Canon EF 16-35 f4 IS USM and Kase revolution filters

Stuart Philpott

Stuart Philpott

Messages
4,413
Name
Stu
Edit My Images
Yes
Does anyone use this combo...if so do I need an 82mm kit or 77, to avoid vignette at 16mm?

Many thanks

stu
 
Elliot thank you for the reply, apologies slow in response and possibly for making you repeat yourself, despite using the search function I simply couldn't find that reply I read from you recently. Buddy I know little of landscape as a discplin, it's so different from wildlife but I like the way it slows me down and makes me ponder.

Would it be possible to show me in an image what "a tiny bit of vignette at 16mm" looks like please? I perceive I will stack filters.CPL and ND spring to mind, but as before I know little, hence my Q.

Thankyou !!
 
Stuart Philpott said:
Elliot thank you for the reply, apologies slow in response and possibly for making you repeat yourself, despite using the search function I simply couldn't find that reply I read from you recently. Buddy I know little of landscape as a discplin, it's so different from wildlife but I like the way it slows me down and makes me ponder.

Would it be possible to show me in an image what "a tiny bit of vignette at 16mm" looks like please? I perceive I will stack filters.CPL and ND spring to mind, but as before I know little, hence my Q.

Thankyou !!
Click to expand...


I'll sort something out tomorrow.

Do you use LR? The lens correction does help a lot in reducing the vignetting but I'll take some screen shots with and without lens correction.

I'll take some images with the CPL alone as that is the thickest filter and also a CPL and ND
 
ecoleman said:
I'll sort something out tomorrow.

Do you use LR? The lens correction does help a lot in reducing the vignetting but I'll take some screen shots with and without lens correction.

I'll take some images with the CPL alone as that is the thickest filter and also a CPL and ND
Click to expand...
Elliot when you have time that would be fantastic.there is no rush .

I shoot wildlife with a 400DO ii and a 1DX mark ii.I have the little 16-35 and also the 100mm f2.8 macro.............but I'm an out and out handholder with the DO. I process first stage in canon's DPP..it's where I started and I like the results..although it might be a bit clunky, everything is slow web wise for me it's all I know, so the clunkiness doesn't really bother me. I then move 16 bit TIFF's to PSCC where I use topaz denoise as a plug in.

Elliot, I'm properly brain dead with PP......but members of the wildlife toggin fraternity have been really patient educating me, so I have a base skillset, hmmm leastways with shallow DOF wildlife frames.
The perdominant tools I use are superb mate so i've never really delved into lens correction, if a DOii image isn't sharp enough to cut.then I put that down to my failings delete move on.

So basically although I could probably work out how to use lens correction, fundamentally i'd rather not........in part that's my personal struggle wiith post in part want it as near right in camera as possible, given all my failings.
 
justinminns said:
Kase recommend going up a size larger than you need to avoid vignetting so Id recommend getting 82mm which will also future proof you.
Click to expand...
Justiin thankyou...yeah I know they do.......................I try to do some reading before asking Q's.................I hoped another member might share some real world experience of the lens I use at FF.

There is only one lens I covet at the small end ( oh for sure I covert others but they be 5 or 600mm ;)) that's an EF 70-200 f2.8 IS ii, which, I believe is also 77mm filter thread. So future proofing isn't probably a thing for me.

I take your point Justin and am grateful, tis just landscape will never replace my sheer joy and wonder of mum nature's birdz and beasties and trying to capture them in images . As an aside exploring subjects that don't run off is good for me. It's challenging makes me think in a different way

thanks for chiming in
 
Sorry I should have mentioned, I did trial a set of the filters you are looking at (I was tempted to switch from my LEE Filters to a lighter set up but missed the grads too much) and with the larger size adaptor I could shoot at 14mm on full frame with no vignetting if that helps.

I'm the other way round, spend all of my time shooting things that dont move but occasionally enjoy the challenge of trying to keep wildlife in the frame and in focus!
 
Last edited:
Here are some images. I should point out that I no longer own the EF 16-35 so these images are shot on the RF 14-35 at 16mm.
I did have the EF 16-35 before moving over the RF but the results were pretty much the same.

I've shot 6 images;

Bare lens with and without Lens corrections (You can see that even bare the lens shows signs of vignetting without lens correction)
CPL attached with and without Lens corrections
CPL+ND with and without Lens corrections

As you can see there is some vignetting but nothing that can't easily be dealt with in post.

