Filters on wide angle lenses anyone use 'em ?

mrgas

mrgas

Messages
3,420
Edit My Images
Yes
the title says it all really !

just bought a sigma 10 20 to try some landscapes

tried my cokin p filters but obviously a non starter

Any one use filters on wide angles ?

any advice welcome

thanks
 
What would you want to achieve from putting a filter on the front?
 
Yeah..after much deliberation on cost and availability I opted for what seemed to be the better (recommended) option of a Lee Foundation Kit and Lee 77mm Wide Angle adaptor.

I use Hitech Grads and Lee Big Stopper.

I haven't use any other slot-in system so my view is entirely biased, but am very happy with the setup :lol:
 
I've only stuck a Hoya UV filter on mine and use a screw on Lightcraft 9 stop ND filter - I've got the 82mm thread version which isn't ideal for filters, much easier for the 77mm version.
 
Last edited:
mrgas said:
thinking of a circular polariser and ND grad
Click to expand...

polariser is a very BIG NO for ultra wide unless there is no Sun out, where it behaves as a simple ND.

So you may want to stick with the NDs and ND grads, while keeping the CPL for something slightly longer.
 
I've used the 77mm Circular polarizer on my 10-20mm to fair effect, then bought Hi-tech slot in filters with a 77mm holder-haven't really tried these yet.
 
daugirdas said:
polariser is a very BIG NO for ultra wide unless there is no Sun out, where it behaves as a simple ND.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a generalisation, a polariser can still be useful for certain effects.
 
jimmyriddle said:
That's a bit of a generalisation, a polariser can still be useful for certain effects.
Click to expand...

It's worse than a generalisation, it's simply not true. I have a polariser almost permanently attached to my super-wide, where the benefits usually outweigh the downsides. I'm not alone.

It can work spectacularly well, if you know how to use it and moderate it. If needs be, just take it off and you've lost nothing.
 
4831219014_7c94ba0ec3_z.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

This was taken with a circular polariser on a Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 lens.
I have used this combination many times,usually with good results.
 
jimmyriddle said:
That's a bit of a generalisation, a polariser can still be useful for certain effects.
Click to expand...

It really dpends on how high the sun is in the sky. Because the maximum effect of a polariser is 90ºC from the direction of the sun the maximum effect forms a ring around the horizon when the sun is overhead. This isn't so likely to cause problems with an UWA. If the sun is low on the horizon then the zone of maximum effect forms an arch across the sky - so you can get horrible effects like this...

Iceland%20img_4326-01.jpg
 
hollis_f said:
It really dpends on how high the sun is in the sky. Because the maximum effect of a polariser is 90ºC from the direction of the sun the maximum effect forms a ring around the horizon when the sun is overhead. This isn't so likely to cause problems with an UWA. If the sun is low on the horizon then the zone of maximum effect forms an arch across the sky - so you can get horrible effects like this...
Click to expand...

I am aware of the effect you show, but just because someone is using an ultrawide, does not mean they are taking a shot like that. There are other reasons for using a polariser than to help saturate the skies.
 
jimmyriddle said:
I am aware of the effect you show, but just because someone is using an ultrawide, does not mean they are taking a shot like that. There are other reasons for using a polariser than to help saturate the skies.
Click to expand...

Yup. I was agreeing with you. I know there are numerous reasons why a CPL can be useful, apart from improving contrast in skies. I was just trying to demonstrate that the problems with an UWA and CPL With sky shots are only a problem in certain circumstances.
 
I use a CPL on a 10-22mm all the time. Yes there are *some* occasions where the low angle of sun in the sky combined with the wide end of the lens causes uneven sky lightness. Not a problem - simply check it, adjust the filter if its too strong and recompose.
For 95%+ of shots it works just as any other lens and nice saturates the colours, reduces reflection and everything else.

I only use a CPL (no other filters, ND grads are dead in my view) but i use it for the majority of my pictures.
 
Keebsuk said:
You cannot use the Cokin P series on that lens. You need the Cokin Z pro series.
Click to expand...

Yes you can, you just need to use the wide angle filter holder instead of the normal one. This is what I used to do when I owned both the 10-20 and Cokin P filters. There was no vignetting caused by the filter holder when the filter was arranged vertically in the holder, and only when rotated by a fair amount did it start to be noticeable in the corner of the frame. Zooming to 11 or 12mm iirc removed this. It's not ideal, granted, but can be done.

Personally, If you want to spend the money on Z-Pro filters, don't. Get hitech.
 
Woodsy said:
Yes you can, you just need to use the wide angle filter holder instead of the normal one. This is what I used to do when I owned both the 10-20 and Cokin P filters. There was no vignetting caused by the filter holder when the filter was arranged vertically in the holder, and only when rotated by a fair amount did it start to be noticeable in the corner of the frame. Zooming to 11 or 12mm iirc removed this. It's not ideal, granted, but can be done.

Personally, If you want to spend the money on Z-Pro filters, don't. Get hitech.
Click to expand...

thanks for the reply, i reckon i'll order the wide angle holder
 
Just to be clear on what lens you have, is it the f3.5 or f4-5.6?

The reason I ask is the filter thread on the former is 82mm with the latter at 77mm.
 
Keebsuk said:
I was talking about the f3.5. You cannot use the Cokin P series on this lens or you will get vignetting.

Andy
Click to expand...

cheers..

