Sigma 14-24 Filter Question

mpfuchs

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Sep 19, 2014
519
1,379
VA
Hi guys,

Does anybody on here own the new Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 lens?
I was looking into filter holders, but since the lens is fairly new, I couldn't find too much information.
Nisi and Haida are two manufacturers, I found but I wanted to hear some first hand accounts before forking over the money on an eBay transaction to a foreign country.

Thanks, Martin
 

Apple fanboy

macrumors Westmere
Feb 21, 2012
38,814
28,493
Behind the Lens, UK
Hi guys,

Does anybody on here own the new Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 lens?
I was looking into filter holders, but since the lens is fairly new, I couldn't find too much information.
Nisi and Haida are two manufacturers, I found but I wanted to hear some first hand accounts before forking over the money on an eBay transaction to a foreign country.

Thanks, Martin
Does it have a bulbous front end? My Nikon 14-24 does and Lee sell a 150mm holder that would most likely work.
Info here.
 

mpfuchs

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Sep 19, 2014
519
1,379
VA
Does it have a bulbous front end? My Nikon 14-24 does and Lee sell a 150mm holder that would most likely work.
Info here.
Yes, it does have a bulbous front lens. I've looked on Lee's website, but couldn't find one for the 14-24mm specifically. Either 14mm or 12-24mm.
The Nisi seems to be the holder of choice, but it's also around $400 without any filters.

I just realized Sigma sells a rear filter mount:

Not sure how well those thin gel filter would hold up though...
Anybody use them? This option would only be around $50 including the gel ND filters that you'd have to cut to size yourself.

And here is a picture taken with this lens at Bombay Hook last week, just to keep the thread photo related ;)
Bombay Hook Sunset by Martin Fuchs, on Flickr
 
Last edited:

jerwin

Suspended
Jun 13, 2015
2,895
4,646
sounds fiddly:

  • Please be careful to avoid scratches to the lens or the electrical contacts when attaching the filter holder.

  • Please ensure not to drop the small fixing screws inside the lens

Here's an ad for a Haida filter system

 

kenoh

macrumors demi-god
Jul 18, 2008
5,527
8,499
Glasgow, UK
Sorry not helpful but remember not to strive to fit a polariser on this one as it is too wide.

Also that whole dismantle and fit a rear filter holder thing, no chance. Not something I would risk.
 

mpfuchs

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Sep 19, 2014
519
1,379
VA
Sorry not helpful but remember not to strive to fit a polariser on this one as it is too wide.

Also that whole dismantle and fit a rear filter holder thing, no chance. Not something I would risk.
What do you mean by: don't put a polarizer on a wide lens? Why not?
They make circular polarizers big enough (150x150mm plates) to put into those filter holders.

Or are you just saying image quality suffers?
 

kenoh

macrumors demi-god
Jul 18, 2008
5,527
8,499
Glasgow, UK
What do you mean by: don't put a polarizer on a wide lens? Why not?
They make circular polarizers big enough (150x150mm plates) to put into those filter holders.

Or are you just saying image quality suffers?
If you put a polariser on an ultra wide it gives inconsistent results - dark and light areas. I think anything wider than 18mm-20mm will present the problem.
 

mpfuchs

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Sep 19, 2014
519
1,379
VA
If you put a polariser on an ultra wide it gives inconsistent results - dark and light areas. I think anything wider than 18mm-20mm will present the problem.
Interesting, I did not know that.
I'm using this lens on a cropped sensor, so the effective focal range would be 22.4-38.4mm.
 

Cheese&Apple

macrumors 68010
Jun 5, 2012
2,004
6,604
Toronto
If you put a polariser on an ultra wide it gives inconsistent results - dark and light areas. I think anything wider than 18mm-20mm will present the problem.
@kenoh is right. I’d avoid a polariser on this one. I reckon from 24mm upwards is best for even looking skies
@kenoh & @Mark0 I know circular polarizers cause problems with ultra wide lenses but this type of lens requires a drop-in filter system like the Haida above. Do you guys know if linear square or rectangular drop-in filters cause the same inconsistant colour/lighting with ultra wides?

I'm thinking about a Nikon 14-24mm for myself.

~ Peter
 

Apple fanboy

macrumors Westmere
Feb 21, 2012
38,814
28,493
Behind the Lens, UK
@kenoh & @Mark0 I know circular polarizers cause problems with ultra wide lenses but this type of lens requires a drop-in filter system like the Haida above. Do you guys know if linear square or rectangular drop-in filters cause the same inconsistant colour/lighting with ultra wides?

I'm thinking about a Nikon 14-24mm for myself.

~ Peter
Beautiful lens. I bought the smaller 100mm Lee system so I could use it on my 24-70 and 70-200. Quite a bit cheaper than the 150mm system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheese&Apple

kenoh

macrumors demi-god
Jul 18, 2008
5,527
8,499
Glasgow, UK
@kenoh & @Mark0 I know circular polarizers cause problems with ultra wide lenses but this type of lens requires a drop-in filter system like the Haida above. Do you guys know if linear square or rectangular drop-in filters cause the same inconsistant colour/lighting with ultra wides?

I'm thinking about a Nikon 14-24mm for myself.

~ Peter
They do on my Fuji 10-24mm i am afraid. That is the Lee 105mm landscape polarizer still a circular of course. Linear I dont know to be honest.

Thing is for me it is usable still dont get me wrong. Remember the weak link in my images is me not my gear, just be aware it causes that because of the wide spread of light angles coming at it which means it gives an inconsistent effect across the frame. From what I have seen, until you are down to 16mm or wider 35 equiv, you can manage it to a usable degree by dialing it back a tad but if you look on google you will see ample examples of the phenomenon to make your own decision on.
[doublepost=1529096211][/doublepost]
Interesting, I did not know that.
I'm using this lens on a cropped sensor, so the effective focal range would be 22.4-38.4mm.
This is wrecking my head now i dont know if it will or wont affect it. It is to do with the angles of light passing through the polariser and hitting the lens relative to the sun, the different angles cause the polariser effect to change. Logic tells me that as it is a lens and filter combo issue then the sensor is irrelevant. Sorry...

https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/polarizing-filter-wideangle-lens/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cheese&Apple

Alexander.Of.Oz

macrumors 68040
Oct 29, 2013
3,143
11,958
Adelaide, Australia
@kenoh & @Mark0 I know circular polarizers cause problems with ultra wide lenses but this type of lens requires a drop-in filter system like the Haida above. Do you guys know if linear square or rectangular drop-in filters cause the same inconsistant colour/lighting with ultra wides?

I'm thinking about a Nikon 14-24mm for myself.

~ Peter
I haven't had any such issues with my 100mm square Formatt-Hitech Firecrest 16 stopper, when I tested it on my full-frame body at the wide end of my 17-40mm lens, Peter. I don't have a 100mm square polariser for that system yet, so can't comment about that, sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheese&Apple

Mark0

macrumors 6502
Sep 11, 2014
478
3,046
SW Scotland
@kenoh & @Mark0 I know circular polarizers cause problems with ultra wide lenses but this type of lens requires a drop-in filter system like the Haida above. Do you guys know if linear square or rectangular drop-in filters cause the same inconsistant colour/lighting with ultra wides?

I'm thinking about a Nikon 14-24mm for myself.

~ Peter
The polarisation film sandwiched between the glass that creates the effect - whether linear or circular - does the same thing, as it filters out a certain direction of scattered light. The uneven polarisation effect is related to the angle of view. Polarisation is strongest at 90° to the sun - so in wider lenses, the angle of view is greater, so you see more sky in your shots, meaning you take in more “unpolarised” sky compared to where the effect is greatest if that makes sense. It can ruin a shot as it can be very obvious, even with the circular effect set to its weakest. Linear polarisers are normally used with film cameras, although saying that - they should be ok on mirrorless cameras. On a DSLR, the linear type can mess with the metering and are not recommended.

Linear or circular, they do the same thing, but the circular is better for adjusting the strength of the effect. With linear, you need to rotate the whole filter holder.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cheese&Apple

