# RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video



## RLPhoto (Jul 2, 2014)

A quick unboxing and contrast with its older sibling the 17-40L.

http://youtu.be/YpTaVMCpfvI


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 3, 2014)

Here is part 2 with an IQ and IR test.

Canon EF 16-35 F4 L IS First Impressions & IQ/IR …: http://youtu.be/9NkyRMdM6k0


----------



## sanj (Jul 3, 2014)

Good job.


----------



## candyman (Jul 3, 2014)

As I said in the other thread:
Thanks Ramon for spending time on it and share it here on CR.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 3, 2014)

Great info RLPhoto. Thanks


----------



## Northstar (Jul 3, 2014)

Enjoyed it RL, thanks!


----------



## Click (Jul 3, 2014)

Thanks for posting this info.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 3, 2014)

I watched it on my phone which is just sad, but your narration and examples were great and I could even see the difference on my little screen. Thank you for the review it's very well done and informative. The IR part was really interesting to see, too, and it seems like IR really puts a lot of demand on the glass.


----------



## Zv (Jul 3, 2014)

Thanks for making this video. I liked the IS tests. 1s exposure is long enough for most of my shots. Goodbye travel tripod!


----------



## SoullessPolack (Jul 3, 2014)

Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.


----------



## sanj (Jul 3, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.
> 
> I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.
> 
> Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.



I understand your point but there are lots of people who would rather watch a review than read. Perhaps.


----------



## Pieces Of E (Jul 3, 2014)

Ramon, first of all, I think your profile pic is awesome man, great job and cool perspective. What camera did you create this video with? Thanks, Eric.


----------



## Vivid Color (Jul 3, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.
> 
> I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.
> 
> Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.



First, to RL, I'd like to say I thought your videos, especially the second one on IQ, were well done and I found the side by side comparisons compelling. While watching the video, I kept thinking how glad I am that I decided against buying either the 17-40L or the 16-35 f2.8 II. After reading other reviews and seeing this video, I know it's not a matter of if I will buy this new lens, but when.

As for Souless' question, I too generally like printed info over video for some of the reasons you stated, but I'm in the baby boom generation. We had a discussion about this at a training class at my office last week and we were told that videos are preferred to print by the younger generations. Of course this is a generalization but I find it a better explanation than people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. (One could also say writers love to see their words in print.) Also, perhaps the reviewer feels more comfortable with the medium of video than writing a review. And, finally, I think there is room for both print and video reviews as each have their own strengths. In this case, as I said, the video comparisons were compelling and even more so than just a printed review. It's one thing to say something is sharper, it's another to see it. Hope my explanation helps.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 3, 2014)

I generally prefer to read/see comparisons like this on a web page, too, primarily because it's faster, but I think RL did a nice job. I'll admit to sighing a bit when I saw it was around 30 minutes long, but I respect RL and wanted to give the video a chance. 

As I watched the video, I realized the advantages. By scrolling around as he narrated, his comments were directly related to what was on screen. There was no scrolling back & forth to wonder if the words were about the photo above or below them, and I was able to hear his detailed thoughts while he zoomed in and pointed them out. 

RL has given me a new appreciation for these types of videos, but I think that has less to do with the format and more to do with how well he put it together and the fact that he is offering intelligent opinions when he speaks.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 3, 2014)

Thank you for all for the comments and the feedback. 

I tried blogging but it's more frustrating than vlogging. I think this is a better format for me to use. I understand how tediously long a video can get when doing something technical like comparing lenses but it's hard to make a video brief when doing.

In reality, I compared two lenses on two bodies, at all apertures, plus added IS tests and my opinions in under 30 minutes on video. I'm very satisfied at managing that.

Still, most of the time it's better to view this on a stills webpage but I like the connection that can be made through video.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 3, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.
> 
> I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.
> 
> Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.



You're right...assholish.

I'd love to see one of your reviews. Can you link us to one? Thank you.


----------



## Vivid Color (Jul 3, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Thank you for all for the comments and the feedback.
> 
> I tried blogging but it's more frustrating than vlogging. I think this is a better format for me to use. I understand how tediously long a video can get when doing something technical like comparing lenses but it's hard to make a video brief when doing.
> 
> ...



@RL: I forgot to add my thanks to you for not only taking your time to make such a comprehensive review, but also to take your time to make the video and share it with us. As I said, your video convinced me to buy Canon's new ultra wide. 

