User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  2
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: CPL, UV & ND - Filters for Sigma 10-20mm ?

  1. #1
    Member flossed's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Nov 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    CPL, UV & ND - Filters for Sigma 10-20mm ?

    Hi

    I decided to buy the sigma 10-20mm lens for the canon mount today.....

    I would like to get a UV Filter to protect the lens & i read that some CPL Filters will cause vignetting....
    What about ND filters?

    The filter size are 77mm

    Any suggestions.....

    Thanks

    flossed

  2. #2
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,188
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Due to the size difference between the front lens element and the filter ring itself, this lens doesn't vignette if a standard sized filter is placed on the lens. Even at the widest focal length(of 10mm).

    Should make no difference if the filter is UV, ND, CPL or IR.

    You may run into trouble if you stack multiple ND filters of standard filter thicknesses, so if you have the intention to do this, then maybe look for slimmer ND screw on filters.

    If you plan on going with the Cokin P-series filter system, the normal 3 filter holder will vignette up to about 11.5mm, where the mechanical vignetting starts to give way and produces some light loss, and just past 12mm this is also gone too. The UWA single filter holder doesn't vignette at all by comparison.

    This is on the slightly wider Nikon mount, so on your canon the focal lengths at which these issues will occur will be ever so slightly shorter.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter
    flossed's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Nov 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    Due to the size difference between the front lens element and the filter ring itself, this lens doesn't vignette if a standard sized filter is placed on the lens. Even at the widest focal length(of 10mm).

    Should make no difference if the filter is UV, ND, CPL or IR.

    You may run into trouble if you stack multiple ND filters of standard filter thicknesses, so if you have the intention to do this, then maybe look for slimmer ND screw on filters.

    If you plan on going with the Cokin P-series filter system, the normal 3 filter holder will vignette up to about 11.5mm, where the mechanical vignetting starts to give way and produces some light loss, and just past 12mm this is also gone too. The UWA single filter holder doesn't vignette at all by comparison.

    This is on the slightly wider Nikon mount, so on your canon the focal lengths at which these issues will occur will be ever so slightly shorter.
    Thanks for the explanation......................

    cheers

    flossed
    Last edited by flossed; 27-11-2011 at 10:59pm.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jun 2010
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi,
    I use UWA filter holder for Cokin P series ND grad filters on my sigma 10-20mm and as mentioned above there is no vigneting...however if you add UV or CPL or more than one ND (you would have to use standard holder then) it may cause some vigneting, Id reccommend investing in slim UV or CPL filters, Hoya and B+W has it in there range (bit expensive though), cant remember at the moment if any other producers have them.
    This is very good lens and produces very good images, definatelly worth having!
    Enjoy
    Maciek

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenwich
    Posts
    1,708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No real need for a UV filter, so use your saved money on a good quality CPL and ND filters.
    If you're not sure which ND filters you need, buy a variable one that will cover you for -2 to -8 stops.

    As others have said, for lens this wide, go fo rthe slim mount filters to avoid vignetting.
    Mind you, minor vignetting is no big deal and can easily be overcome in PP.
    All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
    Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
    Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jun 2010
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree there is no real need for a UV filter..... but my mate dropped his 10-20 sigma while changing lenses and only because he had UV on he still has it and uses it .... lens fell on the rock directly on the front element which luckily was protected by filter....so sometimes its good to have one on
    cheaper to get new filter than new lens

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dredi1975 View Post
    I agree there is no real need for a UV filter..... but my mate dropped his 10-20 sigma while changing lenses and only because he had UV on he still has it and uses it .... lens fell on the rock directly on the front element which luckily was protected by filter....so sometimes its good to have one on
    cheaper to get new filter than new lens

    It's highly unlikely that the UV filter played any part in that protection scenario - all he's done is wasted money on the UV filter to start with
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  8. #8
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,188
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi View Post
    It's highly unlikely that the UV filter played any part in that protection scenario - all he's done is wasted money on the UV filter to start with

    Ditto!

    If he had the lens hood on the correct way around, even the UV filter would have been protected.

    Always protect the front of a lens with proper protection(ie. properly fitted lens hood) .... not pseudo protection.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jun 2010
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    in this situation highly likely it did play the part in that scenario as he didnt have lens hood on!

  10. #10
    Member
    Threadstarter
    flossed's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Nov 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have looked at kenko's Variable ND filter is it worth getting it?

    http://www.kenkoglobal.com/ndx/index.html

    or better off getting the cheapers ones with constant ND

    Thanks

    flossed

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dredi1975 View Post
    in this situation highly likely it did play the part in that scenario as he didnt have lens hood on!
    still highly unlikely if you think about the physics.

