Canon 10-22 with CPL

odd jim

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,208
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone here use a CPL on a Canon 10-22? I really want a polariser for my 10-22 but have heard that some filters can rub on the front elements of UWA lenses?

Anyone had any issues before i blow £60 on one?
 
I'm pretty sure it won't rub the element. I've got a tamron ultra wide angle and the only issue with the CPL is the sky goes real dark in one part of the photo so doesn't look even. My CPL cost £6.50 from china though, but still does the trick! :lol:
 
I use a Hoya Pro 1 CPL. No problem with filter touching lens glass but I agree with paleblue about the uneven tones in the sky if you overcook the effect. Example....

20071207_134724_0885_LR-2.jpg
 
I used a slot in cpl on a 10-22 I borrowed last summer, didn't touch the glass of the lens, but did get the uneven tones in the sky like has been shown above by tdodd.
 
Cheers all, gonna pop down Jessops and make a purchase now I think!

I know you can get them cheaper, but I'm lothe to put cheap glass in front of my (not so cheap!) 10-22!

PS - does it make a difference to the 'overcooking' effect if the allignment is correctly set to the angle of the sun, or does that not make a difference?
 
The trouble with a UWA is that it is so wide that you can't have the whole scene at the "correct" angle to the sun. That is why the effect is at different strengths across the width of the scene. I'm no landscape photorapher but I do wonder whether a CPL and a UWA lens are even a wise combination to mix. Maybe at the 22mm end it is not such an issue, but at 10mm? Personal taste I guess.
 
It does all boil down to what you prefer. Tradionalists would want an evenly saturated sky but others like it when it's not as it adds 'character'.

If it were me, I'd buy a reasonably priced CPL to try it out, then you wont have blown much if you don't like. Unless you have narrower lenses in the same filter size, then buy a good one
 
I use a Hoya Pro1 CPL on my 10-22 alot. Yes, you can get uneven colouring at 10mm, but I don't find it objectionable, and you can always tone it down or take it off. It also depends on the angle of the sun. I have quite a few pictures taken in Greece, midsummer, midday, and the effect is even across the sky at 10mm. It also goes almost black towards the top of the frame.

Don't buy a cheapy. Check out the Hoya HD CPL. It's new and only reduces exposure by 1.1 stops. Cheap on Amazon under £100. In fact, if you want to have my Pro1 for £50, I'll be buying one myself :)
 
Thanks for the offer Hoppy, but I've ordered mine already! Hopefully should have it tomorrow fingers crossed.
 
this might be a stupid question, I've just got my first CPL, do you lot leave the uv filter on?
does it make a difference?
 
It'll probably vignette in the corners and it might be detremental to image quality.

But the former is solveable if you really want to keep the uv filter on there.
 
Fresherjohn said:
this might be a stupid question, I've just got my first CPL, do you lot leave the uv filter on?
does it make a difference?
Click to expand...

Just take the UV filter off, and leave it off. It does nothing but degrade image quality and if you want protection, use a lens hood which not only adds protection, but enhances image quality.

This is a whole other debate, but that's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.
 
HoppyUK said:
Just take the UV filter off, and leave it off. It does nothing but degrade image quality and if you want protection, use a lens hood which not only adds protection, but enhances image quality.

This is a whole other debate, but that's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source to back up this claim? :D
I've done real world tests on my lenses, and noticed no difference using a UV filter. My filters always get a bit grubby, and if I am shooting an event, I can go all day without putting the lens cap on and without worry the front element will get damaged. PLUS it helps with the resale value.
Sorry we probably shouldn't get into this lol
 
paleblue said:
Do you have a source to back up this claim? :D
I've done real world tests on my lenses, and noticed no difference using a UV filter.
Click to expand...

I'm with Hoppy on this subject. Check this out....

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387_ucZqa

Also, note the following from Chuck Westfall of Canon....

Source - http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0907/tech-tips.html

I just bought the EF16-35mm 2.8L II USM and am confused about protecting the front element with a filter. There is an interesting forum discussion about using UV filters in general at the Arthur Morris site http://birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36273.

I believe that you are quoted as saying that you personally do not use protective UV filters unless there is a specific reason, such as with the 16-35mm. So my question is, would you use the UV or is there a different filter you would use instead? I understand that your reply would not be an official Canon position, but I would really appreciate some guidance.

If I knew I was going to be exposing the 16-35mm lens to a hostile environment such as rain, sea spray, car exhaust fumes, etc., I would use a good quality clear or UV filter to protect the front element. I would also consider using a thin-rim circular polarizing filter to cut glare, etc., if the shooting conditions called for it. But in most other cases where the lens is in no imminent danger, I would remove all filters for maximum optical performance, and use the supplied Canon lens hood to reduce flare and help prevent impact damage.
Click to expand...

I am also with Chuck too. Hood, always, CPL when required, UV/protection only when required, which is basically never, in my experience.

Also see this filter test - http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html - all filters are not created equal.

In fact, you could read this filter FAQ/discussion - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=368177.
 
paleblue said:
Do you have a source to back up this claim? :D I've done real world tests on my lenses, and noticed no difference using a UV filter. My filters always get a bit grubby, and if I am shooting an event, I can go all day without putting the lens cap on and without worry the front element will get damaged. PLUS it helps with the resale value.
Sorry we probably shouldn't get into this lol
Click to expand...

Yes, several sources, as it happens, I do! :D

But check out Tim's link above. Damning evidence or what :eek: Great find that Tim :) It's here:
http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387_ucZqa

But it gets worse. Some horrendous (even hillarious) examples of 'digital' flare here:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=130960&highlight=filters+flare

And sharpness problems here:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=146725
TBH I have never seen anything that bad before and the filter is clearly faultly, but long lenses do exagerate slight sharpness problems that don't seem to show up otherwise.