The only unfortunate thing is that this is such a good lens, and the demand will likely be high, so there will be little incentive for Canon to put this lens on sale or offer a rebate in the near future. This is one prediction in which I really hope I'm wrong!


----------



## No Mayo (Jul 3, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.
> 
> I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.
> 
> Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.



While I do not feel that your criticism is "asswholish," I do recognize a tone of entitlement in your response. RL has gifted his time and energy to anyone who may choose to accept it. It is what it is and you can choose to invest half an hour or not. It is presented in a conversational way as if we dropped by his house and wanted to see his findings first hand. Your desire for a more published book report from him (for free) so that you may enrich yourself with his findings while not drawing attention to yourself in the workplace is arrogant at best.


----------



## No Mayo (Jul 3, 2014)

RL, thanks for the info! It is very much appreciated. You may have covered this, but while the differences in IR performance at the wide end were more similar than you expected, these tests were performed on a crop sensor that was effectively eliminating the weakest portion of the 17-40 lens. I wonder if the difference in edge/corner performance would have been more dramatic if IR tests were done with a full frame sensor. Thanks again!


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 3, 2014)

Thanks for the vids!! I think video was a good way to exploit the compare tool in Lightroom. It might take a lot of 100% snippets to show the same thing in a static format. If you spent hours if not days doing re-takes and editing you might have a produced more polished product but I am not sure of the cost/benefit ratio, especially if you wanted to get a review out asap. I noticed the clock in your IR camera is way off.
Cheers from Alaska!
Tom (BTW I have the 16-35/4 L on order!)


----------



## Khalai (Jul 3, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.
> 
> I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.
> 
> Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.



If the review is narrated, you can just also listen on the background while doing other stuff


----------



## Northstar (Jul 3, 2014)

if RL is anything like me, one of his reasons for doing this was for the experience and to try something new

isn't that what life is about?


----------



## quod (Jul 4, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.
> ...


You must be a sensitive person. Opinionated too. I couldn't watch it at work, either, but I sure would have enjoyed the brief review in text form.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 4, 2014)

quod said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > SoullessPolack said:
> ...



No, I just love the sense of entitlement. If you're not happy with his (free) review you can do your own text review and post it. We'll look forward to it. And when you post it, we'll also bitch about it how it wasn't the way we wanted it.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 4, 2014)

I'm planning a 16-35 f/4 IS to 24L II, 24-70 II, TS-E 17, & TS-E 24 II comparison this weekend and since I couldn't do a video review to save my life, it will necessarily be a written comparison. It won't be nearly as detailed as RL's, but I look forward to hearing people complain about my _free _write up as well


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm planning a 16-35 f/4 IS to 24L II, 24-70 II, TS-E 17, & TS-E 24 II comparison this weekend and since I couldn't do a video review to save my life, it will necessarily be a written comparison. It won't be nearly as detailed as RL's, but I look forward to hearing people complain about my _free _write up as well



It's the worst! I can't believe you even thought it made sense to bother writing it! Jeez!!!!


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 4, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm planning a 16-35 f/4 IS to 24L II, 24-70 II, TS-E 17, & TS-E 24 II comparison this weekend and since I couldn't do a video review to save my life, it will necessarily be a written comparison. It won't be nearly as detailed as RL's, but I look forward to hearing people complain about my _free _write up as well
> ...


LOL ;D


----------



## weixing (Jul 4, 2014)

Hi,


SoullessPolack said:


> Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.
> 
> I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.
> 
> Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.


 It's about personal preference of the author and what he think his target audience prefer... some like video, some like written review... Or may be doing a video is easier for the author than doing a written review... For example, why making a movie instead of writing a novel?? Because some people prefer reading a novel and some people prefer seeing a movie... best if the author got time, do both.

Anyway, video review got their advantage because you can see the "real" item in the video. For example, when I wrote the the AF speed of the new lens is 0.5s faster than the old lens in a written review, then you might think that 0.5s improvement might not worth the amount of price increment, but when you see the old lens AF speed vs the new lens AF speed in video, you then realised that 0.5s faster is a lot faster than you think.

Have a nice day.


----------



## dpclicks (Jul 4, 2014)

My First test of time lapse using Canon 16-35 f/4 IS.

Somehow Lightroom is cutting the image from sides. Is there any setting that I am missing in Lightroom?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Agko15_H4


----------



## SoullessPolack (Jul 4, 2014)

Thanks to those who replied to my question, it makes more sense to me now, and I appreciate your insight. Sometimes it's hard to understand why people enjoy a certain thing when you much prefer the opposite, and is why I was curious and asked.

