# EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II + Lee Filters 105mm Circ. Polariser and circular holder



## rowancastle (Jan 12, 2014)

Hi All,

Does anyone know if it is possible to use the above combo at 16mm without the circular filter holder (which screws on to the square Lee filter holder) from intruding into the image? I've searched various forums but not been able to get a clear answer. Thanks!


----------



## distant.star (Jan 12, 2014)

.
I'm guessing it won't work well, but I don't know for sure.

Perhaps this will bump it up to be seen by someone who knows.


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 14, 2014)

Your question got me thinking (often a dangerous situation...) so I tried a really quick test of my own as follows:

I tested a bare (no UV filter) Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens (at f/4) with a Lee wide-angle 82mm adapter ring, a standard Lee Foundation Kit (2-slot) filter holder, a Lee 105mm screw-in filter adapter, and a 105mm B+W 105 KSM C-POL (screw-in polarizer); all on a (full frame) Canon 5D Mark III.

My simple quick-&-dirty test indicated that at 16mm the rig cited above displayed very pronounced mechanical vignetting. Zooming in to 19mm displayed slight mechanical vignetting & moderate optical vignetting. At 20mm there was no mechanical vignetting but moderate optical vignetting. While at 21mm there was no mechanical vignetting & only very slight optical vignetting. Finally at 22mm I find no visible mechanical or optical vignetting.

I hope this helps.

Richard

I'll try to upload my test pictures...

Test pic #1 at 16mm with wide angle adapter ring, 2-slot filter holder, & 105mm polarizer = very pronounced mechanical vignetting:


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 14, 2014)

Test pic #2 at 19mm with wide angle adapter ring, 2-slot filter holder, & 105mm polarizer = slight mechanical vignetting & moderate optical vignetting:


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 14, 2014)

Test pic #3 at 20mm with wide angle adapter ring, 2-slot filter holder, & 105mm polarizer = no mechanical vignetting & moderate optical vignetting:


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 14, 2014)

Test pic#4 at 21mm with wide angle adapter ring, 2-slot filter holder, & 105mm polarizer = no mechanical vignetting & only very slight optical vignetting:


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 14, 2014)

And finally test pic #5 at 22mm with wide angle adapter ring, 2-slot filter holder, & 105mm polarizer = no mechanical vignetting & no optical vignetting:


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 14, 2014)

Also, keep in mind that the 16-35 II exhibits _more_ than its fair-share of optical vignetting at short focal lengths & wide-open apertures, on a full frame camera...

Richard


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2014)

Great thread, thanks! I was spec'ing out my landscape needs and this concern came up. I was consderiing the Zeiss 21 over the Canon 16-35, ironically (seeing your 21mm finding).

Would pulling one level off of the foundation holder (so it can only accept one 4x4 or 4x6) in front of the polarizer help things much?

Also -- do you have other 105mm filters to try this with? I am wondering how filter _thickness_ affects things. There are alternate high quality filters that claim to fight vignetting with a thinner design.

Thanks!

- A


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 14, 2014)

> Would pulling one level off of the foundation holder (so it can only accept one 4x4 or 4x6) in front of the polarizer help things much?



I'm sure that it would... How much, I really don't know, I've never tried. Besides, I need to have 2-slots on my Lee filter holder, think ND grad & a Big Stopper...

The only 105mm I own is the B+W, and at least when I bought it, it was the only 105mm that B+W made. It has an F-Pro mount, so yes, it is a big fat pig. I love the reaction I get from other photogs when I pull it out... Just like Crocodile Dundee, "That's not a polarizer... Now THIS is a polarizer!"

Also, remember that we are talking about the _venerable_ Canon 16-35 II, so I'm often looking to cropping-out some soft-ish corners...

Richard


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2014)

JustMeOregon said:


> > Would pulling one level off of the foundation holder (so it can only accept one 4x4 or 4x6) in front of the polarizer help things much?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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

Yours is the second on the list, right? The first one the list, cross-referenced to B+W's site, yields this buckler:
https://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=254&IID=9536

Disregard the B+W price (it's $459 as best I can tell), but see attached -- it's got a front element that is stepped out to an even wider diameter to combat vignetting yet retain the big ring. That's something else.

- A


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 14, 2014)

Yeah, I don't have the "Extra Wide," but you got me thinking... Dangerous...

