El Capitan #1

[Dave Humphries]

Was a polarising (or Vari-ND) filter used Donald?

I'm thinking that may explain the 'greater than Mike expects' difference.

[Donald]

Was a polarising (or Vari-ND) filter used Donald?

No. Nothing on the lens at all (in fact there are no filters yet available to put onto the Canon 11-24 f4L) I'm wondering if the depth/darkness of the water is playing any part in what Mike is seeing.

[Donald]

Just another thought. Maybe it is the fact that it is such a wide angle shot that is the answer to the question. Those who have looked at the EXIF will have seen this was at 11mm on a full-frame camera. That, I assure you, is wide. This shot would not have been possible with anything longer.

[Dave Humphries]

Just another thought. Maybe it is the fact that it is such a wide angle shot that is the answer to the question. Those who have looked at the EXIF will have seen this was at 11mm on a full-frame camera. ~

Yes, I think you're right.

With a shallower reflectance angle, more light would have reached the lens, I'm sure.

In fact we can see this from the gradient in the reflection, with far less light from the top, than that with a shallower reflection, at the bottom.

Almost time for someone to quote from Light, Science and Magic, which if I'm not mistaken, all three of us have

[Mike Buckley]

The short focal length would explain why the look is different from my own experiences and thus a bit unsettling. I've never used a focal length so short and when I used one near that length it was never on a full frame camera.

I don't remember this being discussed in Light: Science and Magic.

Consider brightening the reflection a bit. If you don't like the change, leave it as is.

[ccphoto]

For me, I think what happens to the reflection in the water has more to do with the brightness of the face than anything else. By dropping that value down a very slight notch, while it doesn't affect the reflection itself, it does change the relationship between face of the rock and its reflection.

[bnnrcn]

Are you happy with that lens Donald ? If I buy a full frame camera in the future , I think that lens will be the first to buy for me . BTW Lee was supposed to produce a special filter holder for that lens. May be they have done it already. If you are fond of using some filters , you might as well check

No. Nothing on the lens at all (in fact there are no filters yet available to put onto the Canon 11-24 f4L) I'm wondering if the depth/darkness of the water is playing any part in what Mike is seeing.

[Donald]

Are you happy with that lens Donald ? If I buy a full frame camera in the future , I think that lens will be the first to buy for me . BTW Lee was supposed to produce a special filter holder for that lens. May be they have done it already. If you are fond of using some filters , you might as well check

I love the lens.

There is as yet no information about Lee bringing filters to market. Like you, I was aware of rumour/discussion that Canon, when the lens was launched, was in discussion with Lee about producing a filter system for the lens. But, so far as I am aware, nothing else has been said since.

However, I am not sure what filter(s) I would need/want with the lens. I have not missed not being able to use filters.

EDIT - I am misinforming myself and others. Did a search and saw this on DP review from January. On the basis of what's written, I have no interest in looking to get filters for this lens.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3945758