Reading mode: Light Dark

filters for 12-24mm Nikkor

Go to last post
D

digitall

Senior Member
Messages
2,214
Reaction score
7
Location
Perth, Western Australia, AU
I've just bought the 12-24mm Nikkor and need a good circular polarizing filter which will take the lens cap. A protective UV filter would probably be a good idea too (but not, of course, with the polarizer) considering the large front element.

Would you recommend Hoya or B&W (Kaesemann)? Thanks for your help.
--

 
tao.design said:
I prefer B+W filters because they're easier to clean. I find the
Hoyas are prone to smudging more even with cleaning fluid.
Click to expand...
Listen to Todd :-) I personally use Hoya Pro1's on my Sigma 10-20, because the extra 2mm does result in some vignietting at the very wide end. Would love to be able to replace that with a B+W, but after owning one, I would not touch a B+W slim filter even if they gave them away for free.

If you have not done so already, you should read up on the perils of using a polarizer on a WA lens.

--
My display of mediocrity
http://groovygeek.deviantart.com/gallery/
 
I haven't read anything against using a polarizing filter with a WA lens and would have thought that they were very widely used for landscapes and cityscapes.
BoyOhBoy said:
tao.design said:
I prefer B+W filters because they're easier to clean. I find the
Hoyas are prone to smudging more even with cleaning fluid.
Click to expand...
Listen to Todd :-) I personally use Hoya Pro1's on my Sigma 10-20,
because the extra 2mm does result in some vignietting at the very
wide end. Would love to be able to replace that with a B+W, but
after owning one, I would not touch a B+W slim filter even if they
gave them away for free.

If you have not done so already, you should read up on the perils of
using a polarizer on a WA lens.

--
My display of mediocrity
http://groovygeek.deviantart.com/gallery/
Click to expand...
--

 
digitall said:
Thanks Todd. So does that mean that at the shorter focal lengths the
effect of, say the deepening of the sky, tails off toward the
periphery of the frame and, presumably, looks unnatural?
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. The effect won't be even across the frame, so depending on the image, the polarization might look unnatural. This isn't to say that it can't work, just something else to consider when shooting with a very wide angle and a CP.

I don't regularly use polarizers, so I'm not sure if the effect will be localized to the center of the image. I think it should depend on the angle of light and the "degree" of polarization you dial in.

Todd
--
Snaps: http://tao.emptyfortunecookie.com
Concerts: http://www.ishootshows.com
 
Your reply prompted me to do a search and I came up with a good example of the effect of which you write on the much-maligned Ken Rockwell site:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm

I may just use bracketed exposures to capture sky and foreground. Thanks again for your help.

Jeremy
tao.design said:
Yes, exactly. The effect won't be even across the frame, so depending
on the image, the polarization might look unnatural. This isn't to
say that it can't work, just something else to consider when shooting
with a very wide angle and a CP.

I don't regularly use polarizers, so I'm not sure if the effect will
be localized to the center of the image. I think it should depend on
the angle of light and the "degree" of polarization you dial in.
Click to expand...
--

 
digitall said:
Your reply prompted me to do a search and I came up with a good
example of the effect of which you write on the much-maligned Ken
Rockwell site:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm
I may just use bracketed exposures to capture sky and foreground.
Thanks again for your help.
Click to expand...
Some of the information at the above link is marginal at best. Bracketed exposures at 10 or 12 mm are very, very difficult to align properly even if taken on a sturdy tripod, because even minute changes in the camera position show up as distortions that do not overlay properly, particularly towards the edges of the frame. You should also not underestimate the difficultly of correctly blending images. My attempts, as well as most posted on the web, have the tell-tale signs of overlay that show up as halos at the bright-to-dark transitions. Lots of quality time with a tablet and manual layer masks in PS usually take care of that problem, but I don't like spending too much time in front of a computer manipulating images. A bracketed exposure does nothing to eliminate glare from shiny surfaces, which a CPL does quite effectively. On the rare occasions where I have to shoot mid-day, the CPL is firmly affixed to my lens. I have also bought a full complement of Hitech GNDs in Cokin P-mount in order to reduce the need for overlays.
--
My display of mediocrity
http://groovygeek.deviantart.com/gallery/
 
I use very often CPL with this lens and mostly results are better than without CPL.It's just a case of taste. Anyway you don't have to worry much about vognetting becouse this lens don't really need extra thin CPL. So it means you don't have to spend much money for filter. Yust try in shop.