Richard


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 15, 2014)

Hi Richard.
One of my favourite lines from the film, I wish I had a penny for every time someone said "that's not an abc..... THIS Is an abc" 
How many different uses might there be for this quote, one I like is when you see a huge white with hood at an F1 race, THIS is a lens! 

Cheers Graham.



JustMeOregon said:


> Just like Crocodile Dundee, "That's not a polarizer... Now THIS is a polarizer!"
> 
> Richard


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 15, 2014)

So I'm on the hunt to learn more about which 105mm will vignette the least in the Lee setup. Apparently, the rail height is not the only determinant:

http://www.claudiocoppari.com/site/heliopan-vs-bw-polarisers-vignetting-lee-holder/

This was from 2012 so I think he had the standard B+W 105mm and not that mondo stepped Extra-Wide version I linked.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 15, 2014)

More findings:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=918465

"With the 17-40L, you will have to remove a slot or two to use the 105 CPL without any vignetting at the wide end. IIRC, with two slots and the 105 installed, my 17-40L will show vignetting up to about 19mm or so on a FF body."

This more or less corroborates the 21mm finding on this thread. Of course, they may have had a different CPL thickness affecting their result.

I still can't find anyone reviewing or trying out that EW version with the step in it. People on forums are often scratching their heads on what the EW is for as B+W doesn't have great pictures of it. (We now know it has a step, but how effective that step is in avoiding vignetting is what I want to know.)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 16, 2014)

I'm seeing a trend here:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/lee-or-b-w-105mm-polariser-filter.221570/

"The Lee [105mm polarizer on the Foundation holder] is too thick for wide angle lens on full frame - you can't shoot at 17mm as black frame is very visible until around 20mm."

It's also pretty clear from all my Googling that Lee would get more converts if they explained all the little nerdy details a bit more. Users of ND grads are not technical lightweights, and the little details mean the difference between having the setup you want or having purchased the wrong lens, the wrong filter, etc.

I say this b/c tons of (apparently) bright folks don't understand the option of the 105 with the adapter vs. tandem Foundation holders with a 4x4 polarizer. I sure didn't understand before all this digging around and all your help the last few days.

And data is lacking. So I either:


Buy all of my choices, try them on something incrementally widen-able (say a 16-35) and return all but the one I don't want.
Hope someone has all the data posted. This thread (and the other links I've posted) peg the number around 20-21mm for the 105 CPL + two slots on a Lee holder, +/- a bit depending on the CPL in question. But we still lack tandem holder vignetting info. (Has anyone repeated the experiment on this thread with tandem holders and a square CPL?

And I don't mean to whine. Lee has a great system that just needs to get one level deeper in technical details to sell more products. Even if we choose someone else's 105mm CPL, it's still going on their hardware, right?

- A


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 16, 2014)

> This was from 2012 so I think he had the standard B+W 105mm and not that mondo stepped Extra-Wide version I linked.



Yeah, you can see on the pic that shows the two polarizers side-by-side that the 105mm B+W filter is the standard F-Pro mount, not the special-order Extra-Wide mount.

In regards to the LEE Filters Accessory Tandem Adapter (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87111-REG/LEE_Filters_TA_Accessory_Tandem_Adapter.html) that allows two Lee filter holders to be mounted together piggy-back-style and rotated independently: I've never used one but I just can't see how it could possibly be _less_ thick then using just a screw-in polarizer. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that you'd easily get _more_ vignetting using a tandem rig with a 4x4" polarizer...

But damn you! Now you've got me thinking again (me thinking = dangerous = expensive)... Using a 4x4" polarizer in my current 2-slot filter holder wouldn't really work with an ND-grad (due to lack of independent orientation). BUT it would work just fine with my Big Stopper! So if I buy a Lee 4x4" polarizer (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/216637-REG/LEE_Filters_PLC_G_4x4_Circular_Polarizer_Glass.html) I would be able to use the entire focal length range of the Canon 16-35 II *without any vignetting*! If I should need to also use an ND-grad along with my Big Stopper & polarizer (a very common situation for me here on the Oregon coast) I would just have to hand-hold it or use bubble gum as I recently read here on some other thread...

Richard


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 16, 2014)

JustMeOregon said:


> > This was from 2012 so I think he had the standard B+W 105mm and not that mondo stepped Extra-Wide version I linked.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Option 3 is the less elegant one -- you just use a third slot for a 4x4 polarizer (behind any combination of two ND or ND grads) _and you give up on independent rotation_ - let the needs of the ND Grad decide rotation. You then just pull the polarizer out and drop it in at a 90 degree turn, taking the most polarized option between the 0 and 90 degree option.

