# Lee Filters Announces EF 11-24mm f/4L Support



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 3, 2015)

```
Lee Filters has announced support for Canon’s EF 11-24 mm f/4L with the <a href="http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150" target="_blank">SW150 Mark II filter system</a> adaptor ring.</p>
<p>From Lee Filters</p>
<blockquote><p>You’ve asked, we listened! Announcing the newest addition to our SW150 Filter System… The Canon 11-24mm Adaptor Ring for the Mark II!</p>
<p>*Please note that due to the physical size of this lens, and the extremely wide angle of view, the SW150 filter holder will vignette at the widest angles. To avoid this we recommend using a minimum focal length of 13.5mm when using the filter holder with two filter slots and 12.5mm when using the holder with one filter slot.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM $2999: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA11244.html" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119028-REG/canon_9520b002_ef_11_24mm_f_4l_usm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00T3ERXKE/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00T3ERXKE&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=SKIW33AKPAGADHBN" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 3, 2015)

Wow, lots of gear, lots of hassle, lots of expenses to convert an 11mm lens into a 12.5mm or 13.5mm lens. AmazingLEE weird business model.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 3, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Wow, lots of gear, lots of hassle, lots of expenses to convert an 11mm lens into a 12.5mm or 13.5mm lens. AmazingLEE weird business model.



Agreed, this seems very weird considering the only reason most people buy the 11-24 is because of the 11mm perspective.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 3, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Wow, lots of gear, lots of hassle, lots of expenses to convert an 11mm lens into a 12.5mm or 13.5mm lens. AmazingLEE weird business model.



This is for people that want the best ultra wide angle zoom lens in Canon's lineup and not to have to also own a 16-35 or 17-40. Shooting landscapes at 11mm is quite difficult in a lot cases and a lot of people will find they don't shoot all that often at the widest angle this lens offers.

The 11mm is there if you want it, but without a filter. You can get great results in the right light. However, on a recent trip to Scotland, I would have loved to shoot at 14mm with a Little Stopper on the 11-24.

We all have different things that we'll tolerate when shooting, and I'd much rather have a filter option than a second lens in the bag that covers basically the same focal range.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 3, 2015)

A lot of 11-24mm f4L owners already have the filters, so it is a very cheap alternative to have a filter option on the 11-24. If they made a solution that covered everything, we all had to start from scratch and the filter sizes would be enormous. I will buy the adaptor ring, but I would not buy a new filter system.


----------



## AbsN (Sep 3, 2015)

If only they'd bring out an SW150 adaptor for the TSE-17 so that you could use filters and do full shift stitching.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 3, 2015)

I wonder if the Wondapanner will have the same issue or I wonder if they will actually design a mount and filter system which works on the 11-24mm without vignetting? 
Lets face it...with the Lee system...you might as well go and buy a Sigma 12-24mm mkII...save a TON of cash and have a workable 12mm system with filters.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 3, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I wonder if the Wondapanner will have the same issue or I wonder if they will actually design a mount and filter system which works on the 11-24mm without vignetting?
> Lets face it...with the Lee system...you might as well go and buy a Sigma 12-24mm mkII...save a TON of cash and have a workable 12mm system with filters.



No they won't, the Wonderpana system, I have one for the TS-E 17, is 145mm based and actually vignettes worse than the Lee 150mm based system.

I did some tests a while ago just putting the naked 145mm polarizer resting on the petals of my 11-24 and the vignetting is bad. See here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26145.msg540959#msg540959


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 3, 2015)

It looks a pretty cumbersome and exceptionally expensive piece of kit.
I've seen another system for the Samyang 14mm.
It is massive in real life. This must be too.
Wind would be an issue with that surface area.
Not sure if it is overkill. 
Black Card / Black Cloth might be a much cheaper and simpler solution.
I'm tempted to get the Canon 12-24mm.
It would be a shame to get it an not have a filter system.

I can understand in a way Lee charging alot for their filters as this is their skilled piece of work.
The filter holders price is a joke. They are only pieces of plastic.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 3, 2015)

I can see the need for filtering in some situations. BUT ... this is no solution, it is a bad joke. 

Why do UWA lenses with bulbous front elements not all come standard with a rear filter slot? That would be the only acceptable solution for me rather than those homungous contraptions in front of the lens. Rear filter would be so much easier, less cumbersome in the field and less expensive.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 3, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I can see the need for filtering in some situations. BUT ... this is no solution, it is a bad joke.
> 
> Why do UWA lenses with bulbous front elements not all come standard with a rear filter slot? That would be the only acceptable solution for me rather than those homungous contraptions in front of the lens. Rear filter would be so much easier, less cumbersome in the field and less expensive.



