• XENNEC Camera Bags GIVE AWAY - SHARE & TAG your Friend to WIN one XENNEC Stylish bags. Visit this thread thread for more information.

UV filter and Polariser for an ultra wide angle lens


kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#1
Hi,

I would like to consult your opinions here regarding the best UV filter and Polariser for an ultra wide angle lens.

1) Is there any UV filter that can eliminate flare? Yeah, I mean eliminate, instead of reduce. Read somewhere that multi-coating can reduce flare but not eliminate.

2) Is there any polariser that can eliminate vignetting for ultra wide angle? Also read somewhere that an ultra slim polariser can do the job, but can it eliminate instead of reduce?

Thanks!
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#2
i dun think there is any optics that eliminates flares, else everyone will be rushing for that filter. Even Canon / Nikon go to great lengths to come up with special coatings to reduce them.

Again. if the inherent lens design causes vignetting, the polariser will not reduce and not to mention eliminate the vignetting. On the other hand a polariser can cause vignetting - a slimer polariser or a large diameter polariser step down mounted on a lens might "eliminate" such a problem, but u best check reviews. My previous 77mm Nikon slim polariser worked well on my old Nikon 12-24 at the wide end, very very minimal vignetting at tiny corners when shot at 12mm at largest aperture. Also note that polarisers can cause wierd uneven polarisation on wider focal length.

sorry cannot give much input for the ideal optics u are looking for

ryan
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#3
Thanks! Your information is very helpful indeed. I tried my Nikon 12-24mm wide angle lens yesterday with my friend's polariser. Before I attached the polariser, the photo didn't show any vignetting. But when I used the polariser(not slim type), slight vignetting is visible at the four corners. So I think it's not caused by the Nikon 12-24mm structure but rather the thickness of the polariser. So I'm wondering if an ultra slim polariser can prevent this. The vignetting is not very serious but sometimes I just want the photo to be clean.

i dun think there is any optics that eliminates flares, else everyone will be rushing for that filter. Even Canon / Nikon go to great lengths to come up with special coatings to reduce them.

Again. if the inherent lens design causes vignetting, the polariser will not reduce and not to mention eliminate the vignetting. On the other hand a polariser can cause vignetting - a slimer polariser or a large diameter polariser step down mounted on a lens might "eliminate" such a problem, but u best check reviews. My previous 77mm Nikon slim polariser worked well on my old Nikon 12-24 at the wide end, very very minimal vignetting at tiny corners when shot at 12mm at largest aperture. Also note that polarisers can cause wierd uneven polarisation on wider focal length.

sorry cannot give much input for the ideal optics u are looking for

ryan
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,670
72
48
lil red dot
#4
Hi,

I would like to consult your opinions here regarding the best UV filter and Polariser for an ultra wide angle lens.

1) Is there any UV filter that can eliminate flare? Yeah, I mean eliminate, instead of reduce. Read somewhere that multi-coating can reduce flare but not eliminate.

2) Is there any polariser that can eliminate vignetting for ultra wide angle? Also read somewhere that an ultra slim polariser can do the job, but can it eliminate instead of reduce?

Thanks!
1) No. There is no filter that can eliminate flare.

2) If you use a polarizer on a UWA like the 12-24, vignetting will be the least of your problems. The biggest problem you will face will be uneven polarization.

vignetting cannot be eliminated. You as the user have to avoid it. either slim rim, or use a huge polarizer with a step down. But I really hope you do not stack a polarizer on top of a UV/protector filter. You will cause even more problems.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,670
72
48
lil red dot
#5
Thanks! Your information is very helpful indeed. I tried my Nikon 12-24mm wide angle lens yesterday with my friend's polariser. Before I attached the polariser, the photo didn't show any vignetting. But when I used the polariser(not slim type), slight vignetting is visible at the four corners. So I think it's not caused by the Nikon 12-24mm structure but rather the thickness of the polariser. So I'm wondering if an ultra slim polariser can prevent this. The vignetting is not very serious but sometimes I just want the photo to be clean.
Any vignetting is caused by BOTH the structure of the lens and the thickness of the filter.

