[Sigmund]

Hi all,

Wonder if someone can advise on whether a standard unit will work with no or minimum vignetting, or is a slim unit required?

(I amazed by how much you can spend on a good 77mm job).

[interested_observer]

Good Evening (well, I guess that it's tomorrow for you down in Oz)....

Using a CPL on the 12-24 is a bit different than with other lenses. CPLs generally, do not work very well on the lens (and we are talking in particular about the sky), because its focal length. Beyond about 24mm, the lens is too wide for the polarization to really work across the entire field of view. It can certainly still be used, however the polarization effect will be concentrated in one area. If that is the effect that you are going after, then it will work just fine.

• Polarizers
• Circular Polarizers & Wide-angle Lenses ? Have Camera Will Travel
• Understanding & Using Polarizing Filters
• Circular Polarizer Filter Review

In terms of removing reflections from water and other reflective surfaces, then it acts just fine. It also adds saturation to colors.

So, with that out of the way, I actually do have a CPL for my 12-24. I picked up a thin, low profile one just so that I would either not have (or mitigate as much as possible) the potential of vignetting. I picked up a Nikon PL2 77mm. It was not cheap, I think that it ran me a bit over $100 (also its the same size needed for the A* 300/f4) and that was a number of years ago. Nikon no longer sells filters - but I do have to say, this does do a stunning job. It is sufficiently thin enough that I have not experienced any vignetting with it. And, yes when used with sky shots, I do get the non uniform application of the polarization (and have felt that I ruined a few shots using it). You need to really evaluate the shot. Also, the 12-24 does do a fine job in terms of contrast and pulling the colors. Depending on the shot, having the reflection off the water can add to the image and other times detract from the image. If its a shot that you really do want, I would shoot it both with and without, so that you can decide afterwards what turned out better.

Hope that helps....

[DSims]

I picked up a Nikon PL2 77mm. It was not cheap, I think that it ran me a bit over $100 (also its the same size needed for the A* 300/f4) and that was a number of years ago.

I have 2 or 3 of the same filter (at least 2 different filter sizes) that I use and like, although I got them for a pretty good price when Ritz was closing all its stores.

I'm sure there are many other options for you, but it's a good CPL.

[calsan]

Tangent alert!!
Question was: is a slim filter required?
:-)

[Tas]

Sigmund,

I can't say I have the 12-24, but I use a standard version 77mm CPL on my Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6. The only vignetting issue I normally have with the standard size CPL is when I want to use it in combination with slide in filters like the Cokin P series. At 10mm with the standard CPL,screw in 77mm adapter and wide angle P mount bracket (this is the slimmer version) I can see the P mount bracket in the corners of the frame. Of course the fix is simple: zoom in until you no longer see the bracket (which is normally around 11-12mm.)

I know this is a different lens, but if it's not an issue at 10mm on the Sigma, hopefully you will get the answer you're looking for soon.

Regards,

Tas

[interested_observer]

There are a lot of filters available from a wide range of vendors. I picked up a thin mount and it works just fine. In stating that - it begs the question as to how thick a filter frame could be used and still NOT vignette. Personally, I don't know, since I only have that one filter in the 77mm size.

Let me add that there are two models the PL and the PL II. I have the PL II (thin) and have not experienced any vignetting even at 12mm. I went looking for the specifications - in order to find the frames' thickness, and found the following... This appears to be the extent of any information on the filter.

• https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/21603/~/differen...rizing-filters

This may help a bit - however it does not specify the frames thickness nor any of the overall physical dimensions (other than the 77mm filter width). The II version does appear to be substantially thinner than the original. The original starts vignetting at focal length of 35mm. That the only real information I could glean from the web.

I got up to take a couple of shots in the back yard between moon set and sun rise using the O-GPS1 (Astrotracking capability) that arrived yesterday. Then, I am going back to bed for a while, at least till its time to get up and go to work.

[Sigmund]

Many thanks for your generous responses folks.

Yes, my question was just about slimness but I've got so much more of benefit (unlike yesterday's Federal budget). Appreciate those links i_o. The optic aperture has been opened ;-)

I guess the Lee system is an option to control costs in the long run but it would be expensive up front, and I'm into landscape and bird pics with a lot of walking around so it might be a bit awkward. Step up/down adapters may be a better option. Standardising lenses to share filters makes sense where possible (so the next tele should be the DA 300!).

Seems like the price range of quality brands from reliable suppliers is $100 - $140. There's a Nikon still on the market so I'll check the flavour.

(Astro-tracking: shmick).

[DSims]

This brand has high IQ and is a good value, but I don't think I've used their CPLs (only ND and UV). Looks like it might be thin enough - you could give it a try:

Super DHG

[Sigmund]

Thanks DSims. Yeah, I've read good things about Marumis so I got one second hand at Amazon. Plus a step-down ring so it will do double duty. B&W and Nikons were about double the price.

Choice is limited at the moment here in Oz and there are export barriers in the US (free trade!) so the Marumi will come via a trans-shipping service.

[interested_observer]

It occurred to me that there is an answer to the original question of how thick a filter (frame) so as to not vignette on the lens. We all have one - the hood. Using the flower peddle hood, the cut back at the corners, provides the indication as to the maximum thickness you can have, that will not vignette. Staying below that point will be a good estimate of how thick a filter frame is useable.

[Sigmund]

Good thinking Batman.

Assuming the factory design was empirically sound.

[Sigmund]

For info - LensTip's comparative test: Polarizing filters test - Results and summary - Lenstip.com

[GlassJunkie]

I ran a real life test for you in my "lab" (a high contrast surface in crappy lighting- office closet doors) where I tested the same a year ago. The first image is a DA12-24 with a 77 B+W KSM MRC nano (and hood which shouldn't matter or change anyway). No problem, use the same CPL on the 16-50 DA* 2.8. Second image is my everyday protector a NISI LR Gold UV (very thin). No problem either. Interchange it with a B+W MRC Nano 77 UV depending on what I am fumbling around with in the field. Hope these help... BTW the shadow in the lower right is my shoulder. "Lab Error"