To bdunbar79, any sense of entitlement you perceive is your own creation, because there is none. I apologized in advance in case anyone misjudged my tone, and explained why I prefer a text version, and was seeking an explanation "from the other side", so to speak. Apparently you just enjoy causing arguments, of which I will not give you the pleasure of.

No Mayo, where did I ever say I was not trying to draw attention to myself at work? Not being able to watch that long of a video does not equate to trying not to draw attention on myself. I explained numerous times how I wanted to find out the reasons for a video instead of text. Obviously, I prefer text. When did it become wrong to try to see the other side? Where I come from, that's admirable, not arrogant.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 4, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Thanks to those who replied to my question, it makes more sense to me now, and I appreciate your insight. Sometimes it's hard to understand why people enjoy a certain thing when you much prefer the opposite, and is why I was curious and asked.
> 
> To bdunbar79, any sense of entitlement you perceive is your own creation, because there is none. I apologized in advance in case anyone misjudged my tone, and explained why I prefer a text version, and was seeking an explanation "from the other side", so to speak. Apparently you just enjoy causing arguments, of which I will not give you the pleasure of.
> 
> No Mayo, where did I ever say I was not trying to draw attention to myself at work? Not being able to watch that long of a video does not equate to trying not to draw attention on myself. I explained numerous times how I wanted to find out the reasons for a video instead of text. Obviously, I prefer text. When did it become wrong to try to see the other side? Where I come from, that's admirable, not arrogant.



Or simply, you can ask RLPhoto for a transcription or text version. Then everybody's happy. Everybody got his own preference. Just my 2 cents, if you don't prefer videos, then just simply don't bother with the post and move on or *ask* if he's offering the same review in your preferred format. You're clearly inviting arguments when you write your heavily opinionated statements there. :


----------



## Zv (Jul 4, 2014)

dpclicks said:


> My First test of time lapse using Canon 16-35 f/4 IS.
> 
> Somehow Lightroom is cutting the image from sides. Is there any setting that I am missing in Lightroom?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Agko15_H4



LR could be applying Auto Adjustments at import. You can switch those off under Preferences. Also, check your import settings to ensure no presets are being applied accidentally.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 4, 2014)

Great review. My 17-40 is being sold tomorrow and I'm just itching to take out my new 16-35 f4. Also thank-you for mentioning that tripods aren't allowed everywhere. Some people just don't seem to understand that point. The 16-35 seems to be better in every scenario so I'm already thinking I made the right choice. Thanks again for the effort you put into making these videos.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 4, 2014)

verysimplejason said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks to those who replied to my question, it makes more sense to me now, and I appreciate your insight. Sometimes it's hard to understand why people enjoy a certain thing when you much prefer the opposite, and is why I was curious and asked.
> ...



Exactly! If you are GENUINELY wanting to know why he chose video over text, you would have contacted him directly, asked him, gotten the information, and had been done with it. Instead, you chose the route you did. Or better, you could have read Bryan Carnathan's review (text with pictures) instead. Much easier choices.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 5, 2014)

Pieces Of E said:


> Ramon, first of all, I think your profile pic is awesome man, great job and cool perspective. What camera did you create this video with? Thanks, Eric.


Thank you. I put some thought into making a neat avatar.

In the video I used a 5d3+24-70 and a galaxy note 3 @ 4k. Audio was taken from a H4n+Rode NTG2. The voice overs were done on a shure SM7b.

@soulesspolack I won't write a written review as bryan at TDP has a better writeup and real test charts if your interested in that. This was simply my impressions on the lens.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 9, 2014)

My last post to wrap up this thread. A final goodbye to the 17-40L for me and looking back at some of my favorite photos it captured before it's sold on evilbay. 

Canon EF 17-40 F/4 L USM Review: http://youtu.be/OWK68nuC_hE


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 15, 2014)

I scanned/skimmed all the responses/comments on this thread about the new *16-35/F4 IS Lens*. Unfortunately, instead of discussing the lens, for the most part everyone just discussed *RLPhoto's* chosen video review method and more comments on each others' posts/personal views or asswholishness.