Remove the lens and switch rear filters around sand, wind and saltwater? You could only use one filter and you could not adjust them up down for the horizon, plus they are not the best quality and very brittle.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 3, 2015)

Filter systems are a massive reason between good landscapes and great landscapes and thus the disappointment with the filter solutions for the 11-24.

We all know that it's the 11-15mm on the wide side that must us yearn for this lens. Half that focal length is compromised by the Lee filter.

That been said, I have a quick question:

LCD tv's now come in curved variants which look flat when positioned properly in front of them. Theoretically, can a curved filter be created to accommodate these bulbous lenses? Then again, shifting a 'curved' grad presents other issues again


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 3, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I can see the need for filtering in some situations. BUT ... this is no solution, it is a bad joke.
> 
> Why do UWA lenses with bulbous front elements not all come standard with a rear filter slot? That would be the only acceptable solution for me rather than those homungous contraptions in front of the lens. Rear filter would be so much easier, less cumbersome in the field and less expensive.



It has a rear filter slot. Just not as flexible as filtering the front.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 3, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Why do UWA lenses with bulbous front elements not all come standard with a rear filter slot?
> ...


ah, OK. Excellent. Should work at least for non-graduated ND filters including "stopper" filters. Graduated ND would be difficult/limited. Pol filters I am not sure how often they really can be useful on lenses with such extremely wide FOV. At least if there is blue sky involved in a shot pol filters never worked for me.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 3, 2015)

Lee responds! This is actually kind of fast for them -- they often take ages to update their product lines.

I'm actually _impressed_ you can stack two filters down to 13.5mm and still use one at 12.5mm. Remember, this is a retrofit Mk II version of a system meant for the Nikon 14-24, which already requires crazy pricey 150mm filters. To fully cover 11mm without vignetting would take you out of that limited/expensive sandbox and put you in an _even more_ limited/expensive sandbox. 

Has anyone actually done the math on 11mm filters stepped off of the front element by the distance of the hood? 200x250mm grads for, what, $250 a pop, anyone?

So crying foul that this is expensive and doesn't let you use your 11mm prime : to its utmost with filters is a bit like a guy saying "I sure do love my 50mm f/0.9 lens, but I wish it weren't so big and heavy..." 

- A


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 3, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Lee responds! This is actually kind of fast for them -- they often take ages to update their product lines.
> 
> I'm actually _impressed_ you can stack two filters down to 13.5mm and still use one at 12.5mm. Remember, this is a retrofit Mk II version of a system meant for the Nikon 14-24, which already requires crazy pricey 150mm filters. To fully cover 11mm without vignetting would take you out of that limited/expensive sandbox and put you in an _even more_ limited/expensive sandbox.
> 
> ...



Well said


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 3, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Yep -- you don't use polarizers at these kind of focal lengths for sky management. If you did, that nasty polarizer sky darkening / pseudo-vignetting occurs.

But ultra wide angle users still need polarizers to tame reflections -- for landscapes with water, or for interiors with a lot of glass.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 3, 2015)

I think a tougher question here is: will anyone (Lee, Wonderpana, etc.) ever make a filter system to get this lens all the way to 11mm? 

Given the following considerations:


Nikon has dominated the landscape gear community for some time with that 14-24 option -- it's not just a unique FL range, it was also the sharpest UWA zoom by a non-trivial margin for many years. As a result, *I would hazard a complete guess that there are a solid fifty times as many 14-24 lenses in the field today than there are 11-24 lenses in the field*. That will change, I'm sure, but that ratio would imply that Lee should work hard to delight Nikon 14-24 users and only do enough to placate Canon 11-24 users. 


That $3k asking price for the 11-24 will do little to increase it's number of users.


*If Lee/Wonderpana did offer an 11mm solution someday, they would get little/no pull-through of sales from other ultrawide users.* Why would anyone using a Nikon 14-24 or Tamron 15-30 (a large camp without a solution right now) pay the extra money and struggle with the unnecessary size of that huge rig when the SW150 Mk II / FreeArc options already exist and will surely be smaller and cost less? That means making a system for an 11-24 lens is likely to have very, very, very low sales numbers and will therefore require a comically high price.

So in my mind -- call me a pessimist -- but I don't ever see Lee or Wonderpana making a complete, vignette-free at 11mm solution for the 11-24. The business model for that must be radioactive with non-profitability.

So if I owned an 11-24 (and I do not, for this very reason!) my needle would likely be hovering over 'pretty pumped' on my happiness meter about this current Lee offering. _It might be all we ever get._

- A


----------



## RolandW (Sep 3, 2015)

One thing that everyone should know is that it is impossible to design an adapter for the Canon 11-24 and get full focal length range if you are planning on using any size of flat filter. The first obstacle is the built in lens hood which projects forward of the front element at the top and bottom by about a half an inch, keeping any large filter from getting close to the front element. The other thing in the way is the front of the lens glass its self. The lens front is so bulbous and has such a wide field of view that a very large flat filter would need to be about a half an inch BEHIND the front of the glass in order to give an un obstructed view, which is obviously impossible. I have no doubt that Lee has their adapter system located to get the widest possible view through their filters, and the dream of a better adapter from anyone for the Canon 11-24, with more usable focal length range, is truly an impossible dream.

What we need is spherical shaped polarizers and solid ND filters for our ultra wide bulbous front lenses, along with a practical way to mount them, but I doubt that third party suppliers would ever come up with those. Canon on the other hand has the resources and technical skills to do that, so lets pressure them for a polarizer solution for the 11-24. And of course I understand the issues of sky variation when using a polarizer on a wide angle lens, but still very much want the option for water reflection control, as well as enhancement of many landscape scenes. 

I have the round 145mm WonderPana filters and bayonet mounting adapter for my Canon 17mm TS-E, and would like them to also offer an adapter for the 11-24, even though I know the limitations of focal length would be about the same as the Lee system. Right now the rear gel filter slot on the 11-24 gives me solid ND functionality, even though it requires un mounting the lens, and handling the gel filters.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 3, 2015)

RolandW said:


> The lens front is so bulbous and has such a wide field of view that a very large flat filter would need to be about a half an inch BEHIND the front of the glass in order to give an un obstructed view, which is obviously impossible.



I've heard this elsewhere on this forum, and I must admit that I don't understand. See my picture, where I've dropped a 117 degree horizontal FOV over the 11-24 from the top. Surely, once the filter (blue) gets large enough, it will cover the entire FOV and do it's job without vignetting, correct?

I may 100% have the front-to-back location of that 117 degree arc incorrectly placed -- I chose the lens hood cutouts. But even if I got that wrong and the green arc is much closer to the mount, the same principle applies, doesn't it? If the filter is larger than the FOV, it should work, right?

(Not trying to pick an argument here, I honestly don't understand your point. Please straighten me out, thanks.)



RolandW said:


> I have no doubt that Lee has their adapter system located to get the widest possible view through their filters, and the dream of a better adapter from anyone for the Canon 11-24, with more usable focal length range, is truly an impossible dream.



Put another way, swap your red text above with "through the filters Lee _chooses to give us_", but the dream is only impossible for financial reasons that I've enumerated earlier in this thread. Surely, an epically large filter, like dinner plate sized, would work if Lee chose to offer such a monster.

- A


----------



## lightcreator (Sep 3, 2015)

There is NiSi Nano 180mm system that will let you use the EF 11-24mm in full range. 
(Not just 13.5mm with 2 filters and 12.5mm with 1 filter).

There is NiSi Nano 150mm system that will let you use the TS-E 17mm with all tilt and shift movements + 82mm Step Down Ring Adaptor (not just like 7 or 8 degree movement instead of 11 degree?).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 3, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



I regularly use ultra wides with a polariser...you just choose where to put the dark spot for composition balance. Even with out a polariser, the sky at 11mm has a huge variation in brightness.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 3, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


+1
I have the polariser on my Zeiss 15/2.8 75% of the time. A lot of people seem to believe that polarisers should not be used wider than 24mm, because of uneven blue skies. A GMC says, pay some attention to where you put the dark spot, accept a minor post processing job and you get your rewards.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Sep 3, 2015)

It really bugs me that Canon decided to go 11mm and f4 instead of 14mm and f2.8 with this ens. I hope they offer a 14-24 f2.8 in the future. If I ever went back to full frame cameras, I would need the Nikon 14-24 to match the AOV of my Sigma 8-16, while gaining considerable aperture speed. I don't see there being enough landscape photographers using the 11-24 lens to justify having Lee produce a whole new system for this lens. So far it seems to be limited to people who wanted a new 11mm toy to play with and architecture photographers who are already stitching images to get super wide.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Sep 3, 2015)

Eldar said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


Shooting the sky with a polarizing filter is bad news regardless of focal length.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 3, 2015)

lightcreator said:


> There is NiSi Nano 180mm system that will let you use the EF 11-24mm in full range.
> (Not just 13.5mm with 2 filters and 12.5mm with 1 filter).
> 
> There is NiSi Nano 150mm system that will let you use the TS-E 17mm with all tilt and shift movements + 82mm Step Down Ring Adaptor (not just like 7 or 8 degree movement instead of 11 degree?).



Thanks for the tip! That's a good forward.

Company is here: http://www.nisidigital.com/en/

The product in question is the 180mm NiSi with some 11-24 specific plate or component, but I can only find it on non-major-retailers, like here: http://www.lcdscreenparts.com/nisi-180mm-aluminum-filter-holder-system-for-canon-ef-11-24mm-f-4l-usm-wide-angle-zoom-lens.html
(there is a video)

Looks like a pre-release product at this time. But I have to wonder how it magically will cover 11mm. 

Consider:

16mm or greater --> works with 100mm filters (the flagship Lee SW100 system)

14mm --> required 150mm filters (the special Nikon 14-24 driven Lee SW 150 system)

And going only 30mm wider is supposed to magically cover all the way down to 11mm focal length? That seems smaller than what you'd expect. Does anyone have a PDF/manual or proper web page on this product?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 3, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> It really bugs me that Canon decided to go 11mm and f4 instead of 14mm and f2.8 with this ens. I hope they offer a 14-24 f2.8 in the future. If I ever went back to full frame cameras, I would need the Nikon 14-24 to match the AOV of my Sigma 8-16, while gaining considerable aperture speed. I don't see there being enough landscape photographers using the 11-24 lens to justify having Lee produce a whole new system for this lens. So far it seems to be limited to people who wanted a new 11mm toy to play with and architecture photographers who are already stitching images to get super wide.



I actually _applaud_ Canon for not chasing 14-24 f/2.8. There's a reason Canon has multiple 16-35 UWA lenses -- going even 1mm wider makes front-filtering a real PITA. Just ask Tamron, who absolutely idiotically went 15-30 instead of 16-35 at the cost of a front filter ring.

I recognize that Canon landscapers aren't buying f/2.8 lenses so much these days, but that 1 extra mm wider for Tamron just made front filtering a ton messier to do, so that 15-30 becomes relegated to event / sports / astro work in my mind. Tamron would have sold a boatload more lenses if it was just a 16-35 f/2.8 VC -- they'd gobble up so many 16-35 f/2.8L II folks dreaming of a sharper lens (or IS for video).

- A


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 4, 2015)

Silly question here? But when we say vignetting, is it traditional vignetting or is it the lens mechanism creeping into the shot?

If its just normal vignetting, are we not making a big hoopla about something that can be corrected in post?


----------



## rs (Sep 4, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Silly question here? But when we say vignetting, is it traditional vignetting or is it the lens mechanism creeping into the shot?
> 
> If its just normal vignetting, are we not making a big hoopla about something that can be corrected in post?



It is mechanical vignetting (hard transition from image to nothing) caused by the filter mechanism creeping into the shot. This will not be possible to correct in post.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 4, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Wow, lots of gear, lots of hassle, lots of expenses to convert an 11mm lens into a 12.5mm or 13.5mm lens. AmazingLEE weird business model.



The larger system isn't just designed for the Canon 11-24mm though and as has been mentioned when you get this wide its probably not going to be your main landscape use the way say a 16-35mm is at the wide end.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 4, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Silly question here? But when we say vignetting, is it traditional vignetting or is it the lens mechanism creeping into the shot?
> 
> If its just normal vignetting, are we not making a big hoopla about something that can be corrected in post?



Not a stupid question at all. We're talking about the front filtering element's componentry (see attached) blocking the actual field of view. This is principally a non-issue for full-frame FL above 20mm or so (it depends on the lens, how much stuff you stack, etc.), but is a major issue for ultrawide lenses. 

It's also nearly impossible to remove in post as it's a wicked/hard black chop of the corner. You can clone it out if you have very very even skies or foreground, but it's nothing like amplifiying a slightly darker corner from lens vignetting. You also can crop it out entirely, but you're effectively zooming in that case (unless the shot works with a major aspect ratio change).

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 5, 2015)

Things would also be a hell of a lot easier if Canon would build the 11-24 with a regular removable lens hood instead of the stupid non-removable fixed crap.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 5, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Things would also be a hell of a lot easier if Canon would build the 11-24 with a regular removable lens hood instead of the stupid non-removable fixed crap.



No that wouldn't make any difference, the front element comes pretty close to the hood depth, it follows the contours of the side petals.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 5, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Things would also be a hell of a lot easier if Canon would build the 11-24 with a regular removable lens hood instead of the stupid non-removable fixed crap.
> ...



It would save a few millimeters. Each one of them extremely precious.


----------



## pcho (Sep 9, 2015)

Got my new Lee SW150 ring adapter for my 11-24mm Zoom. I love it. 

Perry


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2015)

pcho said:


> Got my new Lee SW150 ring adapter for my 11-24mm Zoom. I love it.
> 
> Perry



True it looks like a nicely engineered piece of kit, but the functionality is so compromised I can't see the point and I won't be getting one. I have the Wonderpana for my TS-E17 and the only filter I use is a polarizer to control reflections.

I am more inclined to the Nisi 180 system that doesn't compromise the functionality of the 11-24 but they will have to bring out a TS-E17 mount so I am only carrying one huge filter system, they have an 11-24 and TS-E17 mounts for the 150 system size, but only the 11-24 so far in the 180.


----------



## pcho (Sep 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> pcho said:
> 
> 
> > Got my new Lee SW150 ring adapter for my 11-24mm Zoom. I love it.
> ...



I have most of the filters in the SW150, .3,.6,.9 both in Hard and soft, Polarising, Big and little stopper.As some have said, I am happy that I can shoot to 12.5mm as I seldom shoot at the extreme 11mm. That said it would be good if I could.
I have the Zeiss 15mm, the Canon 14mm MKll, 17tse all using the the Fotopdiox filter ring with the Lee SW150 filter holder. The fotodiox and Lee comnbination works really well for me
Perry


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2015)

I can see everybody will end up with their own solutions for their particular needs depending on the lenses they own, the filters they need, and the ones they already have, with a filter set like yours I'd take the vignetting too  . 

At least we don't have the Frankenhood mess people were doing initially for the TS-E17, the engineering looks really good.

I blend most of my PL shots so don't think vignetting will be an issue, indeed I have used the 145mm CPL from my Wonderpana TS-E17 to knock back some reflections so far by just holding it in front of the lens.........


----------



## pcho (Sep 9, 2015)

Hi privatebydesign,

I havent heard of NISI brand before. I just went to have a look and I am impressed. I may get the NISI 180 too just for the heck of it . Are the filters any good? Can you provide a link please to a place that I can depend on to purchase this product?
Thank you
Perry


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2015)

Sorry pcho,

I have no first hand experience with Nisi yet, and like I say I am not too interested in following through with them until they make both the 11-24 and the TS-E17 for the 180 system, and then I'll only get the CPL.

But if you get one please leave some feedback, I am sure there are a few people out there interested, there certainly were when I was an early adopter on the Wonderpana because it allowed so much more movement than the Lee solution did even though it uses a smaller filter.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Sorry pcho,
> 
> I have no first hand experience with Nisi yet, and like I say I am not too interested in following through with them until they make both the 11-24 and the TS-E17 for the 180 system, and then I'll only get the CPL.
> 
> But if you get one please leave some feedback, I am sure there are a few people out there interested, there certainly were when I was an early adopter on the Wonderpana because it allowed so much more movement than the Lee solution did even though it uses a smaller filter.



Have a look at a hands on video review of the Nisi System by Dewald Kirsten. He's not a fan and much prefers the Lee system.

He mentions that they scratch easily and do not slide very easily into the holder.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 9, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry pcho,
> ...



People say these sort of products shouldn't cost so much, they opt for a cheaper system and then hate the results. Scratching, reflections, inability to modify the height of the stack (i.e. number of slots), too much filter grab, too little filter grab, the inability to rotate a CPL independently of your ND Grads, etc.

My advice is to pay Lee or Wonderpana (when an 11-24 solution comes out) whatever they want. 

Lee. just. works. No alarms and no surprises. Other than it being a bit piece-y when you want to add/substract slots, I've got no complaints with it. 

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry pcho,
> ...



I am watching it now, thanks for the pointer.

Link here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3WnNIoen-0



ahsanford said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Apart from the fact that on the TS-E 17 and the 11-24. Lee .Just. Doesn't. Work. Unless you can accept the fundamental compromises of paying for an 11mm lens and only being able to use 12.5mm or 13.5mm. I can't accept those compromises so have zero interest in the Lee 'solution' to the 11-24 problem.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Apart from the fact that on the TS-E 17 and the 11-24. Lee .Just. Doesn't. Work. Unless you can accept the fundamental compromises of paying for an 11mm lens and only being able to use 12.5mm or 13.5mm. I can't accept those compromises so have zero interest in the Lee 'solution' to the 11-24 problem.



To get 11mm that holder and its filters will be comically large and likely expressly made for that size (i.e. $$$$). 

But if that's what you need, here are your options: 


Wait for Wonderpana's offering and hope they go down to 11mm
Roll the dice on the NiSi offering
Buy a 3D printed simple solution -- this guy got a lot of press for making a cheaper-than-Lee option for the Nikkor 14-24, and it looks like he's made the same for 11-24. (Looks like there are some filter weight caveats from what I've translated at Google)
Go DIY and do it yourself

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Apart from the fact that on the TS-E 17 and the 11-24. Lee .Just. Doesn't. Work. Unless you can accept the fundamental compromises of paying for an 11mm lens and only being able to use 12.5mm or 13.5mm. I can't accept those compromises so have zero interest in the Lee 'solution' to the 11-24 problem.
