Cokin Filter holder for Ultra Wide

[HMatt]

I have been researching filter systems to use with my APS-C Nikon D500 to use when I purchase an UWA lens (either the Tokina 11-16mm or the Sigma 10-20mm). My pro photographer friend recommended the Cokin P Hard and Soft GND filter kit that includes a 3-filter holder (you buy the lens adapter that corresponds to the filter size of your lens separately). But, in order to avoid vignetting with either of the lenses I'm considering, I'll either need to upgrade to the larger (and incredibly expensive) Z-Pro kit, or buy a WA filter holder (that only holds one filter, instead of three) to use with the P series kit. I am investing in a WA lens for landscape photography, so only being able to use ONLY one filter is a real limiter for me.

Ideally, I would like to use a larger version of the Cokin P series filters to fit with the Z-Pro 3-filter holder. Does anyone know of an 'entry-level', reasonably priced filter system that takes multiple filters and can be used with UWA lenses without causing vignetting?

[Polar01]

Heather forget "entry-level", you only end up paying for things twice, first time for "entry-level", than again for what you really need. Myself I use the Lee System of filters, you pay for what you get. Used them on my Sigma 10-20 lens, on a D7000. still use them on my D600 FF camera. With Lee all the filters are 100mm (4") across so no having to spend money on two systems, Z and P as Cokin use.

Cheers: Allan

[Manfred M]

Heather - the thread you attached to is rather ancient. It was opened in 2010, so I thought it best to start a brand new one in this Digital Cameras and Equipment category.

+1 to what Allan has written.

The Cokin filters have generally not had a particularly good reputation and I can't think of anyone I know who uses them. I know a number of people who use other brands including Lee, Formatt Hitech and NiSi. Of the three, Lee seems to make the best filter holder, in my opinion, as I have used ones made by the other two companies as well. That being said, all three brands are not inexpensive, so I see the desire to get to a lower cost solution.

Before splashing out for filters; GND effects can often be simulated in post production, which is the technique I use most often these days. It's fairly easy to do in Photoshop and if you use Lightroom, then the free Google Nik Collection Color Efex Pro has a good one. I would suggest you try that to see if this approach before spending money on GNDs.

I do have a full set of Lee hard and soft grads, but find I use them less often now that I have a more modern camera that have a higher dynamic range. I still shoot them occasionally. I will go to hard grads when I am shooting waterscapes where there is a well delineated horizon and soft grads for anything else. I rarely use the 1-stop grads and will tend to stick with the 2 or 3 stop to get more definition into the clouds.

[dje]

Hi Heather

Sound advice from Allan and Manfred.

I think you would be better off going for a 100mm filter holder and just one or two GND filters, say a 2 stop soft grad and a 3 stop hard grad. As Manfred says, 1 stop GND's are a waste of money these days with the dynamic range you get with modern cameras.

I don't use my GND's much, mainly for seascapes (sunset/sunrise), and my HiTech 100mm 2 and 3 stop hard grads have done the job for me. The Hitech resin filters aren't overly expensive.

What other filters do you want to use with the three filter holder ?

Dave

[Donald]

I too would stop before you buy Cokin filters. I went the exact same route that your planning. I have now got my Lee filters in my bag and the Cokin filter holder and filters in the cupboard waiting for a sale. In other words, I was one of those who paid twice.

[NorthernFocus]

I just went through this myself. There are two separate issues, the holder and the filters. As I understand the OP, the primary concern is finding a holder that avoids vignette while still allowing stacking multiple filters. As you've already discovered you have to go larger than the Cokin P series to achieve that. Even with your DX format you'll need a 100mm filter holder. But you already figured out that much and are simply asking for WHICH 100mm system is desirable. Since I don't shoot that often with filters I also wanted a relatively inexpensive holder and found a couple of options.

The least expensive one I found is linked below. It has three advantages:
1) will accept any 100mm square filters
2) in addition to stacking up to three square filters it accepts a 77mm round filter under the stack
3) can be configured to accept from one to three filters depending on need and to avoid vignette with UWA

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JLNU6WS...d=HIB55T1DBXZS

The one that I ordered is linked below. It gets pretty good reviews and has the same advantages listed above plus it comes with an 82mm round CPL mounted below the square stack. The CPL can be removed if so desired. Pretty much the only time I use the filter stack is shooting waterfalls or sunrise/sunset at a beach. In both cases I use the CPL so having it mounted beneath the square stack means that I can reduce the stack to two rather than three square filters(ND and GND).

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I'll not add my opinion regarding filter quality. Once you have the holder you can make those decisions about how much to spend on filters.

[rpcrowe]

One point which may have been made above but, which I may have missed, is the general problem of using a CPL filter with an ultra wide lens. This problem is generic when using a CPL and an UWA lens and is not exclusive to CPL filters used with the type of holder you are considering. The coverage of the lens extends wide enough that the angle of the sun is different at the sides of the frame than it is in the canter. This will often give uneven exposure throughout the frame...

