Advice about stepping ring

T

taxboy

Messages
2,118
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently use the Kase Magnetic filter system and their magnetic stepping rings for my 82mm filters. I'm about to purchase a Canon RF 16mm f2.8 whose filter size is 43mm. It appears that Kase do not manufacture a 43-82mm ring so I'm surmising I'll need to buy a stepping ring to attach the Kase magnetic holder ?

If so is there a recommended size I should get to avoid vignetting or other issues
 
Might be worth contacting THIS LOT. Their sister company is SRB Griturn who are an engineering company who might be able to make a single ring to mate the 43mm lens thread with the 82mm ring. Using a series of stepping rings may well introduce vignetting.
 
Be interested to see if it doesn't vignette. I've got a 43-77mm (screw) filter adapter for my 77mm filters, and it vignettes. Looks fine through the viewfinder as you get the auto correction profile but the RAW on mine is quite heavily vignetted. They correct perfectly well, and the 16mm pretty much lives in the bag 90% of the time as a lightweight ultra-wide without having to lug the 17-40L if I'm not even sure I'm going to want/need it.

(My daily setup nowadays is R6/RF35-1.8 with the 16mm in the bag rather than the EF 17-40F4 or EF 24-105F4)
 
Nod said:
Might be worth contacting THIS LOT. Their sister company is SRB Griturn who are an engineering company who might be able to make a single ring to mate the 43mm lens thread with the 82mm ring. Using a series of stepping rings may well introduce vignetting.
Click to expand...
I guess that is a possibility but would probably be quite expensive. The alternative is to buy a 43mm screw in filter probably for a 10 stop ND - as I won't be using a polariser and live without my other ND filters
 
Jonnybrad2001 said:
Be interested to see if it doesn't vignette. I've got a 43-77mm (screw) filter adapter for my 77mm filters, and it vignettes. Looks fine through the viewfinder as you get the auto correction profile but the RAW on mine is quite heavily vignetted. They correct perfectly well, and the 16mm pretty much lives in the bag 90% of the time as a lightweight ultra-wide without having to lug the 17-40L if I'm not even sure I'm going to want/need it.

(My daily setup nowadays is R6/RF35-1.8 with the 16mm in the bag rather than the EF 17-40F4 or EF 24-105F4)
Click to expand...


How do raw, non auto-corrected files look without the adaptor?
 
Perhaps the question I should also be asking is does anyone use the RF16mm with filters and what size doesn't vignette.
 
Nod said:
How do raw, non auto-corrected files look without the adaptor?
Click to expand...


It just vignette's even without a filter, it's very much a needs optical corrections lens. This is F5.6(iirc) nothing on the front of the camera. It gets worse with close focus

20240624-512A4789.jpg

This is F11 with 43-77mm adapter & 77mm ND. I think it's late enough I wasn't using two step up rings.

20240830-512A0021.jpg

And corrected in LR...

20240830-512A0022.jpg
 
Jonnybrad2001 said:
It just vignette's even without a filter, it's very much a needs optical corrections lens. This is F5.6(iirc) nothing on the front of the camera. It gets worse with close focus

View attachment 495063

This is F11 with 43-77mm adapter & 77mm ND. I think it's late enough I wasn't using two step up rings.

View attachment 495064

And corrected in LR...

View attachment 495065
Click to expand...
reasonable for back-up only purposes, otherwise I would be returning / re-listing right away.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
reasonable for back-up only purposes, otherwise I would be returning / re-listing right away.
Click to expand...
It’s easy to be snobbish about it, but it’s a £150/150g lens. As said ^^ it’s great for when you don’t want to lug around a heavier lens all day. Yes even my old 17-40L is better, but when you’re not shooting professionally I don’t get home and think gah I should have taken the L today, I usually get home and think thank god I didn't lug that b****r around all day for 15minutes worth of shooting. Bunging an ND on it doesn't help its cause but modern RAW files & post processing means really who cares.
 
Jonnybrad2001 said:
It’s easy to be snobbish about it, but it’s a £150/150g lens. As said ^^ it’s great for when you don’t want to lug around a heavier lens all day. Yes even my old 17-40L is better, but when you’re not shooting professionally I don’t get home and think gah I should have taken the L today, I usually get home and think thank god I didn't lug that b****r around all day for 15minutes worth of shooting. Bunging an ND on it doesn't help its cause but modern RAW files & post processing means really who cares.
Click to expand...
This is my thinking as well. I don't normally shoot that wide so it will only be for occasional use and I don't really want to have the alternative £1k Canon lens just sitting in the bag on the off chance I might use it.
My expectations are tempered by the price point so we'll see how it performs but based on the reviews I've seen it offers great vfm for my requirements
 
Jonnybrad2001 said:
It’s easy to be snobbish about it, but it’s a £150/150g lens. As said ^^ it’s great for when you don’t want to lug around a heavier lens all day. Yes even my old 17-40L is better, but when you’re not shooting professionally I don’t get home and think gah I should have taken the L today, I usually get home and think thank god I didn't lug that b****r around all day for 15minutes worth of shooting. Bunging an ND on it doesn't help its cause but modern RAW files & post processing means really who cares.
Click to expand...
I would be more likely to use my phone instead and save 150g/£150. Thats how bad the posts above make it look
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I would be more likely to use my phone instead and save 150g/£150. Thats how bad the posts above make it look
Click to expand...
I believe it is one of the newer generation of lenses that requires a software profile to correct and get the best from it: whether you are content with this, or a lens purist is down to personal choice
 
taxboy said:
I believe it is one of the newer generation of lenses that requires a software profile to correct and get the best from it: whether you are content with this, or a lens purist is down to personal choice
Click to expand...
It is not as plain as just ticking a box. The noise in the outer areas will be quite extreme even with good exposure and will very quickly go downhill from there. Sharpness will get the same treatment. This is literally the case of is the phone better with money kept in the pocket. Its like driving a premium car on 4 spare wheels.

A used 16-35 f4 would be much wiser use of funds. They are not without problems but comparatively stellar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top