Wide Angle Lenses - whats the score ?

Andrew Davies Photography

Andrew Davies Photography

Messages
761
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
So here is my question , why are we getting yet another wide angle entering the market ( tamron 15-30 ) which yet again has no filter threads ? its obviously not impossible as Canons 17-40 and 16-35 show yet lots of other manufacturers continue to ignore one of the core demographics of their product , the landscape tog who likes to use his or her expensive and loved filter kits - surely its obvious, why produce them without ? In this world of copying each others designs i cannot comprehend it.

I looked at the Tamron 15-30 as soon it was announced and thought yay , then read the specs and thought not again.
 
I guess the best place to start is the physical aspects - the front element is too bulbous for conventional filters to fit.
 
Well, if your pockets are deep enough you could go for this system. But as the complete setup (adaptor ring/filter holder/filter) is at least a third of the price of the lens its a big step to make.
 
I suppose it must be due to the fact that landscape photographers aren't the only people to want a UWA lens?
 
odd jim said:
I guess the best place to start is the physical aspects - the front element is too bulbous for conventional filters to fit.
Click to expand...

Maybe, and every 1mm is quite a difference in field of view at this wide end and filters and their holders can get in the way. Some, like the Sigma 12-24mm have a gel filter holder at the rear of the lens. That's one possible solution to the bulbous front end issue.
 
If you are into this genre of lens, especially at the hi end then the price of a suitable filter and holder such as the Lee designed for the Nikon 14-24mm is not that astronomical. I guess that is where the filter manufacturers determine their prices from, as the pros can afford to pay, not the lowest common denominator lenses, where the price of the filter may be disproportionate.
 
this is not about price , the simple fact is one company is able to make the product and the others not , they seem to be able to copy and in some cases exceed the technical specs of the lens and the glass Canon make so why is the thread for filters such an issue ? So whilst the new tamron maybe a fabulous lens and possibly better than the canon offerings it fails to cater for one of its biggest markets by losing the ability to use NDs Grads etc
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
this is not about price , the simple fact is one company is able to make the product and the others not , they seem to be able to copy and in some cases exceed the technical specs of the lens and the glass Canon make so why is the thread for filters such an issue ? So whilst the new tamron maybe a fabulous lens and possibly better than the canon offerings it fails to cater for one of its biggest markets by losing the ability to use NDs Grads etc
Click to expand...

I disagree about other companies not being able to do it. I think that they almost certainly could but instead just probably make different decisions during design.
 
Manual exposure blending is fine for a lot of landscape or architectural work. In fact, in many cases it is the only way. I expect soon the cameras will be able to do this on the fly for us negating any need for stupid plastic-fantastic filters.

But then I think Canon 16-35 f/4 IS is better than any of this filter thread or not.
 
Out of interest how many photographers on here using Wide Angles lenses still use filters and if so what do you use them for ?

Personally i still use an 8 stop screw in ND and have a cokin kit which i use not very often with grads for difficult skies. I use the ND for both landscapes for milky water etc and also some wedding and commercial work where i need to lose the people from a scene.
 
I use a tokina 11-16mm, lee 10-stop and cokin kit for grads

Same reasons as you, dont want moving objects in my image, want to control a bright sky if I have to shoot into the sun or bright sky where I dont want the rest of the scene overexposed.
I have also used my tokina for close - crazy perspective shots, but I tend not to use the filters for those as there is no need but my UWA gets lots of uses, with and without the filters. I wouldnt want a lens that didnt have the capability of adding on filters, so I wouldnt buy one.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
this is not about price , the simple fact is one company is able to make the product and the others not , they seem to be able to copy and in some cases exceed the technical specs of the lens and the glass Canon make so why is the thread for filters such an issue ? So whilst the new tamron maybe a fabulous lens and possibly better than the canon offerings it fails to cater for one of its biggest markets by losing the ability to use NDs Grads etc
Click to expand...
I've already said, in most (FF at least) UWA lenses from front element is too bulbous, and a traditional screw in filter won't fit! The only alternative is a 100mm filter holder.

I bought a 14mm Samyang f/2.8 a couple of weeks ago and they are chucking the filter holder in free of charge - I can't ever see Canon doing that.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I've already said, in most (FF at least) UWA lenses from front element is too bulbous, and a traditional screw in filter won't fit! The only alternative is a 100mm filter holder.

I bought a 14mm Samyang f/2.8 a couple of weeks ago and they are chucking the filter holder in free of charge - I can't ever see Canon doing that.
Click to expand...

Could i ask please where did you get the Samyang with the filter holder free >?
 
daugirdas said:
Manual exposure blending is fine for a lot of landscape or architectural work. In fact, in many cases it is the only way. I expect soon the cameras will be able to do this on the fly for us negating any need for stupid plastic-fantastic filters.

But then I think Canon 16-35 f/4 IS is better than any of this filter thread or not.
Click to expand...
I think some of the cameras can already do HDR photos, smart phones had this feature for the last 5 years now.
 
ricky1980 said:
I think some of the cameras can already do HDR photos, smart phones had this feature for the last 5 years now.
Click to expand...
Only when shooting JPEG if I'm not mistaken?
 
Correct...the storage and processing power required for RAW will mean at least 8GB ram and a powerful chip...probably quite prohibitive in camera design.
 
ricky1980 said:
I think some of the cameras can already do HDR photos, smart phones had this feature for the last 5 years now.
Click to expand...

HDR is a great way of destroying photos. It can't touch a manually blended image.
 
I thought the same regarding the Tamron. I was very keen for one but I need the ability to use filters so i just took delivery of the Canon 16-35mm F4 instead- hopefully its as good as i hear!
 
I guess my answer is that most filters - for me - are utilised in software rather than hardware in the form of a piece of glass. I use onOne very frequently which has some fantastic filtration tools. I have been trying a Tokina 16 - 28 f2.8 on a full frame Canon 6D and I must say that I am very impressed with the results....... I have applied various filters plus texture to this shot........
 
tony shields said:
I guess my answer is that most filters - for me - are utilised in software rather than hardware in the form of a piece of glass. I use onOne very frequently which has some fantastic filtration tools. I have been trying a Tokina 16 - 28 f2.8 on a full frame Canon 6D and I must say that I am very impressed with the results....... I have applied various filters plus texture to this shot........
Click to expand...


People still use glass (or plastic!) filters for real.

Polarisers and ND filters cannot be replicated in post.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top