03-20-2012, 07:53 PM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1332212335' post='16885']
Hi Wim:
I know that you love your TS-E 17mm f4 and believe that the lens is fantastic and high quality. But I wonder if you feel somewhat inconvenient or even somewhat dissapointed for its no accessibility to filters (I am just curious). The Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8 has the same problem, which makes me hesitate to consider it (although I know some specially-designed filter adapters are available). For landscape photography filters are so important. Although in some situations the GND effects can be produced through post-processing, in critical situations (very large dymanical ranges in the scene) they can't. And the effects of a polarizer cannot be got through post-processing at all.
Regards,
Frank
[/quote]
Hi Frank,
I don't actually miss the use of filters at all. I have a set of Cokin Z-Pros which I rarely use, basically because I tend to get better results with processing and/or HDR shots than with relatively weak grad filters (a 3 stop one just doesn't do the trick when I really need one). As BC indicated, using a polarizer generally is a no-no with UWA, and even more so with extreme UWA lenses. And as to very high density NDs - I have never had the possibility to use them - I do not tend to shoot close to the sea, and rarely visit areas with waterfalls <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
BTW, it does help that I have some very good PS and Lightroom add-ins, like Nik Silver and Colour Efex - without those burning and dodging would be a lot more difficult, even if I did do this in the past manually in PS. When exposed properly, the DR with digital really beats anything possible with film and paper anyway; there is an incredible amount of leeway. Much more so than the naysayers would make one believe anyway. And lenses like the TS-E 17 do help here, because they vignette so little, even wide open (unlike many ZE lenses, f.e.). Despite the tests here, I found f.e. I lost up to 6 stops in the corners with a ZE 21 vs 1 stop at most with the TS-E 17 (which, although 2/3 of a stop slower, also is 24% wider unshifted, which by itself is at least 2/3 of a stop less from a lighting POV everything else being the same). Essentially, DR is almost unaffected with the TS-E 17 for an image that uses the entire frame, where usable DR is halvef with the ZE 21 based on the entire frame (and I do compose and shoot for the entire frame).
Having said all this, there are a few possibilities to use one or more filters with the TS-E 17 regardless:
1. push-on filter holders by Cokin and Lee, which can use X-Pro sized filters, or even 130 mm filters with a smal modification to the filter holder
2. a home made filter holder based on a spare lens cap
3. and just the plain use of filters handheld in front of the lens
People use either of these three options if and when required. 1 and 2 allow for handheld shooting quite easily provided the shutter speed doesn't drop too low, and the latter can really only be used successfully with the camera mounted on a tripod - however, that is an option that works well with a very high density ND filter for photographing flowing water, where one needs a tripod anyway.
As to the use of colourfilters when one either wants to create a certain B&W effect or a specific colour effect: software is actually as good if not better in creating these effects these days.
In short, I would only need a filter if and when I would shoot flowing water and wanted to blur the movement, for which I would need a tripod. And in that case I could just as well handhold the filter (or use a second tripod with small clamp, or tripod add-on arm with clamp to hold the filter - I do have such a device from Novoflex anyway).
Kind regards, Wim
Hi Wim:
I know that you love your TS-E 17mm f4 and believe that the lens is fantastic and high quality. But I wonder if you feel somewhat inconvenient or even somewhat dissapointed for its no accessibility to filters (I am just curious). The Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8 has the same problem, which makes me hesitate to consider it (although I know some specially-designed filter adapters are available). For landscape photography filters are so important. Although in some situations the GND effects can be produced through post-processing, in critical situations (very large dymanical ranges in the scene) they can't. And the effects of a polarizer cannot be got through post-processing at all.
Regards,
Frank
[/quote]
Hi Frank,
I don't actually miss the use of filters at all. I have a set of Cokin Z-Pros which I rarely use, basically because I tend to get better results with processing and/or HDR shots than with relatively weak grad filters (a 3 stop one just doesn't do the trick when I really need one). As BC indicated, using a polarizer generally is a no-no with UWA, and even more so with extreme UWA lenses. And as to very high density NDs - I have never had the possibility to use them - I do not tend to shoot close to the sea, and rarely visit areas with waterfalls <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.BTW, it does help that I have some very good PS and Lightroom add-ins, like Nik Silver and Colour Efex - without those burning and dodging would be a lot more difficult, even if I did do this in the past manually in PS. When exposed properly, the DR with digital really beats anything possible with film and paper anyway; there is an incredible amount of leeway. Much more so than the naysayers would make one believe anyway. And lenses like the TS-E 17 do help here, because they vignette so little, even wide open (unlike many ZE lenses, f.e.). Despite the tests here, I found f.e. I lost up to 6 stops in the corners with a ZE 21 vs 1 stop at most with the TS-E 17 (which, although 2/3 of a stop slower, also is 24% wider unshifted, which by itself is at least 2/3 of a stop less from a lighting POV everything else being the same). Essentially, DR is almost unaffected with the TS-E 17 for an image that uses the entire frame, where usable DR is halvef with the ZE 21 based on the entire frame (and I do compose and shoot for the entire frame).
Having said all this, there are a few possibilities to use one or more filters with the TS-E 17 regardless:
1. push-on filter holders by Cokin and Lee, which can use X-Pro sized filters, or even 130 mm filters with a smal modification to the filter holder
2. a home made filter holder based on a spare lens cap
3. and just the plain use of filters handheld in front of the lens
People use either of these three options if and when required. 1 and 2 allow for handheld shooting quite easily provided the shutter speed doesn't drop too low, and the latter can really only be used successfully with the camera mounted on a tripod - however, that is an option that works well with a very high density ND filter for photographing flowing water, where one needs a tripod anyway.
As to the use of colourfilters when one either wants to create a certain B&W effect or a specific colour effect: software is actually as good if not better in creating these effects these days.
In short, I would only need a filter if and when I would shoot flowing water and wanted to blur the movement, for which I would need a tripod. And in that case I could just as well handhold the filter (or use a second tripod with small clamp, or tripod add-on arm with clamp to hold the filter - I do have such a device from Novoflex anyway).
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....