UV lens infront of polarizer? at DVinfo.net

Jason Ladera · October 11th, 2007, 01:39 PM

I just got my lenses in - B+W stuff, very nice quality, however, i'm curious...currently for the hell of it, I put the polarizer on first then the UV lens then the WA lens.

I remember reading that putting a UV lens sandwiched between a polarizer and WA lens is pretty much useless....

why is this?

so is it a NO-NO to have the polarizer then the UV then the WA lens? is it bad at all?

thanks!

Michael Jouravlev · October 11th, 2007, 03:28 PM

It just produces more glare and takes more light. In a way any glass filter is a UV filter, so you don't need a dedicated UV filter when you have other filters on.

Jason Ladera · October 11th, 2007, 04:24 PM

Hrm, I thought that the polarizer was good for just doing that....and was NOT good for being a UV filter or Haze type filter.

How does a UV in front of a polarizer create more glare and take more light?

Dave Blackhurst · October 11th, 2007, 04:52 PM

more glass surfaces=more light absorbed as it passes through, and more planes to reflect glare as light bounces off

Michael Jouravlev · October 11th, 2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Ladera

Hrm, I thought that the polarizer was good for just doing that....and was NOT good for being a UV filter

Glass absorbs UV light. This is why you don't get sunburn when you drive a car on a sunny day with windows up. Specially produced glass called quartz passes UV through.

Michael Y Wong · October 11th, 2007, 05:23 PM

dont forget the risk of vignetting of the 2nd element away from the camera lens. you can always zoom in to eliminate the vignetting but then you lose the wide angle ;)

Jason Ladera · October 11th, 2007, 07:26 PM

Hrm....

wait so its not sounding like this is a bad thing.

or am I completely misunderstanding all of this.

having a UV in front of a polarzier (by the way its the B+W Kaesemann polarizer)

isn't really that bad of a thing.

Andre De Clercq · October 12th, 2007, 01:57 PM

Why would you need a UV filter? Besides a slight (max 1 stop) transmission loss through the lens, the sensor itself is, unlike film material not sensitive to the UV spectrum. A polarizer will do the job and is at least as good as a UV filter for reducing haze when rotated in the optimal angle.

Jason Ladera · October 12th, 2007, 02:57 PM

Okay, I understand now.

October 11th, 2007, 01:39 PM	#1
Jason Ladera New Boot Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: California Posts: 8	UV lens infront of polarizer? I just got my lenses in - B+W stuff, very nice quality, however, i'm curious...currently for the hell of it, I put the polarizer on first then the UV lens then the WA lens. I remember reading that putting a UV lens sandwiched between a polarizer and WA lens is pretty much useless.... why is this? so is it a NO-NO to have the polarizer then the UV then the WA lens? is it bad at all? thanks!

October 11th, 2007, 05:23 PM	#6
Michael Y Wong Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Ontario Canada! Posts: 353	dont forget the risk of vignetting of the 2nd element away from the camera lens. you can always zoom in to eliminate the vignetting but then you lose the wide angle ;) __________________ dreaming hobbyist + storyteller www.michaelywong.com

October 11th, 2007, 03:28 PM	#2
Michael Jouravlev Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: San Diego Posts: 209	It just produces more glare and takes more light. In a way any glass filter is a UV filter, so you don't need a dedicated UV filter when you have other filters on.

October 11th, 2007, 04:24 PM	#3
Jason Ladera New Boot Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: California Posts: 8	Hrm, I thought that the polarizer was good for just doing that....and was NOT good for being a UV filter or Haze type filter. How does a UV in front of a polarizer create more glare and take more light?

October 11th, 2007, 04:52 PM	#4
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	more glass surfaces=more light absorbed as it passes through, and more planes to reflect glare as light bounces off

October 11th, 2007, 07:26 PM	#7
Jason Ladera New Boot Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: California Posts: 8	Hrm.... wait so its not sounding like this is a bad thing. or am I completely misunderstanding all of this. having a UV in front of a polarzier (by the way its the B+W Kaesemann polarizer) isn't really that bad of a thing.

October 12th, 2007, 01:57 PM	#8
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	Why would you need a UV filter? Besides a slight (max 1 stop) transmission loss through the lens, the sensor itself is, unlike film material not sensitive to the UV spectrum. A polarizer will do the job and is at least as good as a UV filter for reducing haze when rotated in the optimal angle.

October 12th, 2007, 02:57 PM	#9
Jason Ladera New Boot Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: California Posts: 8	Okay, I understand now.