Filters for wide angle lenses (e.g. 16-35)

O

osh

Messages
391
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry if this comes across as a very basic question. I've been looking at wide angle lenses for taking landscape pictures when (and if) I upgrade my camera. The two main Nikon choices (for full frame) seem to be the 16-35 and the 14-24.

People seem to suggest that the 16-35 may be better for landscape because it takes filters. What I'm wondering is what filters would people use? Would polarisers work with such a wide angle, and what sort of ND grad filters would be best? I currently use a Cokin system, but am guessing that with a pro level lens something better would be needed?
 
Polarisers will work with wide angle lenses , but since the effect is related to the angle of the light to the the subject the polarising effect will vary across the subject since it will cover such a large area (e.g. the angle of the light to the subject in the centre of the frame is much different from the subject at the edge - hope I have explained that in an understandable way). This often shows up as blue skies being unequally dark over the picture.

I don't know about the quality of filter systems other than Cokin, but Cokin Pro range seem fine to me.
You'll probably find that you will want varying strengths of grad filters. (The Tobacco one is good at warming up sunsets). Definately an area of photography where experimentation is beneficial.
 
Thanks for that Dougie. So really the main use of filters for wide angle lenses is neutral density and graduated neutral density? Would the Cokin Pro series have any vignetting at, say, 16mm?
 
osh said:
Thanks for that Dougie. So really the main use of filters for wide angle lenses is neutral density and graduated neutral density? Would the Cokin Pro series have any vignetting at, say, 16mm?
Click to expand...

I cannot be sure, but you'd need to check that out. Vignetting has a bad habit of not being noticeable until you see the shot on screen.
Very wide angle lenses tend to be high risk for vignetting when adding filters - even screw on types.

You'll certainly find the ND & Grads the most usefull filters.

Remember, of course, that if you want to try B&W photography then filters have a use there too. E.g. yellow, orange and red darken blue and are usefull for making clouds stand out (a red filter will make clouds in a blue sky very dramatic). However, there use requires study because they will lighten objects of their own colour in a B&W shot.
 
osh said:
Thanks for that Dougie. So really the main use of filters for wide angle lenses is neutral density and graduated neutral density? Would the Cokin Pro series have any vignetting at, say, 16mm?
Click to expand...

On D40? - definitely not, but then 16mm is not ultra wide on APS-C either.
 
daugirdas said:
On D40? - definitely not, but then 16mm is not ultra wide on APS-C either.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's correct. I forgot about the sensor size. 16mm would become the 35mm equivalent of a 24mm lens.
 
arclight said:
Yes, that's correct. I forgot about the sensor size. 16mm would become the 35mm equivalent of a 24mm lens.
Click to expand...

No not on the D40. I have been thinking of either getting a D7000 with the Nikon 10-24, or the D700 with the 16-35.
 
I use the Lee filter system with a D700 and 16-35. There is some minor vignetting at 16mm when using 2 filters stacked, but one click in Lightroom fixes it. You can buy a wide angle adapter ring, which should eliminate it completely, but it costs £35, so Im not that fussed on it.

Some screw in filters also vignette. My Kood Polariser does, again easilly fixed in LR.
 
osh said:
...People seem to suggest that the 16-35 may be better for landscape because it takes filters...
Click to expand...
That's because they repeat information that they have read or heard without actually knowing if it's true. Filters have been available for the 14-24 for over a year. If you already had a significant outlay in filters then it made it an expensive option but if not, the price is in keeping with the market given this is pro stuff.
Out of the two lenses I much prefer the 14-24 for the extra width, sharpness and flexibility. There may not be a great deal between the two image wise and I've not done any extensive tests but the overall pictures I took seemed sharper. f2.8 usually sells a lens to me and I also don't have particular need for VR- certainly in this focal range- your style may have different requirements of course but if you want the best wide angle lens for a Nikon full frame then it's the 14-24.
If you're staying APS-C then 14-24 isn't that wide but may still do. Personally I'd buy a Tokina 11-16 as Nikon's own offerings are definitely not as good ie the 10-24 and 12-24 (which I don't mind)
 
That Lee kit for the 14-24, if you can actually find one in stock costs about £350 and you can only use it on that lens currently.. Then you also have to buy bigger filters, not the standard 100x150 ones, and you cant get a big stopper or polariser for it. Add onto that the cost of the 14-24 over the 16-35 and I think its a huge waste of money.

The 16-35 is a great lens, the VR is usefull and for the sake of 2mm, you are saving potentially well over £500
 
TCR4x4 said:
I use the Lee filter system with a D700 and 16-35. There is some minor vignetting at 16mm when using 2 filters stacked, but one click in Lightroom fixes it. You can buy a wide angle adapter ring, which should eliminate it completely, but it costs £35, so Im not that fussed on it.

Some screw in filters also vignette. My Kood Polariser does, again easilly fixed in LR.
Click to expand...

Thanks that sounds good!
 
Dr_O said:
That's because they repeat information that they have read or heard without actually knowing if it's true. Filters have been available for the 14-24 for over a year. If you already had a significant outlay in filters then it made it an expensive option but if not, the price is in keeping with the market given this is pro stuff.
Out of the two lenses I much prefer the 14-24 for the extra width, sharpness and flexibility. There may not be a great deal between the two image wise and I've not done any extensive tests but the overall pictures I took seemed sharper. f2.8 usually sells a lens to me and I also don't have particular need for VR- certainly in this focal range- your style may have different requirements of course but if you want the best wide angle lens for a Nikon full frame then it's the 14-24.
If you're staying APS-C then 14-24 isn't that wide but may still do. Personally I'd buy a Tokina 11-16 as Nikon's own offerings are definitely not as good ie the 10-24 and 12-24 (which I don't mind)
Click to expand...

Thanks that's useful. I guess I need to weigh up all these points!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top