It's crude, but some folks I was reading about espouse that over the added cost and vignetting risk of the 105 CPL up front or the added vignetting risk of the tandem (which far less people seem to point out as an option - the 105 CPL seems to be the favored recommendation). 

Again, it's options and tradeoffs, and this post seemed to nail it:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-883069.html

"Yep, it's either being locked in to 90 degree orientations (Lee square polarizer), handholding your grads in front of a screw-in CPL, rotating your CPL when you don't want it (attaching holder to screw-in CPL) or dealing with vignetting below 20mm (105mm CPL).

Pick whatever is your lesser evil. "

- A


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 16, 2014)

It's been so long since I first got my Lee Foundation Kit (years & years now), I can't remember just why, but some issue required that I have the filter holder configured with a maximum of 2 slots.

And not having independent control over the orientation of the polarizer _and_ the ND-grad is absolutely unacceptable for my style of photos. I rarely use my polarizers in an all-or-nothing manner. Even at the extremes, I would usually favor just a hint of a reflection over none at all; or in the other extreme, I would want to tone-down the glare just a tad... Honestly, I don't see the heavy-handed, all-or-nothing, 90-degree-angle approach being acceptable to very many photographers for very long...

So I'm seriously thinking of getting the Lee 4x4" polarizer. When the situation calls for a focal length wider than 22mm, a polarizer, a Big Stopper, _and_ an ND-grad in my 2-slot filter holder I'll just have to hand-hold or resort to bubble gum...


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 16, 2014)

JustMeOregon said:


> It's been so long since I first got my Lee Foundation Kit (years & years now), I can't remember just why, but some issue required that I have the filter holder configured with a maximum of 2 slots.
> 
> And not having independent control over the orientation of the polarizer _and_ the ND-grad is absolutely unacceptable for my style of photos. I rarely use my polarizers in an all-or-nothing manner. Even at the extremes, I would usually favor just a hint of a reflection over none at all; or in the other extreme, I would want to tone-down the glare just a tad... Honestly, I don't see the heavy-handed, all-or-nothing, 90-degree-angle approach being acceptable to very many photographers for very long...
> 
> So I'm seriously thinking of getting the Lee 4x4" polarizer. When the situation calls for a focal length wider than 22mm, a polarizer, a Big Stopper, _and_ an ND-grad in my 2-slot filter holder I'll just have to hand-hold or resort to bubble gum...



I don't often go wider than 24mm on my FF rig... but if I'm sinking $400+ on the 105 ring and 105 CPL, I'd like to know I _could_ go wider than 24 someday after that kind of investment.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2014)

Okay, I finally have some first-hand info to share on this front... This will be a few posts.

[cracks knuckles at the keyboard]

I picked up the Lee 105mm adaptor ring and and the B+W 105mm MRC Kaesemann CPL identified below (same one at both links):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10873-REG/B_W_65016142_105mm_Kaeseman_Circular_Polarizing.html

https://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=767&IID=9657

Attached is a pic of it side by side with my go-to 77mm MRC Kaesemann CPL. It's much thicker. I measured a total thickness of _11.5mm_ or so. About 3.0-3.5mm of that is below the non-rotating ring of the CPL that you turn to thread it on to the Lee Adaptor ring, so the rest is a stouter chunk of glass and a very tall ring. 

More posts of the setup to follow...

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2014)

Okay, so here are shots of the setup's thickness.

For starters, I haven't bought the 82mm adaptor ring for the Zeiss 21mm or Canon 16-35mm yet as I wanted to check the vignetting on what I currently own. (There will be a subsequent post on this.)

So these are shots of the Canon 24-70 F/4L IS USM on my 5D3, one component added at a time:

1) Naked lens
2) + Lee 77mm wide angle ring threaded on 
3) + Lee Foundation holder with the 105mm Adapter ring (no slots removed, so there are two 4x4/4x6 slots in front of the 105 ring
4) + the B+W CPL

More to come...

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2014)

Now here's a bird's eye of the holder's slots.

The idea is to shoot most of the time with just the two slots -- one for ND grad, the second for a second ND grad or a straight ND to get motion in fluids.

But in some instances, I want the option to use a CPL in front of that to (a) tame blue skies at longer FLs or (b) tame reflections or look into/thorugh water at any FL.

And for those who would say "I'd just screw on that ring when I need it" / "I'd likely go with one slot and add a second when the shot calls for it", please lose yourself of that notion. Assembling the 105mm ring and screwing it down is an exercise in patience, dexterity, and frustration. The Lee foundation kit screws (which I was stuck with, no new screws are offered with Lee's adaptor ring) are just barely long enough to catch, and screwing it down took spectacular pressure and perhaps 20 minutes of failed attempts before I got 3 out of 4 screws to take. One still spins freely right now no matter how hard I try. (I will be heading to a local hardware store for a replacement that is longer, but it is stable for now.)

The take home in assembling this is that you can make changes with a small screwdriver, but I'd never try to do this in the field. I would only take this apart with great light and a nice work surface. 

Vignetting checks come next...

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2014)

And now the vignetting shots.

First, all were taken at F/11 to eliminate lens vignetting as a possible culprit. Also, I had the peripheral illumination feature of the camera turned off.

Shots are straight JPGs, auto-leveled and shrunk for upload. I lacked the magically fine fingers of JustMeOregon, so my shots came out 24 / 28 / 31 / 33 / 35 on the 24-70 F/4. 

The first batch is attached. See the names of each shot under each pic to see what FL it was.

*This the entire Lee setup with NO CPL in place. So any vignetting seen is the work of that 105mm adaptor ring only. * (The wide angle ring + Lee rig without the 105 adaptor ring won't vignette down to 17mm according to Lee.)

More coming...

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2014)

And here are the shots with the CPL...

And the verdict is in. 

Using this apparatus *without a CPL* shows a kiss of vignetting right at 24mm but nearly immediately disappears above that FL. So the Lee 105mm adaptor ring will slightly vignette on the 24-70 F/4L IS at 24mm. 

However, *with the B+W CPL* I linked higher up in this thread, we see stronger vignetting at 24mm, but it seems to be gone by 28mm. So the CPL does in fact make it worse (based on the intensity of the vignetting) by I'd guess 2-3mm.

Limitations of this comically unscientific study:

1) I'm told not all lenses are their exact FL, so your mileage may vary with different lenses in this setup.

2) Note that the vignetting is strnger on the right hand side (the forum view seems to crop a bit, please open the images as downloads). I would say that this could be a little tolerance or play in the 4x6 filter in the holder but it wasn't using that -- everything keys off the adaptor ring and very snuggly attached holder with the Lee two nubs + brass guillotine latch. No idea why the vignetting is asymmetric.

So now I have a quandary for my upcoming Hawaii trip. This setup is A+ for my 28 prime or my 24-70 zoomed in the slightest amount. But if I want to rent an ultrawide (and I do), this is much more complicated than just taking off the CPL for those shots -- the adaptor ring is also in the way, and as said before, I wouldn't perform that surgery in the field. 

So I've got some strategizing to do on this front. Options as I see them:

1) Eliminate one 4x6 holder slot and shoot whole days of the trip that way. Hope I don't need an exotic ND grad combination or the need to use an ND grad and the Big Stopper simultaneously.

2) Use the 24-70 for the whole trip and shoot 24mm without the CPL or 28mm with the CPL. Give up on ultrawide with filters.

3) Just give up on ultrawide CPL use. Return the 105 CPL and adaptor ring to B+H and rent that ultrawide lens and shoot with it. When I need a CPL, forego the Lee setup and just switch to the 24-70 with a traditional 77mm CPL attached.

4) The nuclear spendy option would be to have two Lee setups, one with one slot dedicated to ultrawide use, and another like shown in this thread for 24-28mm minimum use. 

I'll just say now that #4 is out. That's just wasteful for such a niche need. 

Ideas? Your thoughts?

- A


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 28, 2014)

Polarization is one of the only "effects" that really can't be done in post with Lightroom or faked with Photoshop. I wouldn't walk out my front door, let alone go to Hawaii, without a polarizer for every situation I could imagine...

I would strongly advise holding on to the 105mm CPL and just leave the 105-adapter-ring installed all the time. Without the CPL, the additional vignetting of just the 105-adapter-ring is truly negligible. In the "real world" I'm quite sure that you'll hardly ever notice that slight amount of soft vignetting; even though now of course you'll be looking for it all the time...

Richard


----------