It is a physical limitation that can be solved either by reducing the thickness of the filter, or better engineering on the structure so as to avoid vignetting.

BTW did you remove the UV/protector filter before you screw on the polarizer? You are supposed to.
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,647
52
48
Pasir Ris
#6
1) Is there any UV filter that can eliminate flare? Yeah, I mean eliminate, instead of reduce. Read somewhere that multi-coating can reduce flare but not eliminate.
Yes, the No Filter can eliminate all kinds of flare :bsmilie:
Filters have a plain surface, that's one of the most common sources for flare. Lens elements don't have plain surfaces, that's why reflections at those surfaces are thrown off sideways.
More to read: http://toothwalker.org/optics/flare.html
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#7
Hey thanks for your advice :thumbsup:
Yes, I always remove the UV/protector filter before I screw on the polarizer. Don't like the idea of stacking filters together too.
Just now I went to buy a Kenko Zeta Anti-Reflective & Super Multi-Coating protector to try out. The description behind the box saying that it is compatible with super wide-angle lenses. Yes, it's very slim but not cheap :sweat:
Good thing is the flare is gone most of the time and only saw a flare when I was shooting very closed facing the spot light. Another good thing is the saturation and sharpness of the photos are much better compared to the cheap Vitacon filter I used previously.
Now I understand that why people are willing to pay so much money for a filter. It also makes sense because if we spend so much money for a good lenses, we should not let a cheapo filter to spoilt the images shot with the good lenses.
Any vignetting is caused by BOTH the structure of the lens and the thickness of the filter.

It is a physical limitation that can be solved either by reducing the thickness of the filter, or better engineering on the structure so as to avoid vignetting.

BTW did you remove the UV/protector filter before you screw on the polarizer? You are supposed to.
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,670
72
48
lil red dot
#8
Hey thanks for your advice :thumbsup:
Yes, I always remove the UV/protector filter before I screw on the polarizer. Don't like the idea of stacking filters together too.
Just now I went to buy a Kenko Zeta Anti-Reflective & Super Multi-Coating protector to try out. The description behind the box saying that it is compatible with super wide-angle lenses. Yes, it's very slim but not cheap :sweat:
Good thing is the flare is gone most of the time and only saw a flare when I was shooting very closed facing the spot light. Another good thing is the saturation and sharpness of the photos are much better compared to the cheap Vitacon filter I used previously.
Now I understand that why people are willing to pay so much money for a filter. It also makes sense because if we spend so much money for a good lenses, we should not let a cheapo filter to spoilt the images shot with the good lenses.
Kenko Zeta is a very good filter range (equal to Hoya HD). But I find it excessive in terms of price. But that is just me. I went for Kenko Pro1D myself.
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#9
Ya it's expensive but I'm not sure if the Pro1D version is compatible with the 12-24 ultra wide angle lens. If can, I will go for the Pro1D as well.
The next one I'm looking for is a Polariser and ND filter. If polariser is not recommended for ultra wide angle, is there other alternatives in order to get a blue sky in the photo?
The sales person also recommended me the B+W "Big stopper" ND filter which can offer 10 stops, but it costs around $160. :sweat:
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#10
Ya it's expensive but I'm not sure if the Pro1D version is compatible with the 12-24 ultra wide angle lens. If can, I will go for the Pro1D as well.
The next one I'm looking for is a Polariser and ND filter. If polariser is not recommended for ultra wide angle, is there other alternatives in order to get a blue sky in the photo?
The sales person also recommended me the B+W "Big stopper" ND filter which can offer 10 stops, but it costs around $160. :sweat:
It seems you need to do more research on NDs - coz it's not going to help you bring in more blue from the sky... NDs are for other purposes. Sorry for being a meanie by not going further, in the spirit of encouraging you to help yourself more... :D

Hint: read up on GND instead. And then read up on NDs and their purposes and see if you can read anything in there about bluer skies?
 