kenoh

macrumors demi-god
Jul 18, 2008
5,527
8,499
Glasgow, UK
I haven't had any such issues with my 100mm square Formatt-Hitech Firecrest 16 stopper, when I tested it on my full-frame body at the wide end of my 17-40mm lens, Peter. I don't have a 100mm square polariser for that system yet, so can't comment about that, sorry.
It is just a polariser that has an issue. NDs are fine. It is to do with FoV of the lens and how the polarisers need to be used perpendicular to the sun to give best effect. The challenge is that due to the field of view you get some of the "scene" perpendicular but as you go to the wider end of the scene it is less than 90 degrees and so the effect lessens and you get inconsistent results.
[doublepost=1529137444][/doublepost]
The polarisation film sandwiched between the glass that creates the effect - whether linear or circular - does the same thing, as it filters out a certain direction of scattered light. The uneven polarisation effect is related to the angle of view. Polarisation is strongest at 90° to the sun - so in wider lenses, the angle of view is greater, so you see more sky in your shots, meaning you take in more “unpolarised” sky compared to where the effect is greatest if that makes sense. It can ruin a shot as it can be very obvious, even with the circular effect set to its weakest. Linear polarisers are normally used with film cameras, although saying that - they should be ok on mirrorless cameras. On a DSLR, the linear type can mess with the metering and are not recommended.

Linear or circular, they do the same thing, but the circular is better for adjusting the strength of the effect.
Also linear polarisers play havoc with your cameras metering and auto focus systems - because of the way it works.
 

Mark0

macrumors 6502
Sep 11, 2014
478
3,046
SW Scotland
Meant to add, if you want use grads, get a circular polariser so you can rotate and control it independently from the grads.
[doublepost=1529139299][/doublepost]Meant to add again, be sure to check how many stops of light the polariser takes. Most are anywhere between 1 and 2 and 1/3 stops. My Hitech Firecrest is exactly one stop which is easier to work with than calculating halves or thirds of a stop into my exposure - more so with film!
 
Last edited:

Cheese&Apple

macrumors 68010
Jun 5, 2012
2,004
6,604
Toronto
Thanks for the replies people. I don't use a polarizer very often so I guess I'll just forget about it if I do get that lens. I'm sure the problems will outweigh any benefits.

~ Peter
 

kenoh

macrumors demi-god
Jul 18, 2008
5,527
8,499
Glasgow, UK
Thanks for the replies people. I don't use a polarizer very often so I guess I'll just forget about it if I do get that lens. I'm sure the problems will outweigh any benefits.

~ Peter
Your output is fine the way it is...
[doublepost=1529146491][/doublepost]
Thanks for the replies people. I don't use a polarizer very often so I guess I'll just forget about it if I do get that lens. I'm sure the problems will outweigh any benefits.

~ Peter
Shame you arent closer. You could try mine out...

Mine doesnt get used as often as it should. I tend to find it works better when i dont forget and leave it at home... :oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheese&Apple

Apple fanboy

macrumors Westmere
Feb 21, 2012
38,814
28,493
Behind the Lens, UK
Your output is fine the way it is...
[doublepost=1529146491][/doublepost]

Shame you arent closer. You could try mine out...

Mine doesnt get used as often as it should. I tend to find it works better when i dont forget and leave it at home... :oops:
I tend to find none of my gear gets used as often as it should.
 

Alexander.Of.Oz

macrumors 68040
Oct 29, 2013
3,143
11,958
Adelaide, Australia
It is just a polariser that has an issue. NDs are fine. It is to do with FoV of the lens and how the polarisers need to be used perpendicular to the sun to give best effect. The challenge is that due to the field of view you get some of the "scene" perpendicular but as you go to the wider end of the scene it is less than 90 degrees and so the effect lessens and you get inconsistent results.
I have noticed that my ND's act as a sort of polariser somehow, giving me clear vision into the water, to see what lurks beneath super clearly!
 

kenoh

macrumors demi-god
Jul 18, 2008
5,527
8,499
Glasgow, UK
Tell me about it! Maybe I'll head to Glasgow in the autumn.
That would be great!
[doublepost=1529158082][/doublepost]
I have noticed that my ND's act as a sort of polariser somehow, giving me clear vision into the water, to see what lurks beneath super clearly!
Hmm, dont know mate but thought a good ND like the ones we use should not have any polarising effect.

Maybe that is a consequence of lengthening the shutter time that is allowing more detail? me thinks we have a project on our hands... :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander.Of.Oz

Alexander.Of.Oz

macrumors 68040
Oct 29, 2013
3,143
11,958
Adelaide, Australia
Hmm, dont know mate but thought a good ND like the ones we use should not have any polarising effect.

Maybe that is a consequence of lengthening the shutter time that is allowing more detail? me thinks we have a project on our hands... :)
I have heaps of images with clear waters, even when slightly choppy, letting me see clear through to the bottom! :D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.