Filter for 16-35 f2.8 Lens?

[haziz]

<p>Does the 16-35 mm lens vignette with a regular UV filter? Do I need a wide or thin filter?<br>

Thanks.<br>

Sincerely,<br>

Hany.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>No you don't need anything fancy, even a regular sized/thickness polarizer will not vignette.<br>

Ieven use a regular UV and a regular PL without issues.<br>

Take care, Scott</p>

[stillbound]

<p>depends on the camera is part of the answer...<br>

you can get a bit of darkness in the corners with a 5D but on any crop camera including the 1d there will be no problems<br>

JC</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Joseph,<br>

Any normal filter, even a regular polariser, will not cause vignetteing on a FF camera, 5D, film camera or anything else. This is a basic design feature of every EF and EF-S lens made with a front filter thread, it will not vignette on any camera it is built to fit on, most will not vignette with two filters but the 16-35 can with two thick ones, not with one.<br>

That is according to Canon and my experience with FF 16-35mm usage.</p>

[marknagel]

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>My 16-35 mkI definetly vignettes more with a regular vs. super thin filter on my 5D. </p>

<p>m</p>

[marknagel]

<p>Let me clarify, it definitely vignettes more, but only slightly more, nothing to worry about, however, it is noticeable if you look. </p>

<p>More so if I stack a polarizer on it. I had a Hoya Super HMC and I bought the Hoya Pro1, thin with threads and can notice when I'm at 16mm, when stacked with a full size polarizer its much better than two full size stacked.</p>

<p>m</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mark can you post an example/comparison shots? I can't find the Canon paper I read a long time ago when I got mine, might have been the instructions that came with it, there were a lot of treads about this years ago and the Canon literature was unequivocal, but I have never had a vignetting issue with FF use, thousands of unmounted slides (you can view the fullest edges when unmounted) done with polarisers and without, I sometimes get pronounced light loss in a corner or two but it is not vignetting, just differential light loss, this has nothing to do with the filter and now most of my work is digital it is very easily corrected, if I want to, in software.</p>

<p>Take c are, Scott.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ah Mark that is a bit different! Canon do not recommend stacking on the 16-35 so I am surprised your slim filter gives acceptable results when stacked let alone the thick one. Of course so many people, me included, use this lens on crop bodies as well that you could put a drainpipe on the front before it vignetted :-)</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[marknagel]

<p>I sold my 5D to pay for a MKII. It should arrive Tuesday or Wednesday. I can post them. Even without stacking you can tell the difference between thin and regular, slightly, but it is there. You are right, even bad vignetting can be fixed in PS, I've never found the need to though. </p>

<p>I will post, I can't find the pictures I did last time I saw a thread like this, but I did test it. Unfortunately I have seen many of canon's and every company's papers that claim a little more than reality.</p>

<p>m</p>

[alan_myers]

<p>Is it a 16-35 Mk I or Mk II? The latter uses a larger, 82mm filter.</p>

<p>Don't the 16-35s have a gel filter holder on the rear, so you can avoid filter stacking? I know my 17-35/2.8L does.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Yes Alan it does but to tell the truth it is pretty useless, no good for a protective UV filter, and the use of that is recommended by Canon to complete the weather sealing, no use for a polariser and no use for split ND filters, they are the only uses I have for filters now!<br>

Take care, Scott.</p>

[chiyuan_song]

<p>I double stack b+W F-pro and hoya PL-CIR..if i need more light, i just take off the hoya...<br>

is that good?</p>