Tokina 11-16 filter question

Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
4,069
Location
Bellingham, WA
I've pretty much decided to get the Tokina 11-16/2.8 for my landscape photography workshop in October. I have a question on filters. I read somewhere that one shouldn't put a circular polarizer on a wide angle zoom. I'm also looking at filters for it, so I want to know if that is true? And if it is, why?

Also, other than a filter for protection (which I have on all my lenses), which filters would be suggested for me to get for this?

Thanks,
Carole
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
3,400
Location
New York City
Ugh! Not another "I use filters for protection"/"I don't" thread! The only time I ever damaged a front lens element was when I dropped it, the filter shattered and scratched the lens. Now, I do not use filters for protection. I use the hood. Period. You're likely to get 100 answers on this topic and it will be split 50/50. if you are going to use a filter for protection, don't cheap out on it. Get a thin filter (more expensive), multi-coated (more expensive), brass ring (more expensive).

As to using a CPL on an UWA lens, it will not polarize the light evenly across the frame because of the extreme angle of view these lenses use. You will end up with dark centers and light corners, as an example, or worse. Perhaps one side of the frame will eliminate reflections on water, for example, but the other side will be wrought with glare.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,277
Location
canada
I used a CPL on mine when I had it and it was fine.
The only problem I had was vignetting when I stacked the CPL with a ND filter.
I remedied this issue by shooting above 13mm.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
4,380
Location
Toronto
I found this on the web and it does a better job of explaining the issue than I would...

"And there’s another one to look out for with polarizers: they don’t work well on extreme wide-angle lenses. That’s not to say they don’t work at all, just that they need to be used with care.
It’s a problem of physics. The polarizing effect is directly related to the angle from the light source. Extreme wide-angle or fisheye lenses can cover an extraordinarily wide field of view–up to 180° in a few cases. So if a lot of your frame is blue sky, there’s a good chance you’ll end up with bands of lighter and darker shades across the sky. A further complication is that you won’t really see the full effect through the viewfinder, and it’s not always easy to see on the camera’s LCD screen with all its reflected light. So you might not notice it until you get your images home onto your computer"
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
4,069
Location
Bellingham, WA
I found this on the web and it does a better job of explaining the issue than I would...

"And there’s another one to look out for with polarizers: they don’t work well on extreme wide-angle lenses. That’s not to say they don’t work at all, just that they need to be used with care.
It’s a problem of physics. The polarizing effect is directly related to the angle from the light source. Extreme wide-angle or fisheye lenses can cover an extraordinarily wide field of view–up to 180° in a few cases. So if a lot of your frame is blue sky, there’s a good chance you’ll end up with bands of lighter and darker shades across the sky. A further complication is that you won’t really see the full effect through the viewfinder, and it’s not always easy to see on the camera’s LCD screen with all its reflected light. So you might not notice it until you get your images home onto your computer"

Thanks, Darren! That's what I was looking for :)

Carole
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,001
Location
UK
CPL filter can be useful for reducing reflections in water and glass (at the correct angle) and increasing colour saturation in items in your image that may reflect light i.e. grass, leaves etc.

But for skies I would suggest generally avoid with w/a due to the fact as stated that it will not always polarise the light evenly across the frame. Better to try and darken skies either with a graduated neutral density filter (depending on the split between sky and subject) or in pp.

A mild example of the issue
cpl.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

web link http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12488.0

more extreme including slight vignetting by stacking two filters
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=9131786

I think this was Darrens link
http://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/polarizing-filter-wideangle-lens
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
1,706
Location
New Zealand
"And there’s another one to look out for with polarizers: they don’t work well on extreme wide-angle lenses. That’s not to say they don’t work at all, just that they need to be used with care.
It’s a problem of physics. The polarizing effect is directly related to the angle from the light source. Extreme wide-angle or fisheye lenses can cover an extraordinarily wide field of view–up to 180° in a few cases. So if a lot of your frame is blue sky, there’s a good chance you’ll end up with bands of lighter and darker shades across the sky.

While this is true, I find this "problem" is usually overstated. Imagine the sun is at the "north pole" of a sphere that surrounds the Earth. Maximum polarization occurs in the equatorial band 90° from the sun, and reduces in effect as you move towards the sun at the "north pole" or away towards the "south pole". When the sun is relatively low in the sky, the equatorial band of maximum polarization rises high into the sky, and uneven effects will be observed, as in the sample picture in the previous post. This effect can be reduced in many cases by adjusting the polarizer so the sky is only partially filtered. I don't mind some unevenness in the sky as long as it is not too pronounced.

However, if the sun is very high, the band of maximum polarization runs more or less along the horizon, so the effects are relatively uniform, even with the widest lens. Overall, I use a polarizer if it improves the picture, regardless of the angle of view.


