The Best Circular Polarizer Filter for Wide-Angle

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

03/05/2007 05:05:06 PM · #1

I am buying the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM lens in a week or so, and want to buy a circular polarizer filter for it. I have been without that particular filter for several years now, and want to get back to using it again. The filter that I had years ago was a top-of-the-line Hoya filter, the thin version, to minimize vignetting at a wide angle. Is this still a good filter to buy, or is there something more widely used and better out there?

Scott

pawdrix

Nikon D700

03/05/2007 05:11:42 PM · #2

B&W

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

03/05/2007 05:16:12 PM · #3

Originally posted by pawdrix:

B&W

Do they make one that is thin for the wide angle shots?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

03/05/2007 06:16:05 PM · #4

Couple questions:
- Are you aware that an updated version of the 16-35mm is coming out in April?
- Which Canon body will you be using it with?

If you're using it on an APS-C body, here's a suggestion... try putting a standard-thickness 77mm UV filter on and see if it causes any vignetting. My guess is it won't. If so, you don't need to spend the extra $$ for a thin or ultra-thin filter, unless you plan on migrating to a camera with a 35mm format sensor.

Message edited by author 2007-03-05 18:21:22.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/05/2007 06:27:32 PM · #5

Originally posted by kirbic:

Couple questions:
- Are you aware that an updated version of the 16-35mm is coming out in April?

Yes, I am aware. I have read up on it, and after much deliberation, decided that I would be satisfied with the current version because of the filter size. The new version has a filter size of 82mm. The lens is pricy enough without having to double up on the filters. My other lens that I will be purchasing is the 70-200, and that has a filter size of 77 mm also, and I just feel that it is more worth it to keep my costs somewhat down on the filters by purchasing the current version. That way I have more money for lenses such as those. Do you have a different suggestion on that?

Originally posted by kirbic:

- Which Canon body will you be using it with?

If you're using it on an APS-C body, here's a suggestion... try putting a standard-thickness 77mm UV filter on and see if it causes any vignetting. My guess is it won't. If so, you don't need to spend the extra $$ for a thin or ultra-thin filter, unless you plan on migrating to a camera with a 35mm format sensor.

I will be purchasing the 5D, so the thickness I would assume will come in to play. You have to remember also, the circular polarizer filter is two stacked on top of each other by nature, so the ultra thin filter would just be the size of one standard filter.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

03/05/2007 06:31:58 PM · #6

Originally posted by traquino98:

It may come into play to the extent that it is unusable. I already have a fair amount of a normal filter show on the 24-105. I could only imagine how much the 16-35 is going to show.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/05/2007 06:34:58 PM · #7

Originally posted by pawdrix:

B&W

Yes, B+W or Heliopan

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

03/05/2007 06:46:23 PM · #8

Sounds like you've done your homework! Yes, if you're going FF, you'll need the thinnest available filter. There are some that are marketed as "ultra-thin"; I'd check up on the thickness specs.
I would make certain to buy a multi-coated version, BTW. With the multiple glass surfaces present in the circular polarizer, it's even more important than with single-glass filters.
Regarding the 16-35/2.8 L II, I think they went to 82mm for exactly this reason. If you look at the photos of the new lens, the front element is not that large, so the additional filter size is purely to get it out of the frame. FWIW, I do agree that buying 82mm filters for this beast would be a big hit in the wallet.