July 23, 2014, 10:15:44 AM

Author Topic: EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II + Lee Filters 105mm Circ. Polariser and circular holder  (Read 3021 times)

rowancastle

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Hi All,

Does anyone know if it is possible to use the above combo at 16mm without the circular filter holder (which screws on to the square Lee filter holder) from intruding into the image? I've searched various forums but not been able to get a clear answer. Thanks!
5D Mk III, 16-35 f/2.8 IIL, 24-105 f/4L, 100 f/2.8L Macro

canon rumors FORUM


distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1423
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
.
I'm guessing it won't work well, but I don't know for sure.

Perhaps this will bump it up to be seen by someone who knows.
Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

JustMeOregon

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Your question got me thinking (often a dangerous situation...) so I tried a really quick test of my own as follows:

I tested a bare (no UV filter) Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens (at f/4) with a Lee wide-angle 82mm adapter ring, a standard Lee Foundation Kit (2-slot) filter holder, a Lee 105mm screw-in filter adapter, and a 105mm B+W 105 KSM C-POL (screw-in polarizer); all on a (full frame) Canon 5D Mark III.

My simple quick-&-dirty test indicated that at 16mm the rig cited above displayed very pronounced mechanical vignetting. Zooming in to 19mm displayed slight mechanical vignetting & moderate optical vignetting. At 20mm there was no mechanical vignetting but moderate optical vignetting. While at 21mm there was no mechanical vignetting & only very slight optical vignetting. Finally at 22mm I find no visible mechanical or optical vignetting.

I hope this helps.

Richard

I'll try to upload my test pictures...

Test pic #1 at 16mm with wide angle adapter ring, 2-slot filter holder, & 105mm polarizer = very pronounced mechanical vignetting:

« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 11:53:42 PM by JustMeOregon »

JustMeOregon

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Test pic #2 at 19mm with wide angle adapter ring, 2-slot filter holder, & 105mm polarizer = slight mechanical vignetting & moderate optical vignetting:

« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 11:53:25 PM by JustMeOregon »

JustMeOregon

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Test pic #3 at 20mm with wide angle adapter ring, 2-slot filter holder, & 105mm polarizer = no mechanical vignetting & moderate optical vignetting:

« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 11:53:10 PM by JustMeOregon »

JustMeOregon

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Test pic#4 at 21mm with wide angle adapter ring, 2-slot filter holder, & 105mm polarizer = no mechanical vignetting & only very slight optical vignetting:

« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 11:58:42 PM by JustMeOregon »

JustMeOregon

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
And finally test pic #5 at 22mm with wide angle adapter ring, 2-slot filter holder, & 105mm polarizer = no mechanical vignetting & no optical vignetting:

« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 11:52:32 PM by JustMeOregon »

canon rumors FORUM


JustMeOregon

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Also, keep in mind that the 16-35 II exhibits more than its fair-share of optical vignetting at short focal lengths & wide-open apertures, on a full frame camera...

Richard
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 11:55:58 PM by JustMeOregon »

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Great thread, thanks!  I was spec'ing out my landscape needs and this concern came up.  I was consderiing the Zeiss 21 over the Canon 16-35, ironically (seeing your 21mm finding).

Would pulling one level off of the foundation holder (so it can only accept one 4x4 or 4x6) in front of the polarizer help things much?

Also -- do you have other 105mm filters to try this with?  I am wondering how filter thickness affects things.  There are alternate high quality filters that claim to fight vignetting with a thinner design.

Thanks!

- A

JustMeOregon

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Quote
Would pulling one level off of the foundation holder (so it can only accept one 4x4 or 4x6) in front of the polarizer help things much?

I'm sure that it would... How much, I really don't know, I've never tried. Besides, I need to have 2-slots on my Lee filter holder, think ND grad & a Big Stopper...

The only 105mm I own is the B+W, and at least when I bought it, it was the only 105mm that B+W made. It has an F-Pro mount, so yes, it is a big fat pig. I love the reaction I get from other photogs when I pull it out... Just like Crocodile Dundee, "That's not a polarizer... Now THIS is a polarizer!"

Also, remember that we are talking about the venerable Canon 16-35 II, so I'm often looking to cropping-out some soft-ish corners...

Richard
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 06:03:30 PM by JustMeOregon »

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Quote
Would pulling one level off of the foundation holder (so it can only accept one 4x4 or 4x6) in front of the polarizer help things much?


I'm sure that it would... How much, I really don't know, I've never tried. Besides, I need to have 2-slots on my Lee filter holder, think ND grad & a Big Stopper...

The only 105mm I own is the B+W, and at least when I bought it, it was the only 105mm that B+W made. It has an F-Pro mount, so yes, it is a big fat pig... I love the reaction of other photogs when I pull it out... Just like Crocodile Dundee, "That's not a polarizer... Now THIS is a polarizer!..."

Also, remember that we are talking about the venerable Canon 16-35 II, so I'm often looking to cropping-out some soft-ish corners...


B+W now makes two:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ntt=polarizer&refineSearchString=&sts=ma&N=0&Ntt=105mm+B%2BW+105+KSM+C-POL

Yours is the second on the list, right?  The first one the list, cross-referenced to B+W's site, yields this buckler:
https://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=254&IID=9536

Disregard the B+W price (it's $459 as best I can tell), but see attached -- it's got a front element that is stepped out to an even wider diameter to combat vignetting yet retain the big ring.  That's something else.

- A

JustMeOregon

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Yeah, I don't have the "Extra Wide," but you got me thinking... Dangerous...

Richard

Valvebounce

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 733
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
    • View Profile
Hi Richard.
One of my favourite lines from the film, I wish I had a penny for every time someone said "that's not an abc..... THIS Is an abc"
How many different uses might there be for this quote, one I like is when you see a huge white with hood at an F1 race, THIS is a lens!  :o

Cheers Graham.

Just like Crocodile Dundee, "That's not a polarizer... Now THIS is a polarizer!"

Richard
7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!
20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)
(300D Saved a holiday, E-FS 18-55 Cosine 100-300 retired)

canon rumors FORUM


ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile

So I'm on the hunt to learn more about which 105mm will vignette the least in the Lee setup.  Apparently, the rail height is not the only determinant:

http://www.claudiocoppari.com/site/heliopan-vs-bw-polarisers-vignetting-lee-holder/

This was from 2012 so I think he had the standard B+W 105mm and not that mondo stepped Extra-Wide version I linked.

- A

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
More findings:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=918465

"With the 17-40L, you will have to remove a slot or two to use the 105 CPL without any vignetting at the wide end. IIRC, with two slots and the 105 installed, my 17-40L will show vignetting up to about 19mm or so on a FF body."

This more or less corroborates the 21mm finding on this thread.  Of course, they may have had a different CPL thickness affecting their result.

I still can't find anyone reviewing or trying out that EW version with the step in it.  People on forums are often scratching their heads on what the EW is for as B+W doesn't have great pictures of it.  (We now know it has a step, but how effective that step is in avoiding vignetting is what I want to know.)

- A

canon rumors FORUM