[NorthernFocus]

One point which may have been made above but, which I may have missed, is the general problem of using a CPL filter with an ultra wide lens. This problem is generic when using a CPL and an UWA lens and is not exclusive to CPL filters used with the type of holder you are considering. The coverage of the lens extends wide enough that the angle of the sun is different at the sides of the frame than it is in the canter. This will often give uneven exposure throughout the frame...

Richard makes a good point. Though technically it's not actually exposure that varies across the frame but rather the filtering effect that varies depending on the angle of the sun. The effect is typically only noticeable in photos that include the sky in the image. For my own use many(if not most) times when I use a CPL the sky is not part of the image. Two examples when a CPL is beneficial with no sky in the image is when shooting waterfalls/stream or flowers/foliage. In both cases the CPL will reduce the effects of reflected light with no noticeable variation across the frame.

[HMatt]

Thanks Allan, sounds like good advice and I'll check them out.

[HMatt]

Thank you to all of you for great advice. I will definitely check out the filter manufacturers you recommended, probably only getting the two filters (2-stop and 3-stop grad), and a 100mm filter holder.

A few more questions:

1. What should I look for in a filter holder in addition to its diameter, how many filters it holds (how many would you combine, typically?) and if you can insert a CPL?

2. Is there much difference in how the filter holders attach to your camera?

3. In Dan's message above where the kit includes a CPL (which I need), should I look at buying the CPL separately so I can select the quality I want?

Thank you all again, I'll do some research until I hear back from you.
- Heather

[Manfred M]

1. What should I look for in a filter holder in addition to its diameter, how many filters it holds (how many would you combine, typically?) and if you can insert a CPL?

The materials and ease of use are what I would look at, and that is essentially why I ended up with Lee. The grad filters are resin and scratch more easily than glass, so a resin holder is preferable to an aluminum one that will be more prone to scratching, should it get damaged.

The other features you should look at are ease of use and security (i.e. how well does the filter attach to the lens adapter). The grads tend to be 100mm x 140mm (4" x 6") and handling them on site when shooting landscapes at "golden hour" is a bit awkward. The Lee system uses a spring-loaded pin that is fast and easy to use. Some of the others use a small screw that has to be tightened, and that can be a bit awkward.

Normally I try to have no more than 2 filters. The rectangular filters are not optically coated, so reflections are more of an issue than one would get with a high quality screw-in filter.

The other issue with the holders is that you will get vignetting on a wide angle lens, as you add filters to the stack. The single filter is fine, but eventually you will pick up the filter as the stack pushes out and it will affect the widest angles first.

I don't know the other brands particularly well, but the Lee system lets you attach a round 105mm to the front of the stack. I used a NiSi and it had that capability too, but there it was mounted closest to the lens and the holder had openings so that it could be turned.

Just as an aside, I have two different filter holders; the one that comes as part of the Lee Foundation kit as well as one with wide-angle bellows built in (also made by Lee). With the flare issues with the rectangular filters, I find that this design is quite useful when shooting in a direction where the sun can hit the face of the filter.

2. Is there much difference in how the filter holders attach to your camera?

They all use an adapter ring that screws onto the lenses filter threads. The attachment method varies a bit and I reviewed some of the approaches above.

3. In Dan's message above where the kit includes a CPL (which I need), should I look at buying the CPL separately so I can select the quality I want?

A CPol and a (ultra) wide angle are often not a good combination as there will be a tendency to banding as the darkening of the sky changes. There is no polarizing affect with the sun directly in front of you or behind you and a maximum effect when the sun is at right angles to where you are shooting. This can lead to several stops of darkening and shows up in the image. The effect is quite unattractive. I generally do not use a polarizer at focal lengths that are less than about 35mm on a full frame camera (about 24mm on your D500), if there are large swaths of sky.

You can't determine which circular filter to buy until you know what is compatible with your filter holder

[NorthernFocus]

Thank you to all of you for great advice. I will definitely check out the filter manufacturers you recommended, probably only getting the two filters (2-stop and 3-stop grad), and a 100mm filter holder.

A few more questions:

1. What should I look for in a filter holder in addition to its diameter, how many filters it holds (how many would you combine, typically?) and if you can insert a CPL?

To avoid vignette you want the holder to be as large diameter and as short as possible. Two ways to shorten it are 1) having the screw in CPL under the stack of square filters and 2) get a holder that can be configured to hold only as many filters as you need. Typically for shooting long shutter situations w/out the sky you need two filters. Either a CPL plus ND or two NDs stacked. For sunrise/sunset photos with water and sky in the scene you likely want three, CPL, ND, and GND. So if the CPL will thread in under the square holders then you pretty much always only need one or two of the square holders so the overall stack is shortened.

2. Is there much difference in how the filter holders attach to your camera?

There are various methods of attachment but the current "standard" and IMO the best method is simply utilizing the threads on the lens. You will need various adapters for different lenses.

3. In Dan's message above where the kit includes a CPL (which I need), should I look at buying the CPL separately so I can select the quality I want?