So to follow the flow of this thread, I guess I should comment on the comments... or wait, maybe not. Who cares? I read the CR Forum because it's NOT like most other threads that degenerate into petty comments about irrelevant things like whether RL should or should not have used video, if other posters are polite enough or whatever else. Aww crap... I just commented on the comments. :

*RLPhoto* - great job. I viewed the videos from the perspective of joining you at your house for a beer while you share your new lens. The videos came across that way with informed thoughts and information. I can read written reviews in many places and it was nice to put a face/voice with a name after all this time. Next time however, might I suggest at least 2 or 3 hot babes dancing while you do the video review. That might distract anyone that would otherwise notice other problems with your video or methods. 

Question: I assume that what you are shooting at F4 with IS allowing you to extend shutter time to almost a second in low light is a still subject, correct? Because if the subject moves, IS is useless. I know you are aware of this but didn't mention it in the video. No big deal but some folks might forget that little fact.

I am impressed with the idea of using IR to expose hot spots of the lens. Great!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 15, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> My last post to wrap up this thread. A final goodbye to the 17-40L for me and looking back at some of my favorite photos it captured before it's sold on evilbay.



Very cool little discussion that really makes me want to take some ND filters with me more often. Thanks for the nice walk through some of your fun images and their back story. This helps inspire me to try more stuff, even when I'm tired or not always in the mood while travelling!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 15, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > My last post to wrap up this thread. A final goodbye to the 17-40L for me and looking back at some of my favorite photos it captured before it's sold on evilbay.
> ...


Thank you rusty. I know what it's like to travel around and arrive late at the hotel. You end up wanting to just sleep the night away but we could miss so many opportunities. I can't say how important it is, no matter what lens you got, to stay out a bit later and strive to make some cool photos. 

I didn't know at the the time that this photo would make it on the cover of the London Planner, but hey! I'm glad I stayed out longer.  I'd highly recommend a set of NDs for your travel photos.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 15, 2014)

RL, congrats on the cover shot! Great work and it's always exciting to get published on the cover. I agree with your comments 100% - many of my best shots were taken when I decided to hang around for 10 more minutes or go down one more road, trail, etc.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 15, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Priceless, *Congrats *  RLPhoto


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 15, 2014)

RL, do you have a favorite set of ND filters you typically like to carry? Everything takes up space and weight so I figure you have 2 or 3 that you use that work best and offer the most versatility. I've put off buying these because I figured I would eventually just purchase a variable ND filter from probably Singh-Ray with some filter adapters. But of course that's expensive so I keep putting it off. Thoughts?

http://www.singh-ray.com/shop/vari-nd-variable-neutral-density-filter/


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 15, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> RL, do you have a favorite set of ND filters you typically like to carry? Everything takes up space and weight so I figure you have 2 or 3 that you use that work best and offer the most versatility. I've put off buying these because I figured I would eventually just purchase a variable ND filter from probably Singh-Ray with some filter adapters. But of course that's expensive so I keep putting it off. Thoughts?
> 
> http://www.singh-ray.com/shop/vari-nd-variable-neutral-density-filter/


For my NDs, it's all LEE filters. My polarizers are all B+W screw on and combining both together get me what I need.

I have
1. 2 stop pro glass LEE ND.
2. 10 Stop glass Big Stopper LEE ND.
3. 2 stop resin hard and soft edged LEE NDs.
4. All the wide angle adapter rings.

If I use a polarizer, I use B+W Kaesmann x-s slim mount filters then the Lee system on top. It works pretty well @ 17mm with some slight vignette but disappears by 19mm. I have no vignette if I just use the LEE system alone.

Good filters are worth the cash and actually hold some value over time. I like to buy once and use them for years instead of cheaping out and getting something subpar and having to buy again. I don't have experience with Singh ray filters and Don't own a variable ND.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 15, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > RL, do you have a favorite set of ND filters you typically like to carry? Everything takes up space and weight so I figure you have 2 or 3 that you use that work best and offer the most versatility. I've put off buying these because I figured I would eventually just purchase a variable ND filter from probably Singh-Ray with some filter adapters. But of course that's expensive so I keep putting it off. Thoughts?
> ...



Thanks for the ultra-fast reply post RL! I agree and do the same, buy the higher quality filters, etc and keep them a long time. Cheap = disposable which has it's merits/uses as well but most of the time I prefer a much harder, more durable filter that will last for years and provide better images along the way. For instance, I use cheaper clear filters when shooting swimming because the chlorinated pool water splashes can damage the filter coatings.

I'll consider your filter method before I purchase. But if I get the variable ND instead, I'll try to provide you some feedback if it works as well as I've read some photographers have said.


----------