Bare in mind the the images with the CPL have some banding in the sky which is normal when using a CPL on a wide angle lens as part of the image is polarised and part not (or not fully polarised).

1. Bare Lens without Lens Correction

Bare - LC Off.png

2. Bare Lens with Lens Correction
Bare - LC On.png

3. CPL attached without Lens Correction
CPL - LC Off.png

4. CPL Attached with Lens Correction
CPL - LC On.png

5. CPL + ND without Lens Correction
CPL+ND - LC Off.png

6. CPL + ND with Lens Correction
CPL+ND - LC On.png
 
Last edited:
justinminns said:
Sorry I should have mentioned, I did trial a set of the filters you are looking at (I was tempted to switch from my LEE Filters to a lighter set up but missed the grads too much) and with the larger size adaptor I could shoot at 14mm on full frame with no vignetting if that helps.

I'm the other way round, spend all of my time shooting things that dont move but occasionally enjoy the challenge of trying to keep wildlife in the frame and in focus!
Click to expand...
Justin don't apologise I'm grateful to just talk to you guys really appreciate the time taken to reply. Ha" keeping in frame and focus" the joy's of wildlife had a blummin Goshawk appear from slightly behind almost above my head lastweekend. Me I had just narrowed my focus points down to as small as the camera allows to make sure I was not about to crawl a huge distance in stubble to a lump of mud. My target was a hare. So there's me with a chance in a lifetime and little chance of making the grade especially with my abilities. The horrible record shot did confirm young Gos, but with much heartache at the resulting image. That said Gos is a rare rare thing the image in my head as the kidlet became aware of me tail flared maybe 6 yards away will haunt me a while;)
 
ecoleman said:
Here are some images. I should point out that I no longer own the EF 16-35 so these images are shot on the RF 14-35 at 16mm.
I did have the EF 16-35 before moving over the RF but the results were pretty much the same.

I've shot 6 images;

Bare lens with and without Lens corrections (You can see that even bare the lens shows signs of vignetting without lens correction)
CPL attached with and without Lens corrections
CPL+ND with and without Lens corrections

As you can see there is some vignetting but nothing that can't easily be dealt with in post.

Bare in mind the the images with the CPL have some banding in the sky which is normal when using a CPL on a wide angle lens as part of the image is polarised and part not (or not fully polarised).

1. Bare Lens without Lens Correction

View attachment 432442

2. Bare Lens with Lens Correction
View attachment 432443

3. CPL attached without Lens Correction
View attachment 432444

4. CPL Attached with Lens Correction
View attachment 432445

5. CPL + ND without Lens Correction
View attachment 432446

6. CPL + ND with Lens Correction
View attachment 432447
Click to expand...
Elliot, just base, monster gratitude that you would take YOUR time to do this for an utter stranger. Thank you for the kindness!!

It will take me a while to really assimilate those images but they are ( will be) of huge use to me.

Bud what are the negatives to using the larger set, IE 82mm....obviously slightly more expensive ,and step up ring price to add in. What would a novice to all this miss, that you with more experience know about? To extrapolate I'm curious as to what are the practical reasons you went against what Kase advised.ie what Justin mentioned, the recommendation to step up?

Thank you
 
To be honest if I was to buy again, I would probably get the 82mm filters.

I originally went for the 77mm so that I could continue to use my lens hoods but after a while I bought the Kase lens hood which has a bigger ring anyway.

I’m invested in the 77mm filters now so would be expensive to change but I really don’t find the 77mm to be an issue unless I get down to 14mm which is rare.

The only downside of the larger filter that I can think of is not being able to use your lens hoods with the filter ring attached.

Whatever size you go for, get yourself a ring for each lens and attach it permanently to your lens. Having to remove and reattach a ring from one lens to another completely negates the convenience of a magnetic system
 
Last edited:
Great stuff Elliot and again thanks for your time.............I always figured I'd need the kase hoods ( not knowing much). Last sentence is sage !!

Bud, I know I've said "ta" many times, but that's me in life: we all rush around like idiots few make time to be kind when that happens it deserves a thanks

cheers for the above
 
I havent heard about the kase revolution filters but since you talk about nd and polarized I wanted to let you know, PolarPro has a nd+pl filter in 1 filter.
I used it ALOT on my 16-35mm f4 and never noticed any vigneting.
It is also not so expensive, for only 100$ on B&H, It is a very good quality filter with little to no colorcast.

Sorry if it is a bit off topic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top