A further complication is that you won’t really see the full effect through the viewfinder, and it’s not always easy to see on the camera’s LCD screen with all its reflected light. So you might not notice it until you get your images home onto your computer"

I've never heard of this before, or had this problem. I can always see the effect of the polarizer through the viewfinder. It is possible the sensor records the effects of a polarizer differently from the eye, but the beauty of TTL viewfinders is that you can see the effect of filters.
 
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
5,004
Location
New England
While this is true, I find this "problem" is usually overstated. Imagine the sun is at the "north pole" of a sphere that surrounds the Earth. Maximum polarization occurs in the equatorial band 90° from the sun, and reduces in effect as you move towards the sun at the "north pole" or away towards the "south pole". When the sun is relatively low in the sky, the equatorial band of maximum polarization rises high into the sky, and uneven effects will be observed, as in the sample picture in the previous post. This effect can be reduced in many cases by adjusting the polarizer so the sky is only partially filtered. I don't mind some unevenness in the sky as long as it is not too pronounced.

However, if the sun is very high, the band of maximum polarization runs more or less along the horizon, so the effects are relatively uniform, even with the widest lens. Overall, I use a polarizer if it improves the picture, regardless of the angle of view.

%100 agreed

JT
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,555
Location
GA
As a former owner of the 12-24 and having a UV & CPL for it, I can say with 100% certainty that filters did no justice for the photos I took with them. The UV filter actually degraded the IQ big time and the CPL did the same.

Use the lens hood.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
4,069
Location
Bellingham, WA
As a former owner of the 12-24 and having a UV & CPL for it, I can say with 100% certainty that filters did no justice for the photos I took with them. The UV filter actually degraded the IQ big time and the CPL did the same.

Use the lens hood.

I am going to do that from now on. I am beginning to realize that perhaps the reason my photographs are not as sharp as I want them is because of the filter.

Did you ever use a neutral density filter?

Carole
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,555
Location
GA
I am going to do that from now on. I am beginning to realize that perhaps the reason my photographs are not as sharp as I want them is because of the filter.

Did you ever use a neutral density filter?

Carole
I made this realization a couple years back after doing a thorough test with my Tokina 12-24 and my Nikon 18-70 and both showed degradation in quality when using a UV filter. CPL on my 18-70 was fine, but was not on the Tokina.

I would just stay away from all filters for ultrawides.

And no, never used a ND filter. Most of the "look" I want can be produced in PP for that case.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
6,698
Location
Riverside, CA
I have the Nikon 12-24 and I absolutely use a CPL, nearly always. Yes, you can get uneven skies, so you do have to be aware of that, and I do my best to avoid it. But you can also fix an uneven sky in post. They are VERY useful for increasing saturation by removing reflections.

I also occasionally use split neutral density filters, although my use of them is decreasing, since Lightroom 4 is so good with issues like bright sky and dark foreground.

If your photos aren't sharp, there are many reasons. Flimsy tripod, poor technique, crap filters.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
4,830
Location
Newcastle, Wa
Using a CPL on a wide angle lens is fine. You just need to know how and when to use it. I posted this in another thread but will do so again. This shot was done at 17 mm using a CPL. I used it to remove the glare from the wet rocks and water. Removing the glare from the water allowed me to show the rocks below the surface. It also removed some of the shine from the leaves so the colors pop.

Edit: Knew I had a before and after demo shots somewhere. The last 2 were shot at 16 mm, the first is no polarizer, the second is using one. Besides the water, notice the difference in the leaves in the background.

original.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


original.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


original.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,555
Location
GA
Using a CPL on a wide angle lens is fine. You just need to know how and when to use it. I posted this in another thread but will do so again. This shot was done at 17 mm using a CPL. I used it to remove the glare from the wet rocks and water. Removing the glare from the water allowed me to show the rocks below the surface. It also removed some of the shine from the leaves so the colors pop.

On a wide angle, yes. On an ultrawide, you can run into issues.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
4,830
Location
Newcastle, Wa
On a wide angle, yes. On an ultrawide, you can run into issues.

Well, last I heard 17 and 16 mm are considered ultra-wide. I get what you mean though, but like I said, when and how are important. When I shot DX, I used them on my Tokina 12-24 with similar results. I could dig around for one of those shots but I'm not going to. Landscape is what I do, I know how my tools work, my point doesn't change.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,555
Location
GA
Well, last I heard 17 and 16 mm are considered ultra-wide. I get what you mean though, but like I said, when and how are important. When I shot DX, I used them on my Tokina 12-24 with similar results. I could dig around for one of those shots but I'm not going to. Landscape is what I do, I know how my tools work, my point doesn't change.

Sorry, I assumed DX.
Your results with the tokina 12-24 don't match mine, but then again, I shot mainly between 12-14mm on the tokina and that's where the IQ/Vignette issues occurred.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom