# Use a CPL with an ND Grad setup?



## ahsanford (Jan 13, 2014)

All,

A rudimentary ND grad question here. I'm off to shoot some beach landscapes for vacation soon. I'm keen to use my infrequently used Lee ND grad filters (I have the 100mm outrigger which takes the 4"x6" ND grads), but I also shoot my _handheld _ (i.e. touristy) landscapes with a CPL to manage the sky.

Is it really just a case of using the CPL _or_ the ND Grads? Is it possible to use both simultaneously?

1) _Mechanically_ can you use both? It would seem that a lens-directly-mounted CPL would be pain to adjust as it would also turn the adaptor ring (and therefore the filter) for the Lee system.

2) _Compositionally_, is there value in using both simultaneously? Surely the ND grads will solve the sky contrast problem, but a CPL could then be used solely to tame glare and reflections. But how often does that come up?

I ask b/c the lens in question will likely be a rental with a filter diameter that I do not presently own. So I am asking if I should be renting a CPL to go with that diameter knowing that ND grads will be used for certain? 

Thanks for your advice!

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 13, 2014)

Yes, it's possible. With the Lee system, for independent rotation of CPL and ND grad, you need one of two setups. You can either use the Lee tandem adapter and a second foundation kit to hold the CPL, or you can get the 105mm front filter adapter for your existing holder, and a 105mm CPL for that.

It can certainly be useful to combine a CPL and an ND grad.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 13, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> 1) _Mechanically_ can you use both? It would seem that a lens-directly-mounted CPL would be pain to adjust as it would also turn the adaptor ring (and therefore the filter) for the Lee system.
> 
> 2) _Compositionally_, is there value in using both simultaneously? Surely the ND grads will solve the sky contrast problem, but a CPL could then be used solely to tame glare and reflections. But how often does that come up?



Yes you can use both, and without the items listed by Neuro you can do it by carefully positioning your CPL or hand holding your ND grads.

How often does it come up? Often if you are shooting water.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 13, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 1) _Mechanically_ can you use both? It would seem that a lens-directly-mounted CPL would be pain to adjust as it would also turn the adaptor ring (and therefore the filter) for the Lee system.
> ...


Great feedback, folks.

I found a Joe Cornish how-to video here with the 105mm option...
http://bcove.me/rk08k3ji

Moving forward with this idea, the two 82mm lenses I am kicking around for this application are the Canon 16-35 II and the Zeiss 21. Given that...

1) Does that focal length tilt you more towards one of your three recommendations, i.e. is one of those solutions better for those lengths? Presume I'm using the appropriate 82mm Lee wide-angle ring with my standard Lee 100mm holder.

2) Are those focal lengths still worth pursuing a CPL for? They should manage reflections just fine, but UWA lenses and CPLs can get that 'pseudo-vignetting of sky' associated with the polarizing effect being variable as a function of angle to the sun. In other words, at those focal lengths, is a CPL doing more harm than good? (Presume copious sky is in frame -- I'm shooting the beach, not a waterfall...)

Thanks again!

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 14, 2014)

For UWA, the 105mm is better - doubling up the holder would likely cause mechanical vignetting. I do find CPLs useful on UWAs for shooting foliage, etc. Many times the uneven polarization in blue sky doesn't detract from the image.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2014)

Considering...

Neuro Option 1:
Tandem ring ($32) + a second Lee Holder ($88) + 4"x4" CPL (varies, but $215 seems the good quality price point) = $345

Neuro Option 2:
105mm ring ($64) + 105mm CPL (varies, but $300 seems the good quality price point) = $364

(Takesome1's option of handholding doesn't really fly for longer exposures, so I'm going to pass on that. Thank you, though!)

Now I'm all for hoarding gear for future use, but I use my current ND grad setup once a year. I have the money for the above but cannot reasonably justify it, and I don't see buying it inspiring me to shoot with it much more often.

So, revising Neuro's #1 option above:
Tandem ring ($32) + a second Lee Holder ($88) + renting a 4"x4" CPL ($30 from LR) = $150

And I have a choice to make. Shoot either with an ND Grad _or_ a CPL, or pay $150 to do both simultaneously.

