Polarizer for the 10-22

I am getting the canon 10-22, and am wondering if I need the slim polarizer, because I was told to get it for my 17-85, and I hate that you can't put a normal cap on it. Any info would be appreciated, and if you have pics with a regular one at 10 mm could you post it.
Thanks, Dave

Neither lens requires a slim filter. I actually thought that my 10-22 needed a slim filter until I spoke with a B+W rep and tried out a regular filter at a photo expo last weekend. the regular filters work with focal lenths 16mm or longer; 10mm is a 16mm equivilent on a 1.6 crop body, so it works. If you bought the polarizer for your 17-85 locally and it was a salesperson that told you that you need a slim filter, you should go back and exchange it for a regular one and educate the salesperson.

doidinho wrote in post #4180343
Neither lens requires a slim filter. I actually thought that my 10-22 needed a slim filter until I spoke with a B+W rep and tried out a regular filter at a photo expo last weekend. the regular filters work with focal lenths 16mm or longer; 10mm is a 16mm equivilent on a 1.6 crop body, so it works.

This might depend on the "regular" one. I get some vignetting wide open on mine with regular polarizer. Slim works ok

I stacked a slim over a normal filter and it was not a problem.

cool, thanks. I think I will look into a regular one and see what happens.
Dave

There are a couple of threads about the use of polarisers on UWA lenses, particularly with regard to changes in sky tone across the image. I don't have lnks to hand, sorry, but a search should find them if you are interested.

I have a cheapo ebay one and i have yet to have any viginetting...

Note that 'filter' is not the same as 'polarizer' when it comes to filter thickness and the need (or not) for a slim! A UV filter is thinner inherently than a polarizer because the polarizer needs to have the rotatable element.

On 135 format, a 24mm lens (that AOV is the same as 15mm on APS-C body) would never need a 'thin polarizer', let alone a 'thin filter'!

From what I've seen so far it seems that filters, like everything else, don't have standardized dimensions and there are very slight differences in the height of the filter threads above and below the actual polarizing glass and differences in the rotating ring. For one CPL to show vignetting and another one doesn't show it, all you need is a fractional difference in one or more of those dimensions.

The slim ones overcome this problem and in doing so, many of them do not accept a standard pinch cap. The standard ones vary and some work well with no vignetting while others have mild to moderate vignetting.

If you decide to go with B+W, be sure to get the 'F-Pro' style of polarizer. Its thicker than a slim, but thinner than a 'regular'. No vignetting whatsoever, and you're able to use the lens cap (and its about $40-$50 cheaper than the slim version). Yes...I do have one so I'm speaking from experience. For good deals on genuine B+W filters, check www.hvstar.net Hope this helps.

PS You need to be careful when using a CPL on a UWA lens...it will produce uneven sky effects across the frame due to the lens' 107-degree angle of view.

Thanks, I will get the b+w one.

What argyle said... I'm pretty sure the B+W F-PRO did not vignette on my 10-22 when I had it.

I have seen a photo online taken at 10mm with a regular cir-pol, and you can see it in the corners.

*edit.. found it*

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …/ef-s_10-22_review_2.html