Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 28 Jan 2013 (Monday) 22:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Buying 10-22 this week. What filter does not work?

 
Grand_gator
Member
Avatar
222 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: North Central Fl.
     
Jan 28, 2013 22:57 |  #1

Like the title says: I am buying the EF-S 10-22 this week, and know for a fact that one of the frequent uses will be on the beach for sunsets.

So for those of you that have this lens: what filters do you use when wanting to protect the lens, and not create flares and not vignette.

Right now I have for my other 77mm lens a Hoya HD UV and a B&W K circular polarizer (both regular). Will I need a slim version?

Also, how useful is the hood for this lens? It seems like it will be a pain to carry around in a regular bag.

Thanks a lot in advance!


5Diii / 70-200 L IS II / 100-400 L IS II / 24-105 L IS / 100mm 2.8 L Macro IS / Σ 35mm 1.4 Art / Σ 85mm 1.4 Art / EF-S 10-22mm / EF-S 17-55mm IS / EF 70-300mm IS / 50mm 1.8 II / 600 EX RT + 430 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Jan 29, 2013 02:00 |  #2

The hood is close to completely useless. It can help rarely, if you have strong side-light trying to enter the lens. It offers minimal (but better than nothing) protection.

My advice: if you're worried about protecting the front element, keep the cap on when not in use.

As the ING Direct guy says.."save your money", and skip any "protection filter".


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NinetyEight
"Banned for life"
Avatar
3,200 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 26
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Dorset - England
     
Jan 29, 2013 02:07 |  #3

I used a B+W slim CP filter with no problems (except for some patchy skies at 10mm, which was expected) no visible vignetting.
I also used the Lee holder with a 77mm wide-angle adaptor and ND grads but It was recommended to fit just two filter slots to it rather than the three supplied.

The hood is useless IMO to combat flare - The lens is superb at handling this anyway so not an issue. It does give a bit of protection from knocks though.

I never fitted a UV unless i was in salt air or on a beach with sand being blown around.


Kev

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Jan 29, 2013 03:13 |  #4

  • First off - you've bought one of the most flare-resistant lenses ever. Don't ruin it by sticking a so-called 'protective' filter in front of it.
  • Yes, the hood is useless. Don't bother with it.
  • A CPL may cause problems with uneven skies. But it's still worth having for glare reduction. Just be aware that images with lots of blue sky may look strange, so check straight after shooting. Your current CPL will probably be OK. Check out possible vignettng before splashing out on a slim filter.
  • A GND (even a reverse GND) will be essential for those sunsets. Screw-ins aren't much use, so you'll want drop-ins. Lee, Hitech or Cokin are the names to look out for depending on your budget.
  • You may be tempted by a Variable ND. Don't. They really aren't much use at wide angles.


You'll want to play around a lot to get the right composition for those sunset shots. UWA images can look really barren if you've got a large swathe of emptiness in the foreground. It may take a while to get used to just how close you need to be to foreground objects.

Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Grand_gator
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
222 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: North Central Fl.
     
Jan 29, 2013 17:57 |  #5

Frank, Kev & Kel. Thanks for your comments.

I specifically wanted to know about protecting it when used at the beach from sand and spray.


5Diii / 70-200 L IS II / 100-400 L IS II / 24-105 L IS / 100mm 2.8 L Macro IS / Σ 35mm 1.4 Art / Σ 85mm 1.4 Art / EF-S 10-22mm / EF-S 17-55mm IS / EF 70-300mm IS / 50mm 1.8 II / 600 EX RT + 430 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jt354
Senior Member
401 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Jan 29, 2013 18:07 |  #6

AFAIK the standard depth C.Pol should be fine, but I don't like the effect on UWA (personal preference). It worked on my Sigma 10-20mm


Zenfolio (external link)
flickr (external link)
Gear: Canon 60D / Canon G12 / Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 / Canon 35mm f/2 IS / Canon 85mm f/1.8 / Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 / Speedlite 430 EXII / Slik 700DX legs / Cullmann MB6 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,835 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Likes: 947
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Jan 29, 2013 18:10 as a reply to  @ Grand_gator's post |  #7

If you only have one filter on at a time (as you should) you do not need a slim version for this lens.

I got a slim version without front threads and returned it when I realized that even with 2 regular filters stacked there is just a bit of mechanical vignetting at 10mm and none at 12mm.

And as Frank pointed out the hood is useless.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 554
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jan 29, 2013 20:08 |  #8

you have to watch the CPL on a UWA. you can get some pretty uneven lighting in the sky.


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
halitime
Goldmember
Avatar
1,271 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Lantzville B.C. Can.
     