I was mainly asking because I was first to wade in talking about 77mm threads forgetting the more recent f3.5 lens was actually larger, yet its not clear what lens the OP has :thinking:
 
hollis_f said:
It really dpends on how high the sun is in the sky. Because the maximum effect of a polariser is 90ºC from the direction of the sun the maximum effect forms a ring around the horizon when the sun is overhead. This isn't so likely to cause problems with an UWA. If the sun is low on the horizon then the zone of maximum effect forms an arch across the sky - so you can get horrible effects like this...

<snip>
Click to expand...

An example of this, and other effects, on this recent thread post #9 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=381406

Polarisers are all about angles. To check out the 90 degrees to the sun thing, make a right angle with your forefinger and thumb, like a gun, and aim your finger at the sun.

Now rotate your hand around the axis of your finger, and the thumb will scribe an arc where the band of maximum polarisation occurs. Eg, if the sun is directly overhead, your thumb will point all the way around the the horizon, but when the sun is low, it will scribe a curve across the sky.

The band is usually quite broad though, which is why it only shows up with wide-angles that take in a large view. About the only time a polariser will do nothing for a blue sky is a sunset, because the polarised band will be directly above (exactly the reverse of noon summer sun).

The other angle to remember is 30-40 degrees to a shiny surface, which is the maximum angle for cutting reflections. They are always polarised off anything except bare metal.

Rotate for maximum effect. For things like foliage, there are almost always some leaves etc that just happen to be at the optimum angle and a polariser really richens the foreground in landscapes. That effect, plus darkening blue skies (but without drakening clouds, unlike a grad) is why they're so popular with landscapers.

gnirtS said:
I use a CPL on a 10-22mm all the time. Yes there are *some* occasions where the low angle of sun in the sky combined with the wide end of the lens causes uneven sky lightness. Not a problem - simply check it, adjust the filter if its too strong and recompose.
For 95%+ of shots it works just as any other lens and nice saturates the colours, reduces reflection and everything else.

I only use a CPL (no other filters, ND grads are dead in my view) but i use it for the majority of my pictures.
Click to expand...

I agree :D But you'll get shot for saying things like that about grads around here. They're sacred! Apparently. (Especially if you've spent a grand on a pile of Lees :eek:)
 
Last edited:
CPL's, as said, don't alter the exposure on clouds in the same proportion as for the blue sky behind them - assuming the sky is within the area of stronger effect from the CPL. And yet, in a lot of landscapes, the clouds are brighter than the blue sky behind them anyway. As such, grads (if you are one who likes to get it right in camera instead of fannying about in LR/PS/etc) still offer the best way to capture the most information at the sensor such that the scene fits into the dynamic range of the sensor in one actuation - They do NOT do the same thing as CPL's. That is unless one likes the look of HDR, which I personally think is a crime against photography ;) They don't look natural, unless so incredibly subtle; a look which can be replicated with good knowledge of curves and levels.

Oh and yes to back up the above, RAW processing, including the "exposure adjustment slider" is NOT the same thing as adjusting the exposure at the time. Software cannot recreate information that is not in the file. It IS however a cleverly coded way of achieving nearly the same effect. They are not the same. One can show me all the "examples" and "reviews" and "tests" etc under the sun, but there is no guarantee they are not doctored to prove their point.
 
Last edited:
Woodsy said:
CPL's, as said, don't alter the exposure on clouds in the same proportion as for the blue sky behind them - assuming the sky is within the area of stronger effect from the CPL. And yet, in a lot of landscapes, the clouds are brighter than the blue sky behind them anyway. As such, grads (if you are one who likes to get it right in camera instead of fannying about in LR/PS/etc) still offer the best way to capture the most information at the sensor such that the scene fits into the dynamic range of the sensor in one actuation - They do NOT do the same thing as CPL's. That is unless one likes the look of HDR, which I personally think is a crime against photography ;) They don't look natural, unless so incredibly subtle; a look which can be replicated with good knowledge of curves and levels.

Oh and yes to back up the above, RAW processing, including the "exposure adjustment slider" is NOT the same thing as adjusting the exposure at the time. Software cannot recreate information that is not in the file. It IS however a cleverly coded way of achieving nearly the same effect. They are not the same. One can show me all the "examples" and "reviews" and "tests" etc under the sun, but there is no guarantee they are not doctored to prove their point.
Click to expand...

All good points Woodsy, and there are usually different ways of doing most things.

What I personally dislike about grads is the way they darken everything above the grad line. That is, with the exception of straight horizons like seascape, that's trees and building and hills and churches etc that break above the grad line.

I hate that, looks terrible IMHO, though I do agree it's much more satisfying to do it right in-camera, and see the result on the spot.
 
Keebsuk said:
Calling ND grads,"a crime against photography" is totally OTT!

I would love to see someone argue that point against the likes of Joe Cornish et al!!

Andy
Click to expand...

I think you've misunderstood my point, probably due to my poor delivery of the sentence. I was calling HDR a crime against photography, not Grads. You'll also see that I use Lee grads in my sig... ;)

EDIT: Apologies, you beat me to the clarification :D
 
Keebsuk said:
Calling ND grads,"a crime against photography" is totally OTT!

I would love to see someone argue that point against the likes of Joe Cornish et al!!

Andy
Click to expand...

Edit: must be quicker next time :D

You sure you read that right?

I can think of several crimes against photography. You may have some different ideas though ;)

The only invalid likes and dislikes, are those based on ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top