Other ideas? Or are my options about right?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 14, 2014)

How about: 4"x4" CPL (varies, but $215 seems the good quality price point), Wimberley Plamp to hold grad ND ($36) = $251?

—or, since I infer from your first post that you have a screw-in CPL sized for your lens already—

How about: Wimberley Plamp to hold grad ND ($36) = $36?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> How about: 4"x4" CPL (varies, but $215 seems the good quality price point), Wimberley Plamp to hold grad ND ($36) = $251?
> 
> —or, since I infer from your first post that you have a screw-in CPL sized for your lens already—
> 
> How about: Wimberley Plamp to hold grad ND ($36) = $36?



A plamp?! Absurd. Great. Absurd and great. 

Have Lee Filters representatives heard of said plamp? You think they'd sue. 

Thx,
A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2014)

So I've done some reading on the Lee setup.

I have the Foundation kit, and I have WA rings to avoid the adaptor ring vignetting problems. But still, I saw the attached (see below) regarding stacking ND grads and the potential for vignetting still exists. 

But surely the 105mm CPL going on the end of this -- despite the larger diameter -- could _still_ vignette if it was thick enough, right? If I was to buy a 105 CPL, Should I buy the beastmaster thick Lee one, stick to my trusty B+W Kaesemann ones? There are a bunch of higher quality/price options at this diameter than what I am accustomed to seeing. Any recommendations?

- A


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 14, 2014)

You might be interested in some quick test shoots I posted on another thread regarding vignetting with the Canon 16-35mm II lens, the Lee Foundation Kit, & a 105mm B+W polarizer.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19029.msg356705#msg356705

As far as a recommendation goes, my vote is for the 105mm screw-in polarizer. Even though they are all frighteningly thick and you have to watch-out for vignetting on an UW lens. Over here in Oregon having an easy-to-use polarizer while on the coast is not optional for me, but mandatory... My Lee ND grads & 105mm polarizer are almost always mounted on the 5D3...

Richard


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2014)

JustMeOregon said:


> You might be interested in some quick test shoots I posted on another thread regarding vignetting with the Canon 16-35mm II lens, the Lee Foundation Kit, & a 105mm B+W polarizer.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19029.msg356705#msg356705
> 
> ...



Great thread. Super useful, thanks.

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 14, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Any recommendations?



Yes, if you are renting lenses, get something else other than the 16-35mm II. Stick with the 21mm Zeiss idea.
Do you really want to go 16mm wide?
I find 24mm enough for all of my landscapes. 
This solves the vignetting problem.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Any recommendations?
> ...



Sure, and look what it will take to overcome...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ntt=polarizer&refineSearchString=&sts=ma&N=0&Ntt=105mm+B%2BW+105+KSM+C-POL

The pricier one of the two has the front element stepped out to a wider diameter to maintain the solid ring for rotation without vignetting. 

Agree. I think the Zeiss call is a wiser one.

- A


----------



## dlleno (May 21, 2014)

with apologies for resurrecting this thread, it does seem better than further polluting the 16-35mm f/4 thread with additional LEE questions. since the experts are already subscribed here. 

I just wanted to ask you *ahsanford*, and with my gratitude for asking the questions you have: did you end up purchasing the massively thick and massively priced B&W 105mm wide angle CPL?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/856348-REG/B_W_66_1071051_105mm_Kaesemann_Circular_Polarizer.html

or the moderately thick and still-expensive flavor:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10873-REG/B_W_65016142_105mm_Kaeseman_Circular_Polarizing.html


----------



## mackguyver (May 21, 2014)

It can also be done (less elegantly) with circular filters as seen below, which is a good example as I needed to cut glare from the water & window glass & slow down the water to blur it. Yes, the photo is crap, but I was just playing around as I waited for the clouds to clear during sunset (didn't happen). I used a ND 1.2 filter with a C-PL on my TS-E 24mm with the ND going on first and the C-PL screwing into it so it's easy to adjust.


----------