Have fun with this amazing lens!
Piotr
 
am i nuts?

i had to buy an expensive slim singh-ray filter to avoid vignetting experienced with a normal B+W, even then it is marginal at 12mm, and the ultra slim entailed a plastic slip on cap since no front threads for lens cap to grasp. ask bob singh.

and the poster who dissed B+W is off base -- at least as their digital pro quality line. at $160 US or more a pop, they do the job intended quite nicely.

they clean up nicely too -- better than most CPLs -- as other posters here have observed.

though i would suggest cokin P filter and get some ND grads and reverse grads for your lens, rather than polarizer check the singh-ray site for what they are capable of.
 
digitall said:
Would you recommend Hoya or B&W (Kaesemann)? Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...
Hoya Pro1 D's work just fine on my Tokina 12-24mm, which I guess will be the same as the Nikon version, and they have the front threads for attaching a pinch-cap to (or another filter if you wanted). I can't comment on cleaning them, as I've never had to, though.

Note that at 12- 16mm you will, as Todd said, get some degree of uneven polarisation in the sky, although this can be corrected to a degree with colour control points in Capture NX, or just not dialling a lot of polarisation in. It's not like the sky is an even tone anyway ...

Example slightly corrected in the top left, shot at 12mm:



Dunno if that's any help or not ... :-S

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/
 
digitall said:
just bought the 12-24mm Nikkor and need a good circular polarizing
Click to expand...
Part of the physical laws of optics include the "Brewster angle" which explains why you cannot get an even pol effect wider than 24mm for colour saturation or 20mm for controlling reflections on DX format.

This lens is too wide for a good quality pol effect most of the time. My advice is save your money and concentrate on shooting from further back at longer focal lengths than those available on the 12-24 when you want a good pol effect.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Whilst the camera and lens can be important the photographers skill and imagination are much more important in achieving good pictures.
 
Thanks for your advice. I took multiple, bracketed, shots of the boats and, whilst some were spoilt by subject movement others were spot on. After all, small camera/tripod movements with wide angle lenses are not magnified as they are with telephoto lenses. Anyway, I often find it perfectly simple to simply stack two exposures, one for highlight and one for shadows, and erase, say, the overexposed areas to reveal the layer with the highlights exposure underneath. After all, it is usually only relatively small areas which are burnt out. It is surprising what can be accomplished by such simple means.

Of course you are quite right that a polarizer can eliminate glare (except from metallic surfaces) and enriches colour depth.
BoyOhBoy said:
Some of the information at the above link is marginal at best.
Bracketed exposures at 10 or 12 mm are very, very difficult to align
properly even if taken on a sturdy tripod, because even minute
changes in the camera position show up as distortions that do not
overlay properly, particularly towards the edges of the frame. You
should also not underestimate the difficultly of correctly blending
images. My attempts, as well as most posted on the web, have the
tell-tale signs of overlay that show up as halos at the
bright-to-dark transitions. Lots of quality time with a tablet and
manual layer masks in PS usually take care of that problem, but I
don't like spending too much time in front of a computer manipulating
images. A bracketed exposure does nothing to eliminate glare from
shiny surfaces, which a CPL does quite effectively. On the rare
occasions where I have to shoot mid-day, the CPL is firmly affixed to
my lens. I have also bought a full complement of Hitech GNDs in
Cokin P-mount in order to reduce the need for overlays.
--
My display of mediocrity
http://groovygeek.deviantart.com/gallery/
Click to expand...
--

 
Thanks Piotre, I thought vignetting was a problem at 12mm at max. aperture. Not so?
Piotr 01 said:
I use very often CPL with this lens and mostly results are better
than without CPL.It's just a case of taste. Anyway you don't have to
worry much about vognetting becouse this lens don't really need extra
thin CPL. So it means you don't have to spend much money for filter.
Yust try in shop.

Have fun with this amazing lens!
Piotr
Click to expand...
--

 
Nice picture! What depth of field. I see it's at 12mm. Thanks for your comments which are of help. I think it just depends upon the particular situation -- whether the effect is successful or not. Sometimes the whole sky is not visible in a picture anyway so the unevenness may not be apparent.
martinch said:
Note that at 12- 16mm you will, as Todd said, get some degree of
uneven polarisation in the sky, although this can be corrected to a
degree with colour control points in Capture NX, or just not dialling
a lot of polarisation in. It's not like the sky is an even tone
anyway ...

Example slightly corrected in the top left, shot at 12mm:



Dunno if that's any help or not ... :-S

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
--

 
Well, as I just wrote in another reply, there may be cases where the whole sky is not in the picture. I.e., it may be partly obscured by buildings or trees. Really it is hard to generalise but you are talking from experience, I presume, whereas I am speculating. On the whole I'd have thought it to be useful for some pictures and a 77mm filter can be used with other lenses with an adapter. Thanks for your comments.
Leonard Shepherd said:
digitall wrote:
Part of the physical laws of optics include the "Brewster angle"
which explains why you cannot get an even pol effect wider than 24mm
for colour saturation or 20mm for controlling reflections on DX
format.
This lens is too wide for a good quality pol effect most of the time.
My advice is save your money and concentrate on shooting from further
back at longer focal lengths than those available on the 12-24 when
you want a good pol effect.
Click to expand...
--

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top