Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Accepts Rear Gelatin Filter

[Canon Rumors]

Here’s a feature I didn’t know existed on the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L, maybe I’m the only one that didn’t know, this is from the lens manual. The EF 17-40mm f/4L, EF 8-15 f/4L fisheye and a few others also have this feature, does anyone actually use it?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/1124rearfilter.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-18948" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/1124rearfilter-459x575.jpg" alt="1124rearfilter" width="459" height="575" /></a></p>
<p><em>thanks <a href="https://twitter.com/KevinAndrewFalk" target="_blank">@KevinAndrewFaulk</a></em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[PhotographyFirst]

This is pretty useless for landscapes unless you want to NOT shoot at 11mm?

I really can't see someone taking their lens off when shooting out on the beach to put on a rear filter, thus exposing the lens and body to sea mist and sand.

I don't know anyone who uses the rear filter on the 17-40.

The rear filter only makes sense on fast portrait lenses where you know the filter needs to be on there all day long.

I really feel like Canon should have just made a 14-24 f2.8 lens that was better in every way to the Nikon. They got too ambitious with this lens.

 

[bereninga]

That's a pretty crappy caveat. I'd rather stick to some sort of filter on the front of the lens.

 

[Canon Rumors]

This is pretty useless for landscapes unless you want to NOT shoot at 11mm?

I really can't see someone taking their lens off when shooting out on the beach to put on a rear filter, thus exposing the lens and body to sea mist and sand.

I don't know anyone who uses the rear filter on the 17-40.

The rear filter only makes sense on fast portrait lenses where you know the filter needs to be on there all day long.

I really feel like Canon should have just made a 14-24 f2.8 lens that was better in every way to the Nikon. They got too ambitious with this lens.

I enjoy learning new things, i didn't realize the 17-40 had it. To include it on a new lens, must mean there is a segment of the marketplace that does utilize the filter slot.

 

[Canon Rumors]

That's a pretty crappy caveat. I'd rather stick to some sort of filter on the front of the lens.

I can only see ND and color correction being used.

 

[mrzero]

The 8-15mm fisheye zoom also has one.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

This is pretty useless for landscapes unless you want to NOT shoot at 11mm?

I really can't see someone taking their lens off when shooting out on the beach to put on a rear filter, thus exposing the lens and body to sea mist and sand.

I don't know anyone who uses the rear filter on the 17-40.

The rear filter only makes sense on fast portrait lenses where you know the filter needs to be on there all day long.

I really feel like Canon should have just made a 14-24 f2.8 lens that was better in every way to the Nikon. They got too ambitious with this lens.

I enjoy learning new things, i didn't realize the 17-40 had it. To include it on a new lens, must mean there is a segment of the marketplace that does utilize the filter slot.

Since this lens is already so huge and heavy, I wonder if it would have been possible to have a drop-in filter system for it. That would have been AWESOME! You could use variable ND filters and polarizing fitlers.

 

[candc]

the trusty 15mm fisheye also has that feature but i have never used it. maybe there is some light pollution filter for astrophotography that would be useful?

 

[rs]

Since this lens is already so huge and heavy, I wonder if it would have been possible to have a drop-in filter system for it. That would have been AWESOME! You could use variable ND filters and polarizing fitlers.

11mm focal length on a body with a 44mm flange distance requires a pretty heavy duty retrofocus design. Enlarging that BF distance to the levels required for a drop in filter as found in the super teles would be a step too far - weight, size and possibly optical quality would all suffer. Super teles due to their focal length alone have a very substantial BF which has compromise free space for a drop in filter together with space to accommodate a TC.

 

[Khufu]

For cut-to-size gelatin filters; like used to filter pre-LED theatre lighting? Is that stuff really 50-megapixel resolving quality? I genuinely don't know!

I've got an old Tokina 500mm mirror lens that uses screw on filters at the back, they're like ~20mm and came with 4 or 5 of them - Canon never liked the idea of them then?..

 

[JonAustin]

I owned a 17-40 for 11 years, and never knew it had a rear filter slot. (Not that I would have ever used it.) But then, who reads lens manuals? :-\

 

[old-pr-pix]

For cut-to-size gelatin filters; like used to filter pre-LED theatre lighting? Is that stuff really 50-megapixel resolving quality? I genuinely don't know!

No, not spotlight gels. The right gelatin filters are Kodak Wratten series. They are often used for scientific purposes as much as photographic. There are several very specialized versions available. Here's a link to their site: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Lab_And_Post_Production/Kodak_Filters/wrattten2.htm

 

[cogden]

Yes, and so does the 14mm. The trouble is finding

1. the gel that is optically up to the task (eg, not used on lights like Rosco & Norman). BH, Hunts, Amazon, etc. have been out of stock and the word is that Tiffen may have bought the "Kodak" Wratten, but "the" technical supoprt guy at Tiffen who might know something has apparently been on the road the last three weeks.

2. at $73 a sheet, they are very expensive AND the wrinkle/get less than optically pure if you look at them - difficult to keep in pristine shooting landscapes. It's $73 a sheet, that can be cut into smaller pieces. My 14mm is 3.2cm = 1.26 inches so might get 4 out of a 3x3” gel(?)

3. a template to cut the little pieces of gold to fit (they have diagonal cut corners) -- I looked and looked and could not find and easy-cut template (and haven't had time to trial and error it).

BTW, apparently you can stack multiple (up to 3?) pieces of film to multiply the darkening ND affect.

It'll be interesting to see their practicality.

PS. I spoke with Fotodiox 2 weeks ago and they will be updating their Wonderpana 'round about may to support the 11-24mm.

 

[mackguyver]

I purchased the Kodak Wratten 2 (ND 3.0) film and it's sitting on my shelf waiting for my lens to arrive (which will be Monday). I saw the note in the manual this morning and was disappointed it won't work at 11mm. I'll let you guys know how it works out. I doubt I'll be able to see enough to focus with it in place, but we'll see if LiveView works in bright light.

Here's a guy that uses it with his 14mm f/2.8:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eric5dmark2/tags/wratten/

 

[privatebydesign]

I have used the rear slot with regular Rosco gels and the results were fine, the Cinegel book has ND filters in it, the Roscolux book doesn't.

I also emailed Fotodiox and they wrote me that there would be a Wonderpana 11-24 solution available within two months.

 

[cogden]

Thanks MackGyver - if you create a gel filter cutting template and feel like posting it, it could save me (and others) time going trial and error...

 

[mackguyver]

Thanks MackGyver - if you create a gel filter cutting template and feel like posting it, it could save me (and others) time going trial and error...

Will do

 

[Otara]

Can be useful for underwater photography using natural light, as front mount filterr systems aren't very useful.

 

[sanj]

Gelatin filters give me the creeps. I rather use them just in front of lights….

 

[gmon750]

I'm really surprised at the ignorance being displayed here regarding the 8-15mm fisheye lens, which I happen to own.

First off, one cannot put a filter on the front of the lens because as the name implies, the lens' hemispherical design (i.e. it's a dome front) pretty much rules out any possibility of using a screw-on filter.

Second, and most important (again for me) is this lens is very popular within the diving community. I am an avid underwater photographer and the ability to have a formal place to insert a filter to color-correct for the blue/green water is a winner in my book. Other divers simply tape the filter to the rear of the lens if a placeholder does not exist. In addition, depending on the underwater housing used, there may literally be no space at the front of the housing for those extra millimeters that a screw-on filter would take. I don't think Canon had us divers in their thinking anyways, but it worked to our advantage.

Canon is giving folks a way of using a filter on a lens that is not capable of having a filter placed on the front. Does that clear things up people?