it back on.

Isn't that the function of the lens cap?

Can't shoot with the lens cap on!

My statement involves the use of some kind of filter over the lens
being that replacing a $20-30 filter is cheaper than a $300-500 lens.


And my point is that when you're shooting you shouldn't have anything
on there.
Also, a $2 lens cap is cheaper than a $20-$30 filter.
Presumably, you paid big bucks for an expensive lens that you wish to
protect. If you're gonna muck up the image quality with a UV filter,
you've wasted your money.
It's like buying a beautiful new car and ruining the looks of it by
putting one of those bras on the front to keep the bugs off.


One of the few times Bret has something constructive to contribute.
UV filters absolutely *MUST* have a hood used with them to prevent
reflected light interfering with the front element's ability to gather
light as the designer intended and stop light being reflected around
between the filter and the front element... If you use one.

Next item is when to use a "Skylight", UV1 or UV2 filter - and it's not
all the time, either.

Ultra Violet light is strongest on an overcast day. Light is reflected
between cloud layers and for some reason I have no knowledge about,
intensifies the UV component of daylight. This is why you squint on
these days as the (natural) light increases. It is also why photos taken
on these days almost always have a "different" look to them.

A UV1 or UV2 filter may help on these occasions. Another situation is
with landscapes and haze although I have never found much value in a
filter under these conditions. Uncorrected flash (read that as older
flash guns) can also increase UVs. I have had success with UV1 filters
when used with flash. Particularly when the groom is wearing a suit with
synthetic blue material in it. Otherwise UV filters are more often than
not, detrimental to the image.

The almost endemic spread of the culture of "lens protection" carries
with it the suggestion a person subscribing to that cult has no interest
in looking after their gear anyway. A 0.7 mm thick piece of glass is not
going to save such a person from disaster, more likely contribute to it.
A more sensible thing to do would be; Buy a cheap filter of any type and
remove the glass, using only the holder to protect the thread of the lens.

Another reason for NOT using a UV filter is image degradation. Bret
touched on this subject but really, it needs to be made clear that a UV
filter is no different to any other filter in that it *WILL* change the
colour of an image. How much it changes and if the change is
beneficial depends on a wide range of environmental factors.

If you need to see how these lens filters affect colour, take a picture
of a white page with a UV filter held over only part of the paper. Then
use an image editing program to try and correct the colour balance.
Cheap polarizer filters will also change the colour of an image too.

--
From Douglas...
My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au

Annika1980 wrote:


First off - shut up bitch

LOL! You're worried about protecting a cheap used lens?

Since when is a $600-$1200 lens cheap - do I need to do the math for
you - $300-600 used equates to $600-1200 new - stop talking unless you
know what you're talking about.

Are you
buying them to take pics with or to resell? The point is that it is
quite unlikely that your lens will be damaged if you don't use a filter
on it. So why waste more $$$ on a filter

You're a friggin idiot - a $10-20 filter is nothing

that does nothing except sit
on the lens, degrades the image,

Oh please - degrades the image - cut me a break

and offers some perceived degree of
protection against something, presumably flying rocks or sand?


Let me guess -you're not married are you - fat and ugly woman?


I have nothing against the use of filters like Circular Polarizers or
graduated ND filters

ND filters - they're for posers - I don't use an ND to create a fake
sky - I get what I want the 1st time or revisit later.

since those actually accomplish something, unlike
most skylight or UV filters that are just another piece of glass in
front of the lens.

Okay dummy - UV filters are used creatively with telephotos when there
is a fair amount of haze - you have never seen the shot of
hills/mountains where the use of the telephoto and the atmosphereic
haze creates a strange blending of images and colors - go back to class
newbie!

I don't have much use for color filters since those
effects can be created in Photoshop. In fact, the latest version of PS
has a nice set of Photo Filters that do just that.

Oh - now I understand - you're one of the posers who isn't talented
enough to get the shot out in the field - you have to cheat using a
computer - stop chiming in - it's obvious you're an amateur

Jim

Annika1980 wrote:
Jim wrote:

If you've paid much attention to lenses for sale on ebay, many of them
have bent filter threads. A UV or skylight would likely prevent most
of these types of damage.

I wonder how many of those filter threads were ruined by filters that
got stuck and were pried off?

God you're an idiot - who the hell pries them off - how ould they get
stuck - never had for me - so those things happened to you, huh - what
did you use to pry it off? Your buck teeth?

Jim

DD wrote:
In article . com,
says...

Jimbo wrote:
where are you located?
Hawaii on the Big Island on the Kona side.

Lucky fish.

What's life like in paradise? If I ever win the green card lottery,
that's where I'm headed...

Life here is good.

Scott

Jimbo wrote:
Let me guess -you're not married are you - fat and ugly woman.

Leave your mom out of this. I didn't say anthing about the bitch.


ND filters - they're for posers - I don't use an ND to create a fake
sky - I get what I want the 1st time or revisit later.

Then you don't know the use of a graduated ND filter. Maybe you didn't
graduate?


Oh - now I understand - you're one of the posers who isn't talented
enough to get the shot out in the field - you have to cheat using a
computer - stop chiming in - it's obvious you're an amateur

It's obvious you're a dickhead. So where are your pics, Ansel?