Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

16-35mm

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    16-35mm

    I am thinking of buying a 16-35 as my main interest is landscspe images. What filter would you suggest to protect the glass. I have a Hoya Pro on my 24-105 but a lot of people say you should you use a slim filter. If you use a slim filter will the original 16-35 lens cap not fit over the filter?

    Many thanks Vik

    Oh & it's going on a 5D Mark III

    #2
    Re: 16-35mm

    I must admit, I would be more tempted by the 17-40L and save a load of money.

    Comment


      #3
      Re: 16-35mm

      Originally posted by colintf View Post
      I must admit, I would be more tempted by the 17-40L and save a load of money.
      this may help compare the 17-40 & 16-35 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R....aspx?Lens=271

      Comment


        #4
        Re: 16-35mm

        The Hoya Pro range are their slim filters. The lens cap will be fine.
        http://www.kenrockwell.com/hoya/filters.htm - scroll down to the first pic.

        I wouldn't get a 17-40 for a full-frame camera, the corners are very soft - you can get away with it if you stop down a lot (which you might for landscapes) but I would prefer something less limiting personally (some people use adapted Nikon 14-24s, very very sharp but more distortion than the Canon 14mm).

        Nikon info (it's big/heavy tho):
        http://16-9.net/
        http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/660637
        Adapter:
        http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/

        BTW for landscapes I use 14 mk II, 24-105 and 70-200 mk II.

        John
        Last edited by DrJon; 09-05-2012, 18:14.

        Comment


          #5
          Re: 16-35mm

          For landscapes where you are typically stopped down to F8/f11 the 17-40 is excellent, particularly if not used at its widest. However the 17-24 range is ultra wide on a 5DIII - you might well find the 24-105 is wide enough. If not then a 2 or 3 shot panorama will give you the extra width and extra pixels on the subject too hence improving the IQ at the same time.
          ef-r

          Comment


            #6
            Re: 16-35mm

            the 17-40 flares less than the 24-105 as well

            Comment


              #7
              Re: 16-35mm

              I was looking at the MTF chart for the 17-40 and for big prints it's still not great in the corners at f8 at the wide end (real-world results do seem better than the MTF graphs suggest, which is odd), although will look pretty good for smaller prints without much sharpening... it's also a better lens for a crop camera as it's not so bad out to 15mm from the centre of the sensor. It's sharp right in the middle though!

              http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profes..._40mm_f_4l_usm
              (Left-hand graph.)

              Generally the thin lines are resolution, so sharpness in big prints, and the thick lines are how sharp edges look when not printing large - although I care less about that personally as you can add that in later by sharpening, unlike the resolution. So basically just look at the thin lines if you may print big. Anything below 0.4 really isn't that good. The different colours will, IIRC, be at f4 and f8, but there isn't much in it in this case (for a f1.4 lens it would be f1.4 and f8 so much more difference). The solid and dotted lines are for how good parallel lines that are 0 and 90 degrees apart will look (one set on a tangent, if that makes sense). Basically the out-of-focus stuff should look better if the solid and dotted lines are fairly close together (well, or so I remember reading somewhere, so e&oe on that one). This is all off the top of my head, but I think is okay.

              Then again I remind myself that I always say you can get great photos out of most camera/lens combinations, good kit just helps more in challenging circumstances.

              Really just posting to convince myself I'm not a big fan of the 17-40 with some factual backing, I get people can get great photos with theirs (I got some nice photos back when I had a crop camera and the 17-85, and Canon, or so I'm told, famously wouldn't even publish a MTF graph for that). Despite the MTF graphs I'm okay with my earlier comment that I think it is okay stopped-down and it's just when you want to let in more light the corners take a dive into blurriness.
              Last edited by DrJon; 10-05-2012, 22:25.

              Comment


                #8
                Re: 16-35mm

                If money is not an issue, then I would definitely go for 16-35mm F2.8, while generally you don't shoot wide open, because it's a faster lens, it focuses quicker, a lot brighter in the viewfinder than a f4 lens.

                One of the main issues when considering protection filters, is to make sure they are double threaded, i.e. threaded to fit on the lens, and threaded at the front of the filter so an adapter can be screwed on. Most landscape photographers use a variety of filters, notably ND grads, and the usual method is the Lee or Cokin type slip in filter, consequently a double threaded protection filter is needed.
                And if you are using a17-40 or 16-35 lens on a FF camera, you will need a wide angle adapter for the filter holder otherwise vignetting is a problem at the widest (that's asuming you will be investing in grads)
                Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colours and your images will stir the soul. - Jack Dykinga
                Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography- George Eastman

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: 16-35mm

                  [QUOTE=And if you are using a17-40 or 16-35 lens on a FF camera, you will need a wide angle adapter for the filter holder otherwise vignetting is a problem at the widest (that's asuming you will be investing in grads)[/QUOTE]

                  I have the P series of filters and holder which when I used on my 50D even with the 10-22 I didn't have a problem, occassionally I would just see the filter holder when the lens was at 10-12mm but having moved to a FF camera and using the 17-40 it is I find very noticable when the lens is at 17-20mm. As Les states you will need the wideangle adaptor or the bigger filter set

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: 16-35mm

                    Thanks, I will make sure that any filter is double threaded, do you know of any that are of a good quality? I have a Hoya Pro on my 24-105 & 100-400.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: 16-35mm

                      I've been looking at filters & out of the following 3 which one would you put on a 16-35mm.....?

                      Hoya 82mm Super HMC Pro-1 UV (0) Filter
                      Hoya 82mm Pro-1 Digital UV Screw in Filter
                      Hoya 82mm HD Digital UV (0) Screw in Filter

                      Many thanks guys

                      Vik

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: 16-35mm

                        Hoya Pro are pretty good, their SHMC Pro ones are their best. Get either a Protector or a UV one, not Skylight (as that loses light).

                        The price of 82mm protection filters might seem scary, but it'll be nothing once you see the cost of a circular polariser...

                        BTW e-bay is worth a look.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I have / had the 16-35 F4L IS lens and it worked great. Going to soon add it back to my equipment.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            The Canon 16-35mm F/4L lens takes 77mm filters whilst the F/2.8L version takes 82mm filters. (thought I'd mention it to save disappointment)
                            I have put the 77mm Hoya Pro1 protection filter on my 16-35mm f/4L lens.
                            I got my filter(s) from Amazon for 20 each (Link) whilst they're 44 each from the likes of WEX.

                            Hope it helps

                            Edit:
                            Just realised the original post is a few years old now.
                            Last edited by Hereford_EOS; 24-01-2020, 09:03.
                            Canon 7D mkII, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS, EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

                            Please note: I do not have or use Photoshop

                            flickr

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X