# What UWA options do I have with 77mm Filter size?



## K-amps (Feb 6, 2012)

Guys what UWA lens options do I have; if I want to stay with a 77mm Filter size?

FF compatible. I already have the 24-105mm so something "noticeably" wider.

Would prefer f2.8 but can work with f4 +IS as a compromise.

I do not mind getting used gear.. so older lenses are game (as long as they are AF).

Would prefer the price to remain under $900. Appreciate the experiences of others on this.

Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2012)

17-40mm f/4L. 16-35mm f/2.8L (MkI). Don't know of any others with front threads, although lenses that lack them usually take gelatin filters in a rear mount.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 17-40mm f/4L. 16-35mm f/2.8L (MkI). Don't know of any others with front threads, although lenses that lack them usually take gelatin filters in a rear mount.



+1 Thanks John; have you compared the 16-35i with the 17-40?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2012)

Sorry, no - I've never used either, only the 16-35 II.


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 6, 2012)

I have the 17-40, but I've never used the 16-35 (either version) for comparison. At f/16, it is pretty soft in the corners at 17mm on full frame, but it is handy for specific effects, particularly where you can use the distortion creatively. Once you get to 24mm though, I find it is sharper than my 24-105 and there is certainly less barrel distortion. As with any UWA, use of polarisers is problematic, if you point it towards the sky and you can't really use it fully zoomed out with a second section of a Lee filter set, as the adaptor is in frame in the corners.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 6, 2012)

Regarding the 17-40 vs 16-35 v1, check out http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

They have a few comparisons and are pretty unbiased...


----------



## K-amps (Feb 6, 2012)

+1 Awin/Kernauk : Thanks for the link: 

Between the 2; the 17-40 seems to have a significant resolution advantage on the wide end where I need it.


----------



## Flake (Feb 6, 2012)

It all depends on which filter you want to use. Square filters such as Cokin & Lee just need the adaptor ring changing which isn't expensive, and you can get a polariser for the system too. If it's circular screw in types, then many lenses are fat no because the first element is large, but because internal ones are, so if there's a large amount of plastic surrounding the lens, you might get away with an adaptor, which are worth trying because they are very cheap.

As for IS on UWA lenses, you're a bit stuck, Nikon make an f/4 VR one but it isn't well regarded, reciprocal shutter speeds mean you should be able to get quite slow without the need for it.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 6, 2012)

Flake said:


> It all depends on which filter you want to use. Square filters such as Cokin & Lee just need the adaptor ring changing which isn't expensive, and you can get a polariser for the system too. If it's circular screw in types, then many lenses are fat no because the first element is large, but because internal ones are, so if there's a large amount of plastic surrounding the lens, you might get away with an adaptor, which are worth trying because they are very cheap.
> 
> As for IS on UWA lenses, you're a bit stuck, Nikon make an f/4 VR one but it isn't well regarded, reciprocal shutter speeds mean you should be able to get quite slow without the need for it.



Have screw in type CP's and ND's @77mm already since I have the 24-105 and 70-200 f2.8.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 6, 2012)

Also for what it's worth, the rear of the 17-40 ALSO accepts rear gel filters, even though I haven't utilize them much personally, if you find a need for it, it's there as well. I dont know if the 16-35 v1 has it, but i would suppose it would?


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 6, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> I have the 17-40, but I've never used the 16-35 (either version) for comparison. At f/16, it is pretty soft in the corners at 17mm on full frame, but it is handy for specific effects, particularly where you can use the distortion creatively. Once you get to 24mm though, I find it is sharper than my 24-105 and there is certainly less barrel distortion. As with any UWA, use of polarisers is problematic, if you point it towards the sky and you can't really use it fully zoomed out with a second section of a Lee filter set, as the adaptor is in frame in the corners.



to solve this issue buy a cheap ebay cokin filter holder (the plastic one) only a couple of bucks
and get a hack saw then saw off the extended holder section so you only have 1 filter slot. I find doing this stops the corner interference on full frame at 16mm. it introduces another problem in that light gets in between the filter and the lens so you need to make a little shroud that goes around the edge of the square filter and over the lens barrel. hope this helps


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 6, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 17-40, but I've never used the 16-35 (either version) for comparison. At f/16, it is pretty soft in the corners at 17mm on full frame, but it is handy for specific effects, particularly where you can use the distortion creatively. Once you get to 24mm though, I find it is sharper than my 24-105 and there is certainly less barrel distortion. As with any UWA, use of polarisers is problematic, if you point it towards the sky and you can't really use it fully zoomed out with a second section of a Lee filter set, as the adaptor is in frame in the corners.
> ...


Thanks for the tip, but i already have a cheap Cokin P mount holder, but I'd rather not use the cheaper filters. Besides, if I only use the base Lee holder I don't have a problem, it's only when/if I need to position the polariser in a different plane to the grad, but as a polariser often causes problem with landscapes at 17mm, due to the uneven polarisation, I'm limited to when I can use it anyway. To be honest, the sort of shooting that I usually do, I use the 17-40 much less than I used to since getting the 5D MkII and probably even less now that I have the 24 MkII with its much better image quality.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 6, 2012)

do the lee filters not fit into the cokin p mount? I only have cokin ones


----------



## revup67 (Feb 7, 2012)

For further lens comparisons (center, mid and edges) see http://www.the-digital-picture.com]Tools/ISO12233 [url]http://www.the-digital-picture.com[/url] choose Tools / ISO12233 and compare any two lenses IQ.

I know you are looking for 77mmm but if you do the above and checkout the difference between the 16-35 mki and Mkii (if considering)- it is night an day. Perhaps you are relegated to 77mm due to an investment in filters (?)though not sure. If so, I hear you. Spent quite a bit on various 72mm's filters but it would seem it all boils down to IQ I would assume, so I surrendered and got the 16-35mkii. My gripe about the 82mm is scarcity and higher cost - perhaps that is your concern..I couldn't agree more


----------



## K-amps (Feb 7, 2012)

revup67 said:


> For further lens comparisons (center, mid and edges) see Tools/ISO12233 [url]http://www.the-digital-picture.com]http://www.the-digital-picture.com]Tools/ISO12233 [url]http://www.the-digital-picture.com[/url] choose Tools / ISO12233 and compare any two lenses IQ.
> 
> I know you are looking for 77mmm but if you do the above and checkout the difference between the 16-35 mki and Mkii (if considering)- it is night an day. Perhaps you are relegated to 77mm due to an investment in filters (?)though not sure. If so, I hear you. Spent quite a bit on various 72mm's filters but it would seem it all boils down to IQ I would assume, so I surrendered and got the 16-35mkii. My gripe about the 82mm is scarcity and higher cost - perhaps that is your concern..I couldn't agree more



Yes!


----------