Of course, if you shoot in dirty conditions, you'd be a mug not to fit a (very) high quality protection filter. For me, the only time is sea spray, but any air-born muck, obviously. I don't even bother with a protection filter for rain. A lens hood usually keeps that off but with ultra-wides the glass is still quite exposed and I'm happy to wipe the lens surface carefully with a microfibre cloth. In fact, I would argue that this is in some ways a good thing because I take extreme care when touching the real glass, whereas with a UV filter I've been known to give it a quick smear-wipe with my T-shirt and ended up with some horrible flarey images before I realised my mistake and cleaned it properly. You could argue that having a protection filter in place just encourages sloppy practise.
 
Thanks guys, def made me think about it, but I use high quality hoya's and the tests seemed to fair OK for them, and haven't proved detrimental for me. I must admit when I was out shooting street the other night, I was getting flare from the streetlights hitting the filter so I did remove it.. :|
 
More....

http://toothwalker.org/optics/filterflare.html

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

I have Hoya Pro1, Kenko Pro1 or Hoya HMC filters that will fit most of my lenses (all but one I think) and I do not use them, even though they are bought and paid for. I keep them just in case one day I find a need.

If you have a filter attached to your lens and it gets broken the shards of filter glass might very well scratch your precious lens. That's why I think a hood makes so much more sense as a physical protector against knocks and dings. Of course, a hood can also enhance IQ but cannot do it harm.
 
I have similar question regarding Canon 10-22 and filters so I hope you don't mind if I ask here rather than creating a new thread...

I just bought this lens and want to get a some filters for it as well, but I'm a bit worried about vignetting.

I am planning on getting a 77mm cpl (probably hoya pro1) and lee foundation kit with the wide angle adapter ring rather than the normal one. I'll most likely use one filter on Lee at a time.

Does anyone know if I'll get vignetting with this setup on the wide end?
 
The Hoya PRO1 CPL on its own will be fine. That's what I use. I can't help you with the Lee stuff.

Here is a full, uncropped image frame at 10mm with the Hoya CPL. Note once again the uneven effect across the sky (silly me), but very little if any corner darkening....

20071207_143830_0897_LR.jpg
 
I don't mind the uneven effect on the sky that much.

It may create an interesting effect in fact I think...

Hopefully someone has this combination to help me out :)
 
I bought an 82mm kenko pro 1 CPL from digital rev for under £50 brand new. same filter as the hoya why pay the extra.

HoppyUK said:
I use a Hoya Pro1 CPL on my 10-22 alot. Yes, you can get uneven colouring at 10mm, but I don't find it objectionable, and you can always tone it down or take it off. It also depends on the angle of the sun. I have quite a few pictures taken in Greece, midsummer, midday, and the effect is even across the sky at 10mm. It also goes almost black towards the top of the frame.

Don't buy a cheapy. Check out the Hoya HD CPL. It's new and only reduces exposure by 1.1 stops. Cheap on Amazon under £100. In fact, if you want to have my Pro1 for £50, I'll be buying one myself :)
Click to expand...
 
Further to that post quoted by POAH, I've just been fiddling with my 10-22 and Hoya Pro1 polariser. No vignetting at any time of course, but it's a slim-fit mount. I tried another normal-mount filter and that doesn't vignette either.

Then I tried the two together, and that does vignette a tiny bit, but it's gone by 12mm. Which suggests there is a bit of scope in front of the 10-22, but I'm not sure if it's enough for a square filter system at 10mm.

I think the only way to be sure of something like that is to find somebody with the exact same kit. Or Lee could advise.
 
HoppyUK said:
Just take the UV filter off, and leave it off. It does nothing but degrade image quality .
Click to expand...

maybe if you use a cheap uncoated filter but not if you use a decent one like a hoya HMC. Canon's large tele's just have plain glass at the end of the lens, and some of canon's L lenses are not sealed unless they have a filter on the end.
 
POAH said:
maybe if you use a cheap uncoated filter but not if you use a decent one like a hoya HMC. Canon's large tele's just have plain glass at the end of the lens, and some of canon's L lenses are not sealed unless they have a filter on the end.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you are saying that, if you have read this thread and checked the links. Yes, multicoated filters are better, but if it's best you want, no filter at all is best.

Sure Canon fits clear glass in front of some of its lenses for protection, but apart from being absolutely best quality, they are also not flat. This is a key factor with 'digital flare' as described in the book Canon Lens Work III. I'll try and find a link to that later.

Edit: here's the link explaining the custom meniscus protection elements (they are not filters) on long Canon lenses. It also has pics showing what happens if you use a conventional flat filter. Go to page 133 (13) http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_7_EN.pdf
 
I have to admit I love the uneven sky effect when using a CPL especially if the sky that day is relatively bland. The gradient effect really gives it a bit of character.
 
Well I got a reply from Lee filters today regarding vignetting:


"10mm is about as wide as our system will go. If you put a filter between the lens and the system, you will definately get vignetting. I am paid to say that you will not get vignetting if you go for the 105mm polariser system from LEE."


I really like the second part of the answer... :lol:
 
It works well with 10-22. But at the wide end of the lens you may get an uneven sky.
 
I already used it with Hoya Pro1 filters and it worked perfectly, with no problems. ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
But check out Tim's link above. Damning evidence or what :eek: Great find that Tim :) It's here:
http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387_ucZqa
Click to expand...
Damning evidence!?

Quoted from the summary:
What does this mean for me? It means my Hoya S-HMC UV filters are staying on my glass. For all but the most extreme cases they have no apparent impact on flare or contrast.
Click to expand...

In other words, cheap filters are a nightmare but, with a decent one, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Personally, my peace of mind is worth more to me than minute image degradation which I can't actuall see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top