> ...



The size is not the point, the point is it is difficult to buy into the expense of the lens with its unique focal length and not be able to use it, it is akin to buying an f1.2 prime and using an accessory that limits if to f2.8.

The Nisi doesn't vignette with the 180 system, and 180 isn't that much bigger than the 145/150 compromised 'solutions' offered so far.

Like I say each user will find a compromise that best suits their own needs and current gear, I see no point in buying an 11mm lens and not being able to use it. The only reason I bought into the Wonderpana was because it gave me full functionality with the TS-E17, I won't buy into an 11-24 system unless I also have full functionality, but that s my prerogative.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> The size is not the point, the point is it is difficult to buy into the expense of the lens with its unique focal length and not be able to use it, it is akin to buying an f1.2 prime and using an accessory that limits if to f2.8.
> 
> The Nisi doesn't vignette with the 180 system, and 180 isn't that much bigger than the 145/150 compromised 'solutions' offered so far.
> 
> Like I say each user will find a compromise that best suits their own needs and current gear, I see no point in buying an 11mm lens and not being able to use it. The only reason I bought into the Wonderpana was because it gave me full functionality with the TS-E17, I won't buy into an 11-24 system unless I also have full functionality, but that s my prerogative.



I hear you. Again, refer to my list -- I think those are your options. 

You might consider reaching out to the e-mail address of the German person making these (looks like they write in English as well). Perhaps your Wonderpana filters might fit into that holder?

Looks like he/she had to resort to a third clip to manage the weight/hold of a larger filter, so I think you'd be limited to a polarizer or a solid ND -- an ND grad would be problematic with that third clip, I'd think, but it might be removable.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 28, 2015)

Viggo said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the need for filtering in some situations. BUT ... this is no solution, it is a bad joke.
> ...


Rear filtering can also create focus shift


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 28, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Rear filtering can also create focus shift


Oh my god!
Front filtering can create all sorts of unwanted effects. Vignetting, ghosting, reflections ... the full gamut.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 29, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I really like the idea of the 11-24mm L, but the cost is prohibitive for me. Especially considering that I have a TS-3 17L which can be pano-shifted to a wider angle of view. While I can see the attraction of a 11-24L mated to a 5D3S, I get great results with my 5DIII and TE-e 17L.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 30, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Whilst it is true that two shifted and stitched TS-E17 images gve you a wider fov than the 11mm, it is worth pointing out that the projection distortion makes the edges pretty mushy, and the 11mm has much better corner IQ.

I am lucky and have both, and whilst the TS-E17 dose have its unique uses the 11-24 is proving much more useful generally.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Oct 4, 2015)

Semi spherical filters would be a neat solution for this lens, if there is a little room between the front glass and the lens hood. I like that idea. 

Also, I think an ND filter could be used at 11mm on this lens with the current holder if Lee made a rectangular solid ND filter kit. You could turn the filter holder sideways so the slots are positioned along the long sides of the imaging area where the AOV is less. 

With that said though, I've found that the more advanced I get with my landscape photography, the less I need any filters at all for any of my work. I've had great success with averaging multiple shots together to get long exposure effects without ND filters.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 4, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Semi spherical filters would be a neat solution for this lens, if there is a little room between the front glass and the lens hood. I like that idea.
> 
> Also, I think an ND filter could be used at 11mm on this lens with the current holder if Lee made a rectangular solid ND filter kit. You could turn the filter holder sideways so the slots are positioned along the long sides of the imaging area where the AOV is less.
> 
> With that said though, I've found that the more advanced I get with my landscape photography, the less I need any filters at all for any of my work. I've had great success with averaging multiple shots together to get long exposure effects without ND filters.



I doubt if curved filters would work on anything, surely they, and the air gap, just become another element and throw everything else off? I know that is a major issue with underwater housings with curved fronts.

As for needing filters, I agree, there is less and less need for them in many situations. My only interest is in CPL's for which there is no software fix.


----------



## timo (Jul 15, 2016)

Hi Everyone and congratulations on this great forum !

Just came across this topic and thought I'd reply on it with a question regarding the purchase of a filter system for the range of lenses I am using. I have done quite some research and it seems that there is no single solution to be applied on all lenses. But maybe you can prove me wrong and make me happy ! 

