85mm Filters For Wide Angle Lens

danny_bhoy

danny_bhoy

Messages
3,898
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

After moving to full frame and therefore having to sell my Tamron 17-50 I'm after another landscape lens.

I'm looking at either a Sigma 10-20 or 24-70. Only problem is that I have a set of 85mm Hitech Grads. Are they going to vignette badly with either or both of these lenses? Will I need a set of the 100mm grads instead?

Thanks in advance for the input.

Cheers,

Danny.
 
Hi Danny

Are both versions of the Siggy 10-20 not DC lenses so suited to crop bodies only ? These will obviously vignette significantly at the wide end on a FF body. Just a thought.
 
They are both DC lenses.
 
In Canon fitment I think that the 17-40 is a no-brainer for landscape work. As a UWA I prefer the 16-35mk2 for its f2.8 aperture for weddings and gigs but the 17-40 has lots of pros for landscape only.
 
gary43 said:
In Canon fitment I think that the 17-40 is a no-brainer for landscape work. As a UWA I prefer the 16-35mk2 for its f2.8 aperture for weddings and gigs but the 17-40 has lots of pros for landscape only.
Click to expand...

Cheers Gary,

I've seen some great landscape work with the 17-40. Unfortunately the 16-35 is about 3x my budget!
 
On my old 550D/10-22, I could just see the Hitech 100mm filter holder when zoomed to 10mm, so I reckon you've got a good chance of seeing an 85mm holder on a 10-20 on FF.
 
Hi Danny.

I shot Canon for about 10 years and tried most of the Canon and third party offerings around this focal length range and came to the conclusion that the 17-40 is THE lens to have for landscapes. As you mention you can see MANY fantastic images taken with this lens around the forums. If moving back to Canon now it is probably the first lens I would reacquire. Others may have different views but I think it is a nice compact, well-built lens with a very useful range and which is nice and sharp across the frame when stopped down. Get a used version for about GBP400ish and you cannot go wrong. Good luck with your searches anyway whatever you choose.

Gary
 
gary43 said:
Hi Danny.

I shot Canon for about 10 years and tried most of the Canon and third party offerings around this focal length range and came to the conclusion that the 17-40 is THE lens to have for landscapes. As you mention you can see MANY fantastic images taken with this lens around the forums. If moving back to Canon now it is probably the first lens I would reacquire. Others may have different views but I think it is a nice compact, well-built lens with a very useful range and which is nice and sharp across the frame when stopped down. Get a used version for about GBP400ish and you cannot go wrong. Good luck with your searches anyway whatever you choose.

Gary
Click to expand...


Great advice Gary, thanks.

I'm leaning towards that just as I know a few landscape guys who use it and come up with some great stuff.
 
danny_bhoy said:
That's an interesting option. Although I might run into trouble with the 85mm filters at 12mm. That was my initial concern really.
Click to expand...

The 12-24 is pretty much your only option for UWA on FF Canon but it doesn't have a filter thread. It has a slot behind the rear element for gels but that's not too good for grads. The 24-70 might be wide enough for you, giving the same angle of view on FF as a 16mm or so on a Canon crop body. The 24-70 does have a filter thread, 82mm IIRC.
 
Nod said:
The 12-24 is pretty much your only option for UWA on FF Canon but it doesn't have a filter thread. It has a slot behind the rear element for gels but that's not too good for grads. The 24-70 might be wide enough for you, giving the same angle of view on FF as a 16mm or so on a Canon crop body. The 24-70 does have a filter thread, 82mm IIRC.
Click to expand...

Great info - thanks.

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning away from UWA. The 17-40 is going to be wider on FF than my 17-50 was on crop (if I've computed that correctly) and that was always wide enough for my needs.

Need to sort something out ASAP though as tried landscapes with my 50mm the other day and let's just say it wasn't for me :)
 
I'm fairly certain most if not all 24-70 lenses are designed for FF as the length doesn't really work on crop bodies. The lens designations are Sigma DG, Tamron DI and Tokina ATX and obv EF for Canon. HTH. BTW the Sigma 24-70 you looked at is a DG lens :)
 
danny_bhoy said:
Need to sort something out ASAP though as tried landscapes with my 50mm the other day and let's just say it wasn't for me :)
Click to expand...

I think that wide angle lenses are arguably the most challenging to use well. You can get a wide angle look easy enough but it's easy to look... very predictable. You can take landscape shots with any focal length and personally I think the whole wide angle with front to back DoF effect is in danger of being done to death too often.

Go for a wide angle by all means, but I think that a lot of thought has to go into how and when to use them.
 
woof woof said:
I think that wide angle lenses are arguably the most challenging to use well. You can get a wide angle look easy enough but it's easy to look... very predictable. You can take landscape shots with any focal length and personally I think the whole wide angle with front to back DoF effect is in danger of being done to death too often.

Go for a wide angle by all means, but I think that a lot of thought has to go into how and when to use them.
Click to expand...

You could very well have a point. On the other hand, I went out last night and tried some landscape stuff with my 50mm and found that I just could fit in...well...the landscape.

I like to have a point of foreground interest too and with 50mm I found myself either filling the frame with that or having to leave it out altogether which isn't really my style.

I think it's very much down to what you're used to using too.
 
There is a school of thought that says that you have to have foreground interest and that wide angle lenses aren't for "getting it all in." I've never really bought into that and I agree that if the framing or look you want requires a wide angle then there's nothing else that will do...

But they are challenging things to use well :D
 
Danny, your 50mm is fairly ideal for taking panoramas to stitch together. You may need to be a little careful with things in the foreground and parallax problems but that shouldn't be too much of a problem. For most people, 24mm is wide enough on FF; I bought my 12-24 when I was using a crop DSLR but still also using film, so got into UWA use and so kept the 12-24 for FF use.
 
Nod said:
Danny, your 50mm is fairly ideal for taking panoramas to stitch together. You may need to be a little careful with things in the foreground and parallax problems but that shouldn't be too much of a problem. For most people, 24mm is wide enough on FF; I bought my 12-24 when I was using a crop DSLR but still also using film, so got into UWA use and so kept the 12-24 for FF use.
Click to expand...

It's an idea, but I'm not much of a panorama stitching kinda guy - maybe as a lot of my stuff involved long exposures (particularly) water, and that can look weird when merged.

Starting to think anything below 17 on FF might be overkill for me. Is that when you'd start running into distortion too? Sorta fish-eye effect?
 
danny_bhoy said:
It's an idea, but I'm not much of a panorama stitching kinda guy - maybe as a lot of my stuff involved long exposures (particularly) water, and that can look weird when merged.

Starting to think anything below 17 on FF might be overkill for me. Is that when you'd start running into distortion too? Sorta fish-eye effect?
Click to expand...

I don't think that distortion will be an issue if you get a nice lens. I used to have a 12-24mm and even at 12mm on FF there wasn't any distortion to speak of as lenses of this type tend to be better corrected and have less distortion than you'd typically get at the wider end of a mid range zoom.

Some people confuse the perspective you get when you tilt the lens up or down with distortion but of course it's not the same thing at all.
 
woof woof said:
I don't think that distortion will be an issue if you get a nice lens. I used to have a 12-24mm and even at 12mm on FF there wasn't any distortion to speak of as lenses of this type tend to be better corrected and have less distortion than you'd typically get at the wider end of a mid range zoom.

Some people confuse the perspective you get when you tilt the lens up or down with distortion but of course it's not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...

Ah I see. I didn't realise it varied due to the quality of the lens. Good to know.

A lot to mull over then. Heading out with the 50mm now to give it another shot and hopefully catch some stars at St Mary's Lihhthouse.
 
The Sigma 12-24 is extremely well corrected as far as distortions go but the perspective is exaggerated, as it has to be according to the laws of physics! The converging verticals can be corrected in PP but images that have been corrected often look rather unnatural. I have a cheaper 19-35 zoom that distorts horribly even though it's less wide (and also an 8mm fisheye which is completely uncorrected!)

BTW, on FF, a 27mm lens will give you the same angle of view as your current 17mm gives on your current crop body, so a 24-70 (or similar) would probably be fine.
 
Nod said:
BTW, on FF, a 27mm lens will give you the same angle of view as your current 17mm gives on your current crop body, so a 24-70 (or similar) would probably be fine.
Click to expand...

