Wide Angles and Filters

emalvick · 01-20-2012, 09:51 AM

With the Tamron Rebate and viewing of the clubs for the Sigma, Pentax, and Tamron offerings in the 10-24 mm range, I'm thinking of picking up such a lens. I never really considered it before as I was generally satisfied with stitching photos together, although not happy.

One thing I wonder is how well do these lenses perform with a filter on the front? Right now I have the Tamron 17-50 mm, and use of my CPL filter can cause a very minimal amount of vignetting. Does anyone have problems like this with their lenses at their widest zoom?

I am thinking that a polarizer probably isn't worth much at such a wide angle, but perhaps it would be for closer shot, architectual etc., and I'm certainly curious as to using ND filters.

I see examples here where people are definitely using ND filters.

I doubt this will affect my decision to buy such a lens. The minimal vignetting that occurs with my 17-50 mm lens doesn't affect my overall composition. I'm probably cropping out more due to corrections for image alignment or distortion anyway. I'm just curious.

ironlionzion · 01-20-2012, 10:32 AM

Because a wide angle can take in more of the sky and from different angles than a normal lens, you'll get uneven polarization which will cause some parts of the sky to turn darker, usually at the outer edges. You sure its vignetting and not this effect that is going on with your Tamron at 17mm?

Ron Kruger · 01-20-2012, 10:40 AM

The cheaper the filter and the cheaper the lens the more vignetting you will experience, especially at wider angles.

Anvh · 01-20-2012, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Ron Kruger

The cheaper the filter and the cheaper the lens the more vignetting you will experience, especially at wider angles.

Are you saying vignetting is cause by the quality of the filter?

Anyway getting a slim fliter should be a smart move to get to lower the vignetting.

For the rest... ND filter might be nice if you want to slow the shutterspeed down but for the rest they have little use.
GND filters can be useful for landscapes but these days i just make a HDR photo instead, to fill in the burned out sky.

demp10 · 01-20-2012, 11:13 AM

You may also get a thin larger diameter filter and use a very thin step up ring. This way you may even be able to use a very short hood also.

emalvick · 01-20-2012, 01:39 PM

I know it is "vignetting" in that there is a distinct black shadow in each corner on that lens (about 3-5 pixels, depending on the aperture). It only occurs with a filter in-place. I'm not necessarily complaining, and I understand the thin filter, etc. In the 17-50, I have a thin filter, and I still see this problem. Perhaps my lens is flawed some-how . It is my sharpest zoom lens, and I can hardly be upset about cropping away 5 pixels (puzzled a bit). As far as polarizers in general go, I understand how they function at wide angles, and I know I am not seeing that effect at 17 mm. Well, I do see it, but that is not the problem I'm talking about, and that problem is usually not limited to a few pixels.

However, my primary question was really just whether people see this type of problem (vignetting) with their ultra-wide-angled lens and filters. I'm taking it that the answer is no, which is good... I wasn't looking for advice on which filters to use. I'm actually quite a minimalist when it comes to filters. I don't even use a UV filter much. I'd consider it on some of these ultra-wide angles given the diameter of the glass, but I usually have more faith in my lens hood at protection than another piece of glass.

Anvh · 01-20-2012, 02:15 PM

polarizers often are a bit thicker then other filters.
With Pentax has a list what filters can be used and if you need to use a slim filter or not, no idea if sigma or tamron has such a list.

demp10 · 01-20-2012, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by emalvick

However, my primary question was really just whether people see this type of problem (vignetting) with their ultra-wide-angled lens and filters.

Yes. All lenses have some degree of vignetting, some more some less. You can see it even without a filter. It usually increases as you get to wider angles and faster apertures. A lens profile can fix it very easily. Most modern lenses have profiles available and there is software to create profiles for older ones.

A filter, depending on its thickness, will probably make it worse so you may consider stopping down the lens a bit, or build a profile with the filter on for automatic correction.

northcoastgreg · 01-20-2012, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by emalvick

Perhaps my lens is flawed some-how

Not likely. Some lenses do vignette with filters. The Tamron 17-50 is a great bargain so you can't expect it to excel at everything.

Originally posted by emalvick

my primary question was really just whether people see this type of problem (vignetting) with their ultra-wide-angled lens and filters.

I didn't have any problems with the DA 12-24 provided I used thin filters. The DA 16-45 doesn't seem to have a problem even with thicker filters. The first version of 18-55 did, however, suffer from this issue.

Originally posted by demp10

All lenses have some degree of vignetting

That's light falloff rather than the black shadows the OP is writing about, which are cast by the edge of the filter.