Jan 29, 2013 23:32 |  #9

I use a Kenko Pro 1D,same as Hoya,CPL with no problems.


Gear List : 1D MK II n,Gripped XSi,70-200 f4,300 f4 IS,Canon 24-105 f4,35 f2 IS,EF 50 1.8 MK I,EF-S 10-22,Canon 1.4 II Extender,Canon 25mm Ext Tube,YN 468/460 II,RF 602's
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/halitime/sets/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CactusJuice
Senior Member
853 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 29, 2013 23:41 |  #10

Grand_gator wrote in post #15546451 (external link)
what filters do you use when wanting to protect the lens, and not create flares and not vignette.

I don't use filters for protection. With lens I use Cokin circular polarizer, ND and graduated NDs.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,191 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 482
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jan 29, 2013 23:48 |  #11

Grand_gator wrote in post #15546451 (external link)
Like the title says: I am buying the EF-S 10-22 this week, and know for a fact that one of the frequent uses will be on the beach for sunsets.

So for those of you that have this lens: what filters do you use when wanting to protect the lens, and not create flares and not vignette.

Right now I have for my other 77mm lens a Hoya HD UV and a B&W K circular polarizer (both regular). Will I need a slim version?

Also, how useful is the hood for this lens? It seems like it will be a pain to carry around in a regular bag.

Thanks a lot in advance!

for flare protection pretty useless. for impact protection okay. i usually don't use the hood on an UW unless i'm walking around with it. i never use a dust cap unless the lens is in my bag. i do use multi-coated UV filters for protection though. if the filter causes flare remove it.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NinetyEight
"Banned for life"
Avatar
3,200 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 26
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Dorset - England
     
Jan 30, 2013 02:11 |  #12

Grand_gator wrote in post #15549586 (external link)
Frank, Kev & Kel. Thanks for your comments.

I specifically wanted to know about protecting it when used at the beach from sand and spray.


As I said, I use a UV filter if there is any chance of sea spray or sand being blown around (can't remember the make but it is a pretty good one). You only have to be near the sea on some days and everything gets coated in a thin film of salt water!
In these circumstances I keep the camera in my bag and only get it out when needed.


Kev

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jroovs
Member
232 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2011
Location: SW Ontario
     
Feb 02, 2013 08:50 |  #13

Will a 77-62 step down adapter work ok with this lens? I already have CPL and NDs in this size, picking this lens up tomorrow.


7D, 6D, 24-105L, 100 2.8, 400 5.6 L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Feb 02, 2013 10:09 |  #14

If it were me, I'd definitely get and use the hood even though it's a pain and only offers minimal protection. Any protection it offers will still be better than a UV filter.

The nice thing about wide angle lens hoods is that they are usually shallow enough that you can still cap the lens easily, even with the hood on in the usual shooting position. Might be easier with one of those "center pinch" type caps, though.

B+W filters use a pretty slim frame to begin with (just avoid stacking multiple filters)... I'd suggest trying the one you've got before shelling out the money for a slim, which for similar quality will undoubtedly be more expensive.

If you do find you need a slim filter, be aware they aren't all created equal. Some of them are "slimmed" by not having front threads, which means you can't use a standard cap on them and kinda sucks. I think all the B+W slim filters do have front threads, though.

I very rarely use "protection" filters. Yes, I have UV filters in my camera bag just in case I need them shooting in a sandstorm or something... but they see relatively little use since I started shooting digital (which filters UV already... when shooting film, a lot of it is over-sensitive to UV, so the filter got a lot more use). I often have split seconds to get a shot and no time to stop and think "Hmmmm... Is my protection filter causing flare?", remove it, stow it in my bag, then go back to shooting. 10+ years without protection other than when absolutely necessary, 50,000 to 100,000 images a year, I have yet to see a lens damaged for lack of protection. But that's probably because I virtually always use the lens hood... even on wide angle lenses.

No, a 77-62mm step down will not work on an UWA like the 10-22. It would cause very heavy vignetting. Buy a 77mm filter.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ramon-uk
Senior Member
689 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 220
Joined Mar 2006
     
Feb 02, 2013 10:15 |  #15

It is worth having a hood even if only to protect against knocks, but the original hood is unlikely to protect against anything.

The Canon EW 83 II hood is a much better option, although originally designed for the 20-35 lens it works perfectly without modification on the 10-22 and takes up a lot less room.

I had a spare EW 83B (originally from a 28-70) and after a bit of surgery to reduce the length now works very well.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,343 views & 0 likes for this thread
Buying 10-22 this week. What filter does not work?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is sfchen
928 guests, 315 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.