24-28mm is quite wide but if going for a mid range zoom that starts at that point (I mean something like a 24-70 or 28-105mm or something like that...) it's probably going to show much more distortion at the wide end than a wide angle lens would at the same focal length. These days processing software will probably sort it out pretty well but of course starting with distortion means spending... money on the software and time on the corrections.
 
Most of the 24-70 lenses are f/2.8 and relatively expensive, with some of the extra expense going towards optical distortion correction at the design and manufacturing stages.
 
Hang on!!!

I've just had a thought - I possibly may have chopped some of the 'slots' off of my old 'P' holder I'm bodging myself away with at the moment.

Best wait til others can confirm for a definite answer. I'm certainly looking into a 100mm kit for 17mm FF.
 
LeeRatters said:
Hang on!!!

I've just had a thought - I possibly may have chopped some of the 'slots' off of my old 'P' holder I'm bodging myself away with at the moment.

Best wait til others can confirm for a definite answer. I'm certainly looking into a 100mm kit for 17mm FF.
Click to expand...

Haha brakes applied!!

What's the reason for mutilating the P Holder? Does it improve the field if view for wide angle lenses?

Think I'll be going for 24mm at the widest. I'd love the Canon 17-40 but it's just too far out of reach at the moment.
 
Stacking slot in filters can cause flare (or increase it.) Having a dedicated wide angle adaptor for grads won't break the bank unless the holder is a Lee one!
 
Hi Danny

The 17-40s go used for about GBP400 here on TP For Sale&Wanted. A very useful saving over the MRRP. Just a thought.
 
gary43 said:
Hi Danny

The 17-40s go used for about GBP400 here on TP For Sale&Wanted. A very useful saving over the MRRP. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Yeah if I was going to get one the classifieds would definitely be the place.

Only thing is, the sigma 24-70 is almost exactly half the price - obviously it's no L glass but don't know if I could justify paying double for X amount more IQ.
 
Hi Danny, I do not want to start a debate about whether or not 24mm is wide enough for landscapes since I have used everything from a 15mm fisheye to a 500mm prime for this purpose.

I would though suggest that 24 mm is not THAT wide for landscapes and particularly if you like some foreground interest. Personally, I would not consider a 24-70 for a general purpose landscape lens and although it is a bit of a cliche I tend to agree that every mm counts at the wide end in terms of the opportunities that the lens offers. Others might well disagree ?
 
gary43 said:
Hi Danny, I do not want to start a debate about whether or not 24mm is wide enough for landscapes since I have used everything from a 15mm fisheye to a 500mm prime for this purpose.

I would though suggest that 24 mm is not THAT wide for landscapes and particularly if you like some foreground interest. Personally, I would not consider a 24-70 for a general purpose landscape lens and although it is a bit of a cliche I tend to agree that every mm counts at the wide end in terms of the opportunities that the lens offers. Others might well disagree ?
Click to expand...

Yeah I can see what you're saying Gary. My reasoning was that I was previously using a 17-50 on a crop sensor for landscapes. I believe that 24-70 equates to about the same on FF.

Obviously the 17-40 would be better in terms of IQ and offering a wider field of view - sometimes you gotta compromise though eh :(
 
Hi Danny

Regarding your final sentence, I think that should be one of the fundamental laws of photography !

If you want a truly GREAT compromise then. I have just looked and MPB have a few Sigma 12-24 DG lenses in for GBP319; looks like a steal to me ! The compromise here is that you will be unable to use front filters easily but there MAY be a drop-in possibility ? I had one of these some years ago and cannot remember the filter situation. Brilliant UWA though on a FF body for not too much cash.

Again, just a thought
 
The 12-24 can accept screw in filters but only if the bucket lens cap is left on and the centre clip in cap is removed and this makes the lens only suitable for crop bodies. For us FF users, there's a clip behind the rear element that accepts gels that are cut to size using the template that should be in the box. Unfortunately, this drop in system is less than ideal for polarisers or grads. I have seen bodges using 100mm (?Z type?) grads blu-taked to the front of the fixed lens hood but that sounds like an invitation to flare unless great care is taken. Other than that, it's a great lens and incredibly well corrected for distortions at all lengths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top