My question is: Is there a way in buying a set of *Lee 150mm filters* and get them to work on all the lenses mentioned below ? My idea is to only buy 150s (instead of 150mm plus 100mm) as they seem to be working best with the TS17 (no shift restrictions with the WonderPana) and the 11-24.

Here's what's attached to my 5DsR:
-TS-E 17
-TS-E 24II
-TS-E 90
-TS-35 FD (EdMika converted).
-11-24 f4 (planned)
- Pentax67 55mm lens on a ZÖRK Shift adapter (parcel to arrive soon).

It would already be great to find a single solution for both, the TS-E 17 and TS-E 24,
as these are the lenses I am using most of the time. 
But a dream would come true if, with the help of adapters, I would only have to buy a set of 150mm filters and make them work for all lenses.

Any ideas ?

Best wishes from Berlin !


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 15, 2016)

timo said:


> My question is: Is there a way in buying a set of *Lee 150mm filters* and get them to work on all the lenses mentioned below ?
> 
> Here's what's attached to my 5DsR:
> -TS-E 17
> ...



Pretty simple -- the 11-24 is your weakest link for front filtering. From Lee's Website (if you go with the 150mm filters on their SW150 II system):

_Canon EF 11-24mm: Please note that due to the physical size of this lens, and the extremely wide angle of view, the SW150 filter holder will vignette at the widest angles. To avoid this we recommend using a minimum focal length of 13.5mm when using the filter holder with two filter slots and 12.5mm when using the holder with one filter slot._

If you want to get all the way down to 11mm without vignetting, Lee won't cut it. You need to step up to the mondo systems like the one from Wonderpana, NiSi, or 3rd party rapid prototyped / 3D printed options linked elsewhere on this thread.

For the amount and cost of glass you are shooting with, I would avoid NiSi at all costs as they seem to be a fringe player and getting all the accessories you need (adapter rings, choice of filters, etc.) seems dubious. WonderPana is not as large/comprehensive as Lee, but they are more established and (to some extent) specialize in these U-UWA needs. If I had to shoot down to 11mm on FF with front filters, WonderPana would be my choice.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> timo said:
> 
> 
> > My question is: Is there a way in buying a set of *Lee 150mm filters* and get them to work on all the lenses mentioned below ?
> ...



Agreed. I went with the WonderPana 145 set up for my TS-E 17mm, it works very well (although it's the size of a salad plate, at least it's not the dinner plates needed for 11mm!).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> timo said:
> 
> 
> > My question is: Is there a way in buying a set of *Lee 150mm filters* and get them to work on all the lenses mentioned below ?
> ...


The trouble with the Wonderpana is the TS-E17 solution doesn't fit the 11-24 solution, or more importantly, the other way around.

I have both the 11-24 and the TS-E17 as well as the Wonderpana 145mm kit for the 17. I'd happily upgrade to the 11-24 Wonderpana XL if I could also get an adapter for the 17 but at this point they don't have one. I don't want a set of 145mm filters and a set of 186mm filters.

There is a converter for the Wonderpana filters for the TS-E 17 to fit on the TS-E 24, it is just a massive step up ring.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed. I went with the WonderPana 145 set up for my TS-E 17mm, it works very well (although it's the size of a salad plate, at least it's not the dinner plates needed for 11mm!).



Yep, with 11mm, it's even worse --> you need 186mm circular filters for ND or CPL and a whopping 200mm X 260mm rectangles for ND grads.

And I will outright question the price of WonderPana's 186mm CPL (which I can only find on their webpage). 

Consider: the 105mm CPL stacked in front of most 16mm+ landscape front filtering setups -- a fairly staple tool -- runs $300+ from the various reputable joints like Lee, B+W, etc. But for some reason WonderPana's 186mm CPL that is nearly three times the surface area of a 105mm CPL comes in a non-multi-coated option for $149 or a multi-coated option for $299. One has to wonder if that's a quality item for such a cut-rate cost -- with an appropriately sized version of the Lee or B+W filters, you'd expect it to cost a small fortune.

Also: try searching B&H for 186mm or 260mm. Good luck with that. This is edge of the earth availability stuff -- you're better off shooting the company e-mails or outright calling them.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 15, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> The trouble with the Wonderpana is the TS-E17 solution doesn't fit the 11-24 solution, or more importantly, the other way around.
> 
> I have both the 11-24 and the TS-E17 as well as the Wonderpana 145mm kit for the 17. I'd happily upgrade to the 11-24 Wonderpana XL if I could also get an adapter for the 17 but at this point they don't have one. I don't want a set of 145mm filters and a set of 186mm filters.
> 
> There is a converter for the Wonderpana filters for the TS-E 17 to fit on the TS-E 24, it is just a massive step up ring.



