Gelatin filters for Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Lens

[richard_barry6]

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>I have a 5d Mk II and currently have a new 14mm in the mail (can't wait!). Due to the aspherical structure of the lens, I need to use gelatin filters- something I haven't used before. Can anyone advise me on what exactly I require i.e. what size of adapter is necessary and where I can actually get gelatin filters. </p>

<p>Thanks in advance,</p>

<p>Richard</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Any photo retailer worth the name, so not the big local stores, carry gelatine filters. You buy sheets of different sizes and cut them down with a pair of scissors. A great way to start out is to get a Rosco swatch book for $1 from B&H.</p>

<p>You don't need an adapter, there are two forks on the mount end of the lens and the gelatine you cut down just slides behind that. Be warned though, it is not, generally, anywhere near as good as serious front mounted filters for landscape work. Indeed using the silly fork thing can be very frustrating, the best use I have had for it is ND.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>A cheap way to start is to buy the <a href="http://www.jackthehat.co.uk/strobist-collection-flash-filter-gels-p-555.html">Rosco Strobist Collection</a>. It contains 55 coloured gels that can be cut to size. It's designed for flash heads but it will do the job.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Is linking to sites you are sponsored by within the rules of Photo.Net? Even if it is I would have thought a disclaimer was appropriate. Besides, the linked to kit is £9.39 (around $15.50). The swatch book I mentioned contains vastly more gels and is <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/45189-REG/Rosco_950SBLUX0103_Roscolux_Swatchbook.html">$1.95.</a></p>

[bobatkins]

<p>You can't just slap any old piece of colored plastic in the rear filter slot. It has to be thin,optically flat and uniform, i.e. a gelatin filter. You <em>can </em>slap any old piece of colored plastic in front of a flash though since the opical uniformity there doesn't matter.</p>

<p>Can't really think of why you'd need any filters other than ND with a 14mm though unless you are shooting film. Digital cameras color correct just fine and even if you wanted a polarizer you couldn't rotate it, plus you'd get uneven polarization across the frame if you had the sky in the shot.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what Scott is refering to, but generally speaking you should not link directly to anything you are selling or have a financial interest in promoting.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>Is linking to sites you are sponsored by within the rules of Photo.Net? Even if it is I would have thought a disclaimer was appropriate. Besides, the linked to kit is £9.39 (around $15.50). The swatch book I mentioned contains vastly more gels and is <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/45189-REG/Rosco_950SBLUX0103_Roscolux_Swatchbook.html" target="_blank">$1.95.</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Scott, where would I be without you.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Of course, for one time in his life, Bob is totally wrong. I'm sorry Bob, but you can</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"just slap any old piece of colored plastic in the rear filter slot"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, you can't do that if you want regular photographic results. However, there are lots of cases where some colored plastic can work just fine in front or behind the main lens elements</p>

<p>;)</p><div></div>

[richard_barry6]

<p>Haha I'm personally not too phased by perhaps partial advice, so long as the product being advocated actually works. Thank you all for your contributions. In response to Bob, it is essentially ND filters I'm after. Can't really see too many benefits from other filters on this particular set-up. I did my own research and stumbled onto the Lee ND filters, which appear to be high-quality, though typically this is reflected in their prices. If anyone knows where I can get high-quality gelatin ND filters, that'd be great. I keep coming across the Kodak ones, but am not certain if they're conducive to this set-up. In the meantime, I shall look into the less commercial retailers. Cheers. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>As always in these threads, I try to steer away from what I have heard, or read, and instead tend to relay what I have actually done, or used. I have, successfully, used Rosco gels on the back of a MkI 16-35 on several occasions, as I have already mentioned the only really effective use for them, I found, was as ND filters. For the number of times I have done it the cheap Rosco gels are optically fine and the right price. If it was a technique I used often I'd look at a different set up, rear mount filters are not a realistic working option.</p>

<p>Richard, out of interest, what are you intending to shoot with the 14mm? Whilst it does have some unique uses, optically, I found it disappointing.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>The Kodak gels are designed for exactly this purpose, though they are expensive these days.</p>

<p>I think the Lee polyester "gel" filters are also probably suitable. They are thin plastic film and probably more durable than gelatin. They also make regular thick plastic filters, so be sure what you are buying!</p>

<p>Of course you <strong><em>can</em></strong> slap any old piece of plastic in the filter holder if you don't care about image quality or if you are looking for special effects.</p>

[richard_barry6]

<p>Thanks guys, I will look into the aforementioned. Scott, I'm looking to shoot primarily landscapes with this lens. I did a fair amount of research into the lens pre-purchasing, and it stood out as being quite superior to other extreme wide-angle lenses (great delineation, less vignetting, less chromatic aberration, wide aperture, good min. focusing distance). I'm yet to give it a good test-run, given where I'm based has been abounding in torrential rain and gale-force winds the last few days, but I'm hoping it will live it up to my expectations. What were the shortcomings you found with the lens?</p>

[richard_barry6]

<p>Thanks guys, I will certainly look into the aforementioned. Scott, I'm looking to shoot primarily landscapes with this lens. I did a fair amount of research into the lens pre-purchasing, and it stood out as being quite superior to other extreme wide-angle lenses (great delineation, less vignetting, less chromatic aberration, wide aperture, good min. focusing distance). I'm yet to give it a good test-run, given where I'm based has been abounding in torrential rain and gale-force winds the last few days, but I'm hoping it will live it up to my expectations. What were the shortcomings you found with the lens?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Richard,</p>

<p>Thanks for replying. I found the corner sharpness weak and CA to be too much on the 14mm, I used two different lenses, one a commercial rental, the other a Canon loaner. I ended up getting the 17mm TS-E, it has much better optical qualities, though, of course, it is not AF. <a href="00XxUd">Here is a thread</a> I was involved in a while ago that has some examples of a 14mm MkII, my 17mm TS-E and my 15mm fisheye de-fished. If you think 17 is too far from 14 and won't give you the fov you are looking for, don't forget shift stitching is very easy and very accurate, even handheld, the 17 shift stitched equates to a horizontal fov of a 12mm lens. Not ideal in all situations but very workable for most landscape images.</p>

<p>There are many happy users of the 14mm, I can think of several uses where it would easily out perform the 17mm TS-E, but for my use, primarily architecture with some landscapes, the 17 has proven to be the better lens.</p>

<p>Good luck with your new lens, my only real advice is test it like mad to make sure it will do what you need.</p>

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