Last edited:

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#11
Hi kriegsketten,

What I meant is the Polariser to get blue sky, not ND. I have read up their functions somewhere else previously and used a Polariser and ND filter with my kit lens before but have sold them all to get the 12-24mm ultra wide angle. So now I'm wondering what are the alternative for Polariser in order to get a blue sky with the ultra wide angle.

Sorry if my sentence in the previous post confused you. My language is bad...

It seems you need to do more research on NDs - coz it's not going to help you bring in more blue from the sky... NDs are for other purposes. Sorry for being a meanie by not going further, in the spirit of encouraging you to help yourself more... :D

Hint: read up on GND instead. And then read up on NDs and their purposes and see if you can read anything in there about bluer skies?
 

Last edited:
Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#12
Hi,

What I meant is the Polariser to get blue sky, not ND. I have read up their functions somewhere else previously. Sorry if my sentence in the previous post confused you.
Okay. I'm unconfused. Good that you already know. Me too, I haven't gotten to getting my polariser yet still looking. If I were to get the rim type, it would be the Kenko Zeta (slim). Mainly because it's tough. But I'm considering between Rim versus Square version (the latter being a lot more excessive in cost) as I'm on a holder system...

However, DD123's advice about uneven polarisation with UWA is sound - I'm sure you've at least read and saw this effect on the net? That's why I'm detered.... If you have other (non-UWA) lenses that will require 77mm size, then by all means go for it... Some of the Nikkor pro lenses are 77mm types.

Edit: the Alternative is to utilised GNDs It helps, but you gotta be careful of how it's being used. And there's the Soft versus Hard version, plus strength of the ND portion to choose from... I'm using a 0.9GND soft... at times (particularly against harsher lights) it is not even strong enough... I'm considering a 1.2 soft on my next ND purchase but no rush about it... need to shoot more to see if I really need a 1.2 GND or not...
 

Last edited:

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#13
Hi kriegsketten,

I read somewhere that the square type with holder system is not good because of the bigger gap between the polariser and the lens. :think: I didn't do further research into it. Will do it when I have spare time.
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#14
Hi kriegsketten,

I read somewhere that the square type with holder system is not good because of the bigger gap between the polariser and the lens. :think: I didn't do further research into it. Will do it when I have spare time.
Well, that's one up you have on me then. I'll go research on that as well.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,670
72
48
lil red dot
#15
Ya it's expensive but I'm not sure if the Pro1D version is compatible with the 12-24 ultra wide angle lens. If can, I will go for the Pro1D as well.
The next one I'm looking for is a Polariser and ND filter. If polariser is not recommended for ultra wide angle, is there other alternatives in order to get a blue sky in the photo?
The sales person also recommended me the B+W "Big stopper" ND filter which can offer 10 stops, but it costs around $160. :sweat:
Pro1D is also slim rim. And it works well even on my Tokina 11-16. So it should work well on the 12-24.

Big stopper is the 10 stop ND filter from Lee filters. B+W's 10 stop ND is called ND110.

And if you want darker skies in UWA, ND will not give that to you. You need to look at GND filters.
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#16
Pro1D is also slim rim. And it works well even on my Tokina 11-16. So it should work well on the 12-24.

Big stopper is the 10 stop ND filter from Lee filters. B+W's 10 stop ND is called ND110.

And if you want darker skies in UWA, ND will not give that to you. You need to look at GND filters.
My glass protector is not even the slim kind (you can attach another filter on top of it), but it does not vignette on the 10-24mm at the widest. But once you attach another filter above it, the vignetting will occur.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,670
72
48
lil red dot
#17
My glass protector is not even the slim kind (you can attach another filter on top of it), but it does not vignette on the 10-24mm at the widest. But once you attach another filter above it, the vignetting will occur.
most lenses are designed with at least one filter attached in mind.

But my 17-50/2.8 had an issue with a thicker B+W KSM CPL I used...
 

Top Bottom