Filter system for canon 16-35mm lens

[boggo]

Hi All,

I am thinking of buying a canon 16-35mm lens to do landscape work with. Haven’t done much of this type of photography before, but want to get into it more. I am struggling to understand which filter system i would use with it.

I currently have a P series cokin system with a couple of filters. When I use my 24-70 lens(77mm) at 24mm you can see some of the holder in the picture (at the sides), so it would appear to me as though the P series is not wide enough for my 77mm lens at 24mm.

When I take a look at the 16-35mm lens it has a filter size of 82mm. So would I need a Z series potentially. However, in the marketing blurb for cokin, they say about the z-series: “Recommended for focal lengths from 20mm onwards (35mm format)” - taken from http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.co...egory460_1.htm

So I have two questions really – if I were to use a 16-35mm canon lens then would the Z Series be sufficient for 16mm pictures?

I see lots of people around the place recommend Lee filters as being better. Any opinions on if starting from scratch it would be better to go with them?

I am thinking a would be one graduated ND and 2 different ND filters to start with.

Thanks

John

[Wobbles]

For ultra-wide angle you can step up from the z to the x-pro series (130mm x 170mm), gets pretty expensive but good for 15mm upwards.
http://www.madsens.com.au/hoyacart/cokin/main.php

Cheers
John

[tomtom1]

-I think with the 16-35 you should be right with the z-pro sized filters at 16mm.

-Lee filters are good but much more expensive. You can try cokin if you're just dipping your toes in. Hitech are another cost effective option somewhere between the two in price and quality.

-If you're buying 4x6" filters then just get nd grads to start. You can actually slide them down in the holder and use them as solid nds. Stick with 2 and 3 stop don't bother with 1 stop. Get hard and soft grads.

-Off topic, but if it's only for landscapes, then the 17-40 might be a better option than the 16-35. It's a fair bit cheaper, you pretty much never shoot wide landscapes at 2.8, and the image quality is quite comparable. In addition the 82mm filter size will be a pita, as you would either need to buy multiple adapters for your filter holder, or get an 82mm adapter with step up rings on your other lenses, which adds setup time if you want it on the 24-70.

[boggo]

Thanks for your input guys.

I guess why i was thinking about the 16-35 was that the reviews are very good and i have heard lots of comments saying it is better than the 17-40... but you may be right in that if it is for landscapes the difference may be negligable.

I think to start with i might go the z series and get normal cokin glass...

cheers

[Analog6]

I have a set of Lee ND grads and love them, but the rind, holder and 3 filters cost (I think, from memory) $288, so it is a big investment, but I plan to get more later. I have held a .9 Cokin ND P filter up to the front of my 16-35 when I was stuck in a situation of too much light! It worked, too.

[boggo]

Hey Analog6, I notice it says you live at Terranora. I used to play golf there about 20 years ago... does the course still exist?

[boggo]

Well, still trying to decide on the 17-40 and 16-35 after tomtom1 pointed out that the 17-40 may be a better buy, but when looking around the net I have also come accross the Carl Zeiss lens and the reviews say it is the ultimate.....

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=53&page=1

Anyone ever used it and if so would you select it over the two cannons mentioned?

cheers

john

[Analog6]

boggo: The golf resort place has been subject to a lot of controversy and is currently under a development order but the Council and Land & Env court are all in on the act and the residents are against it so who knows when it will all be resolved.

And the 16-35 is an absolutely superb lens. I just love mine. I have held a P size Cokin in front of the lens when absolutely stuck for a filter, but I do have an 82mm Lee ring coming from the UK.