01-20-2012, 09:51 AM	#1
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	Wide Angles and Filters With the Tamron Rebate and viewing of the clubs for the Sigma, Pentax, and Tamron offerings in the 10-24 mm range, I'm thinking of picking up such a lens. I never really considered it before as I was generally satisfied with stitching photos together, although not happy. One thing I wonder is how well do these lenses perform with a filter on the front? Right now I have the Tamron 17-50 mm, and use of my CPL filter can cause a very minimal amount of vignetting. Does anyone have problems like this with their lenses at their widest zoom? I am thinking that a polarizer probably isn't worth much at such a wide angle, but perhaps it would be for closer shot, architectual etc., and I'm certainly curious as to using ND filters. I see examples here where people are definitely using ND filters. I doubt this will affect my decision to buy such a lens. The minimal vignetting that occurs with my 17-50 mm lens doesn't affect my overall composition. I'm probably cropping out more due to corrections for image alignment or distortion anyway. I'm just curious.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Torn between 3 wide angles	onesikej8	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	01-19-2012 06:12 AM
FF and Wide Angles	paperbag846	Pentax DSLR Discussion	38	08-11-2010 12:01 AM
How to fix bulge effect using Wide angles?	hockmasm	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	05-25-2010 06:09 AM
polarizers and wide angles	ryno	Photographic Technique	6	02-25-2008 12:19 PM
Help on wide angles!	Jfax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	12-20-2007 12:19 AM

01-20-2012, 10:32 AM	#2
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	Because a wide angle can take in more of the sky and from different angles than a normal lens, you'll get uneven polarization which will cause some parts of the sky to turn darker, usually at the outer edges. You sure its vignetting and not this effect that is going on with your Tamron at 17mm?

01-20-2012, 10:40 AM	#3
Ron Kruger Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 534	The cheaper the filter and the cheaper the lens the more vignetting you will experience, especially at wider angles.

01-20-2012, 10:52 AM	#4
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Ron Kruger The cheaper the filter and the cheaper the lens the more vignetting you will experience, especially at wider angles. Are you saying vignetting is cause by the quality of the filter? Anyway getting a slim fliter should be a smart move to get to lower the vignetting. For the rest... ND filter might be nice if you want to slow the shutterspeed down but for the rest they have little use. GND filters can be useful for landscapes but these days i just make a HDR photo instead, to fill in the burned out sky.

01-20-2012, 11:13 AM	#5
demp10 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Atlanta Photos: Albums Posts: 602	You may also get a thin larger diameter filter and use a very thin step up ring. This way you may even be able to use a very short hood also.

01-20-2012, 01:39 PM	#6
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642 Original Poster	I know it is "vignetting" in that there is a distinct black shadow in each corner on that lens (about 3-5 pixels, depending on the aperture). It only occurs with a filter in-place. I'm not necessarily complaining, and I understand the thin filter, etc. In the 17-50, I have a thin filter, and I still see this problem. Perhaps my lens is flawed some-how . It is my sharpest zoom lens, and I can hardly be upset about cropping away 5 pixels (puzzled a bit). As far as polarizers in general go, I understand how they function at wide angles, and I know I am not seeing that effect at 17 mm. Well, I do see it, but that is not the problem I'm talking about, and that problem is usually not limited to a few pixels. However, my primary question was really just whether people see this type of problem (vignetting) with their ultra-wide-angled lens and filters. I'm taking it that the answer is no, which is good... I wasn't looking for advice on which filters to use. I'm actually quite a minimalist when it comes to filters. I don't even use a UV filter much. I'd consider it on some of these ultra-wide angles given the diameter of the glass, but I usually have more faith in my lens hood at protection than another piece of glass.

01-20-2012, 02:15 PM	#7
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	polarizers often are a bit thicker then other filters. With Pentax has a list what filters can be used and if you need to use a slim filter or not, no idea if sigma or tamron has such a list.

01-20-2012, 03:19 PM	#8
demp10 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Atlanta Photos: Albums Posts: 602	Originally posted by emalvick However, my primary question was really just whether people see this type of problem (vignetting) with their ultra-wide-angled lens and filters. Yes. All lenses have some degree of vignetting, some more some less. You can see it even without a filter. It usually increases as you get to wider angles and faster apertures. A lens profile can fix it very easily. Most modern lenses have profiles available and there is software to create profiles for older ones. A filter, depending on its thickness, will probably make it worse so you may consider stopping down the lens a bit, or build a profile with the filter on for automatic correction.

01-20-2012, 07:56 PM	#9
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,174	Originally posted by emalvick Perhaps my lens is flawed some-how Not likely. Some lenses do vignette with filters. The Tamron 17-50 is a great bargain so you can't expect it to excel at everything. Originally posted by emalvick my primary question was really just whether people see this type of problem (vignetting) with their ultra-wide-angled lens and filters. I didn't have any problems with the DA 12-24 provided I used thin filters. The DA 16-45 doesn't seem to have a problem even with thicker filters. The first version of 18-55 did, however, suffer from this issue. Originally posted by demp10 All lenses have some degree of vignetting That's light falloff rather than the black shadows the OP is writing about, which are cast by the edge of the filter.