Aaargh Canon, Why ! - new 16-35L

Just received a new Canon 16-35 L (actually, work issued me a new one, to replace my old one)
They have changed the filter thread from 77mm (which matches the 24-70 and 70-200) to an 82mm thread.

Now rather than just having random 77mm caps in my bag, I have to have a 77mm and an 82

I also have to go and buy another polarizing filter , after just acquiring my second 77mm one (because taking it of the 70-200 and putting it on the 16-35 takes to long)


Thanks of listening to my rant

Any one else have an issue with the oddball filter size ? Or just frustrated with canon in general

Echo63 wrote in post #13806424
Just received a new Canon 16-35 L (actually, work issued me a new one, to replace my old one)
They have changed the filter thread from 77mm (which matches the 24-70 and 70-200) to an 82mm thread.

Now rather than just having random 77mm caps in my bag, I have to have a 77mm and an 82

I also have to go and buy another polarizing filter , after just acquiring my second 77mm one (because taking it of the 70-200 and putting it on the 16-35 takes to long)


Thanks of listening to my rant

Any one else have an issue with the oddball filter size ? Or just frustrated with canon in general

Until recently, I had several different sized lenses in my bag - its kind of a pain, but you should check out a Lee 4x6 filter system, just have an adapter ring in each size. Makes life easier.

get all 82mm filters and a step up ring.


filter size was actually a factor in my going with a 17-40 instead of a 16-35II... Eventually I think I will get the 16-35 anyway... f/4 just isn't cutting it.

The TS-E24 MkII also has an 82mm cap but without the "Ultrasonic" titling for obvious reasons.

Bob

Just get an 82mm CPL and you're all set.

Canon actually replaced the 16-35 with the Mark II that uses the 82mm filter in 2007. It's definitely an improved lens, I'm sure they would have stuck with a 77mm filter if at all possible, and didn't make the change just to frustrate you.

You could have gotten the 17-40/4 instead... it uses a 77mm filter.

Step rings are an option... but a problem if you use lens hoods. I'd never want to not use lens hoods, so I only use step rings in an emergency and to stack my lenses for storage.

Echo63 wrote in post #13806424
Just received a new Canon 16-35 L (actually, work issued me a new one, to replace my old one)
They have changed the filter thread from 77mm (which matches the 24-70 and 70-200) to an 82mm thread.

Now rather than just having random 77mm caps in my bag, I have to have a 77mm and an 82

I also have to go and buy another polarizing filter , after just acquiring my second 77mm one (because taking it of the 70-200 and putting it on the 16-35 takes to long)

Thanks of listening to my rant

Any one else have an issue with the oddball filter size ? Or just frustrated with canon in general

i have a polarizer for my 16-35L II but i seldom use a CPL on UWA. i would not buy step up rings unless you use an 82mm CPL alot. my "landscape lenses" are all different sizes 67mm, 77mm, and 82mm. i have CPLs for all three, graduated neutral densities for the last two and Uvs for each lens.

when i'm doing landscapes that require CPL i think it's inefficient and a waste of time to be moving a CPL from lens to lens.

the filter is larger for a reason; the lens has been much improved. that's well worth it to me.

ed rader

let's see if I read this right...

work GIVES you a new lens... and you complain about the filter size???

Yep annoying and the reason I went 17-40 + 24L but the 16-35 is a great one and I may still go to one someday.

For GND you could try a square Lee filter and just hold it over the lens.

Echo63 wrote in post #13806424
Just received a new Canon 16-35 L (actually, work issued me a new one, to replace my old one)
They have changed the filter thread from 77mm (which matches the 24-70 and 70-200) to an 82mm thread.

Now rather than just having random 77mm caps in my bag, I have to have a 77mm and an 82

I also have to go and buy another polarizing filter , after just acquiring my second 77mm one (because taking it of the 70-200 and putting it on the 16-35 takes to long)


Thanks of listening to my rant

Any one else have an issue with the oddball filter size ? Or just frustrated with canon in general

Maybe its time you re-think the use of filters. I don't know why anyone would put a cheap piece of glass in front of a $1800 piece of glass. A polarizer on that wide of a lens looks like crap, and use the gradient tool if you need a GND filter.

why is it bad to use a polarizer on a wide lens?

You get some really odd, uneven patterning due to the width of the frame vs the angle at which a CPL is effective.

Echo63 wrote in post #13806424
Just received a new Canon 16-35 L (actually, work issued me a new one, to replace my old one)
They have changed the filter thread from 77mm (which matches the 24-70 and 70-200) to an 82mm thread.

Now rather than just having random 77mm caps in my bag, I have to have a 77mm and an 82

I also have to go and buy another polarizing filter , after just acquiring my second 77mm one (because taking it of the 70-200 and putting it on the 16-35 takes to long)


Thanks of listening to my rant

Any one else have an issue with the oddball filter size ? Or just frustrated with canon in general

You get a free lens, and you're complaining about having to buy a new filter?

Tommydigi wrote in post #13806910
why is it bad to use a polarizer on a wide lens?

Its not...it all depends on the situation.

Fitting hood on the top of step-up ring could be a challenge.

The 82mm is the reason why Im hesitant to add the 16-35 II to my bag in the future. Everything I would own has either a 72mm (most L primes) or 77mm for the L zooms (24-105, 24-70, 70-200 II etc.). It gets really expensive if I want to use the 16-35 II for landscapes.

Lee Filter system. Get the WAR-072, WAR-077 & WAR-082 adapter rings and you will be set.

Then you buy filters 1x (unless you destroy one accidently. [don't ask, it wasn't pretty seeing $190 CPL get destroyed]) and life is good!