It depends... For landscape shooting optical distortion is not likely to be an issue for any reputable filter maker. However one issue with CPLs is that virtually all of them cause some degree of color shifting which is more of an issue with long exposures(i.e. anything longer than a couple of seconds). However, highest cost doesn't necessarily mean least color shift. If this is a concern for you do your research. Ideally look for actual test data(likely only available from the manufacturer) and read reviews.

[William W]

. . . Before splashing out for filters; GND effects can often be simulated in post production, which is the technique I use most often these days. It's fairly easy to do in Photoshop and if you use Lightroom, then the free Google Nik Collection Color Efex Pro has a good one. I would suggest you try that to see if this approach before spending money on GNDs. . .

I concur.

Additionally, GND will NOT affect the graduated attenuation across any transition, other than straight, whereas that freedom is afforded to you in Post Production

***

I have been researching filter systems to use with my APS-C Nikon D500 to use when I purchase an UWA lens (either the Tokina 11-16mm or the Sigma 10-20mm). . . should I look at buying the CPL . . . (which I need) . . . separately so I can select the quality I want?

It is correct and logical thinking that the results of a CPL cannot be simulated in Post Production, but is it not also correct that both those lenses have a filter thread and allow direct filter attachments?

In which case, I would be thinking along the lines of a slim line high quality CPL; if you are going near salt water often then one with brass threads (not aluminium).

***

. . . is the general problem of using a CPL filter with an ultra wide lens. This problem is generic when using a CPL and an UWA lens . . . The coverage of the lens extends wide enough that the angle of the sun is different at the sides of the frame than it is in the [center]. This will often give uneven exposure throughout the frame...

Richard makes a good point . . . the filtering effect that varies depending on the angle of the sun. The effect is typically only noticeable in photos that include the sky in the image.

It is “Banding”.

Whilst typically seen when the shot has a vast expanse of sky (the sky will appear with ‘colour bands’ of different blues – [see here an old thread with example]. The banding is just as dangerous when shooting vast expanses of water when the CPL is being used to attenuate the glare and reflection from the water; or in an W/A architectural shot where there is a lot of glass when the CPL is being used to attenuate the glare and reflection from the glass.

Typically more likely to happen at FL wider than 35mm (APS-C about 23mm), but can easily be overlooked and the mistake can be made when using a telephoto lens; I made such a mistake using a 70mm lens when shooting into the sunlight at an outdoor swimming meet - the result being an unnatural appearance of the sun’s reflection and glare off the water.

***

With modern Post Production Programmes and the dynamic range of the modern Digital cameras, (and considering the dynamic range of the final print or screen), time effort and money is likely more realistically profitable if put into attaining the skills and techniques of precision file capture and post production.

If the lens allows for direct filter connection, then a quality CPL and two quality ND Filters and possibly one step up ring may be all which is required.

That is not to say that Grad ND Filters can be used to skillful affect and make great results with experienced operators, but the question needs to be asked if those operators are using GNDs because they have them and that’s the way they have (always) worked.

I have both Cokin and Lee Filter holders both sufficient for use with 645 Format, which easily would cover an APS-C Format 10mm lens. Additionally I have a 200mm x 200mm Matt Box which I built to house filter glass for use with 6x7 Format. In reality and practicality there is not much difference between filter holders other than you typically get what you pay for – I haven’t any issue with either Lee or Cokin as both seem to me to be reasonably solid, but maybe current models are less so, I don’t know

Lee Filters are superior.

Admittedly I do not shoot “Landscapes” as my Practice, but I do think it is also worth mentioning that of all the above mentioned stuff of mine, none has been used for quite a few years.

I do use a CPL (I have three) and I have several ND Filters and a few step up rings, and I do use UWA lenses.

My main advice is that I suggest that you proceed slowly before buying any Filter Holders and Graduated Neutral Density Filters, firstly assessing if these tools are really at all necessary, for the results that you require.

WW

[Manfred M]

It is correct and logical thinking that the results of a CPL cannot be simulated in Post Production, but is it not also correct that both those lenses have a filter thread and allow direct filter attachments?

In which case, I would be thinking along the lines of a slim line high quality CPL; if you are going near salt water often then one with brass threads (not aluminium).

I can't speak for the Sigma, but my Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm definitely takes filters; in fact the common 77mm one. I do get some marginal vignetting in the corners if use my Tiffen CPol, but I do not see this when I use my slimline B+W CPol.

I prefer the brass mounted filters, but these tend to be found only on the higher end products, which also offer superior optical coatings. Aluminum filter rings can "swell" and bind. Aluminum is a very reactive metal, but it quickly oxidizes and develops a layer of aluminum oxide, which is very hard (it is used in commercial grinding wheels) and can "bite" into the filter mount making it hard to remove.

[rpcrowe]

A good "tool" to have handy when using any kind of screw-in filter is a filter wrench.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2pcs-48-58mm...MAAOSwKoRZX2Gv

These "wrenches" are dirt-cheap and weigh next to nothing. They are an insurance policy to have handy whenever you are using screw-in filters... I like to have two of each size. Total cost is minimal and the savings if an expensive filter is frozen on to an expensive kens can be great!