This (and for many other reasons) I stick with 16mm as my floor for front filtering. I have one holder and one set of filters for all my front filtering needs. 

Going under 16mm FF is a step away from sanity and a step towards exceptions, hassles, size, cost, etc. And going for 11mm FF is an outright road to ruin, IMHO. U-UWA and T/S shooting is do-able, but you move towards a one-setup-per-lens situation, and if you buy in for (say) a 17mm T/S with the 145mm system, you are not future proofed for the 11-24mm.

I'm not saying folks shouldn't pursue filtering on these wide/difficult to mount lenses -- you may very well have to for your work -- but the drawbacks, exceptions, etc. are painfully clear.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Going under 16mm FF is a step away from sanity and a step towards exceptions, hassles, size, cost, etc. And going for 11mm FF is an outright road to ruin, IMHO. U-UWA and T/S shooting is do-able, but you move towards a one-setup-per-lens situation, and if you buy in for (say) a 17mm T/S with the 145mm system, you are not future proofed for the 11-24mm.



For me, at least, the main use for filters on UWA lenses is to use a 10-stop ND (primarily to blur out people from architectural shots). A polarizer often has unwanted effects on skies with UWAs, which limits the utility. So, I needed to go with the WonderPana 145 solution for my TS-E 17, but for the 11-24L which is at the top of my 'next lens' list, the $75 solution (10-stop ND gelatin for the rear gel holder) will do quite nicely.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Going under 16mm FF is a step away from sanity and a step towards exceptions, hassles, size, cost, etc. And going for 11mm FF is an outright road to ruin, IMHO. U-UWA and T/S shooting is do-able, but you move towards a one-setup-per-lens situation, and if you buy in for (say) a 17mm T/S with the 145mm system, you are not future proofed for the 11-24mm.
> ...



I use PL's on UWA's, but it is almost exclusively for controlling reflections and I only use part of the exposure. I take multiple exposures with and without the filters and just mask and layer in the 'best' bits from each exposure.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 15, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I use PL's on UWA's, but it is almost exclusively for controlling reflections and I only use part of the exposure. I take multiple exposures with and without the filters and just mask and layer in the 'best' bits from each exposure.



Myself as well. If water or glass is in play, the CPL is used regardless of my focal length. I'll use it on a 16mm FF shot without hesitation.

If I'm using it _tame the sky_, however, I generally don't use it under 35mm FF or so. There are times that 'CPL-pseudo-vignetting' can be framed around other non-sky elements (mountain top, skyscraper, etc.) and you can get away with using the CPL on wider FLs, but in general you need to be careful.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I use PL's on UWA's, but it is almost exclusively for controlling reflections and I *only use part of the exposure*. I take multiple exposures with and without the filters and just mask and layer in the 'best' bits from each exposure.



Yes, that bit is key becuase the uneven polarization is a function of the angle of view, not the sky per se. You can see in this recent thread started by someone having 'an issue' with a new polarizer, how both the polarization of the sky and the control of reflections from the water surface are affected.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I use PL's on UWA's, but it is almost exclusively for controlling reflections and I *only use part of the exposure*. I take multiple exposures with and without the filters and just mask and layer in the 'best' bits from each exposure.
> ...



Good link, Neuro, thanks. Yeah, I've had better luck fighting around UWA + CPL problems with reflections as I (generally) don't compose a full-frame-width foreground of water -- I have a central stream to focus the 'reflection management' on, or rocks in the foreground that limit the span of water I need to tame.

But the sky can't always be framed out without major aspect ratio changes or switching to longer glass and shooting panos. So I guess I'm a little more bullish about UWA CPL for reflections while skittish for UWA CPL for sky.

But everyone's compositions are different. The sample you shared at the link is a great case of losing the CPL altogether and embracing the reflection, which also manages the sky darkening problem. 

#photographyrules #itdepends

- A


----------



## timo (Jul 24, 2016)

Hey Guys,

thanks for all your comments and ideas !

I went with the Lee 150 system, the Wonderpana adaptor for my TS-E 17, the Lee screw in lens adaptor for the TS-24 and some simple adaptor rings to fit the filter holder on all lenses longer than the 24 TS-E.
The 150 System proves to be rather versatile and everything fits together nicely. A well thought through system.

Cheers Timo


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2016)

timo said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> thanks for all your comments and ideas !
> 
> ...



It's interesting the way we prioritize things differently. I saw no point in owning an 11-24 lens to be limited in its use with filters so never considered anything that caused vignetting or cropping.


----------



## timo (Jul 24, 2016)

Yes, true. Different needs, different priorities.
From my own experience I figured that I'll rarely go below my 17 TS anyway.


----------