    F=MA

  12. #12
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,188
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LOL! Kiwi.
    The only condition where I could foresee a filter 'protecting' the front lens element from an impact(such as this dropping onto rocks situation), is if the filter ring had sufficient thickness to eliminate the chance of the front element actually touching rock.
    That is: those 12mm or so of the metal filter ring acting as a pseudo lens hood in stopping the lens touching ground.
    The glass of the filter itself is pretty useless at protecting the front element. It's too thin and breaks easily on impact.


    Those Kenko Vari ND's certainly look good, and Kenko has a good reputation for producing high quality filters and suchlike, so I think it'd be worth investigating .. but have you seen the prices of them!
    I had a quick look on ebay and found a few at approx AU$500!!(77mm)
    Note tho, that they are a new product from Kenko, and other manufacturers have had them for a few years now.
    By comparison, a SingRay Vari-ND @ 77mm and slim ring type is US$390, or $340 for the standard ring.

    Personally I've never found a need for ND filters myself, but I'm sure that one day I will, and I hate stuffing about with stacking filters if there is an alternative. So I see one of these in my future. Hopefully by then they'll come down to reasonable prices.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenwich
    Posts
    1,708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a Singh-Ray variable thin mount, and it seems to work very well with no distortion that I can see.

    I did a lot of reading up about these variable ND's before I bought it, and the S-R seems to be the one to go for.
    Not cheap, but certainly a lot cheaper than buying 3 or 4 or 5 normal ND's.

    As you're also in Sydney, send me a PM and we can get together and you can try it out if you like.

    If you need to go to 6-8 stops, the main advantage with a variable ND is that you can compose and focus at -2, then turn the ring to get the amount of light reduction you want.
    If you just put an 8 stop filter over the lens, you can't see anything through the viewfinder!

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jun 2010
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    accidents happen dont they Kiwi??
    Last edited by dredi1975; 30-11-2011 at 8:17am.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, there are no such things as accidents, they are incidents caused by negligence

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jun 2010
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thats very good description of word : accident

  17. #17
    Member
    Threadstarter
    flossed's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Nov 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennymiata View Post
    I have a Singh-Ray variable thin mount, and it seems to work very well with no distortion that I can see.

    I did a lot of reading up about these variable ND's before I bought it, and the S-R seems to be the one to go for.
    Not cheap, but certainly a lot cheaper than buying 3 or 4 or 5 normal ND's.

    As you're also in Sydney, send me a PM and we can get together and you can try it out if you like.

    If you need to go to 6-8 stops, the main advantage with a variable ND is that you can compose and focus at -2, then turn the ring to get the amount of light reduction you want.
    If you just put an 8 stop filter over the lens, you can't see anything through the viewfinder!
    I went & buy it (Kenko Variable NDX) good price from DCW - Sydney.....

    Thanks all

    Cheers

    flossed

  18. #18
    Member
    Threadstarter
    flossed's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Nov 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now i need some tips on how to use it....will be shooting landscape & seascape

    Thanks much

    flossed

  19. #19
    Member Caring's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 May 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I refer to LensTip.com who seem to be the only ones on the web who have done a qualitative comparison of a number of UV / CPL filter:

    * removed - breach of site rule 4 *

    Take it with a grain of salt. Personally, I use a combination of Hoya Pro1 D Super HMC UV (great light transmission, and multi-coated), Hoya HD UV (easy to clean, and the glass is heavy duty), and B+W KSM MRC CPL.

    Most of my filters are ordered from MaxSaver.net which is often the cheapest, with free shipping. Yay!
    Last edited by ricktas; 01-12-2011 at 8:53pm.

  20. #20
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,188
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The video of the HD range of filters from Hoya is interesting!!

    These HD type filters certainly do look a lot stronger/tougher/more durable than the average 'protective' filter..

    And LensTip!! that the damned site where I saw the polariser filter tests.

    I can't vouch for their testing or results, only to say that the differences between my $200 Pro1D CPL and my other much cheaper CPLs is almost insignificant in terms of IQ, but a massive price difference between the low end and top end.
    The only thing that makes the Pro1D nicer to use is if I get it dirty, where it's much easier to get clean. The coating do seem to help with cleaning, where the cheaper quality hoya CPLs I have seem to require more effort, or more care in cleaning to get them completely streak free.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •