Seems that stopping down the lens too much (beyond f8) will cause diffraction.

jjlphoto wrote:
My adapter just arrived. Nicely built. First class all the way.
Now I just need some cash for the lens!

when did you order?

weekh wrote:


Seems that stopping down the lens too much (beyond f8) will cause diffraction.

Great shot!

Hi Weekh,
"Seems that stopping down the lens too much (beyond f8) will cause diffraction."

I just read some good articles about diffraction on Diglloyd's site. LLoyd and Hubsand have basically said the same thing that you point out. Lloyd describes how the new high MP sensors with their smaller pixels, combined with the best glass...change the conventional parameters of where the f-stop sweet-spot lies.
Lloyd has 3 free articles on diffraction - good reading.
Cheers,
Scott
PS: Now that I have the 5D2, I'll be shooting the 14-24G again regularly (with the aid of liveview to focus). I'm also going to go ahead and buy the required parts so that I can start experimenting with the best way to mount the LEE filter adapter on the 14-24G.

It looks like the lens is too wide for the bigger Lee slip on adapter.

Actually Don, the bigger Lee adapter (FK100) has a slightly larger diameter hole than the OD of the 14-24G's petal shaped hood, so it requires a shim. You can obtain a custom made shim from Lee or fashion something yourself, as several folks have already done and posted about. From what I've gleaned so far from other's reports and talking to a LEE rep, the ideal shim would also cover the small openings in the petal hood where light can enter from the sides. So I'm thinking that a 1" - 1.5" slice of PVC pipe would kill both birds with one stone (fill the gap between hood and adapter - and go far enough back to cover the petal openings). Hopefully there's a pipe out there that happens to have an ID that fits snugly on to the hood...and that has the right wall thickness to make for a perfect shim. I don't know the exact measurements needed yet...but just thinking about it now...it's possible that the 14-24G's lens cap could work if the center was drilled out?
Cheers,
Scott

Anon Moss wrote:
Hopefully there's a pipe out there that happens to have an ID that fits snugly on to the hood...

Unless you luck out, you can work PVC with a hot air gun in a fashion similar to pulling and bending glass pipe with a torch. Place a good sized section (so you have a cool area to hang on to) over a cardboard tube (or similar support that won't pull heat away) and rotate it while heating a band until you can gently squeeze it to reduce its diameter. Then cut the band out to form your adaptor.

olyacme wrote:
Anon Moss wrote:
Hopefully there's a pipe out there that happens to have an ID that fits snugly on to the hood...

Unless you luck out, you can work PVC with a hot air gun in a fashion similar to pulling and bending glass pipe with a torch. Place a good sized section (so you have a cool area to hang on to) over a cardboard tube (or similar support that won't pull heat away) and rotate it while heating a band until you can gently squeeze it to reduce its diameter. Then cut the band out to form your adaptor.


Hmmm, berry interesting. That's good to know...I'll keep it in mind.
Thanks!
Scott

Anon Moss wrote:
Actually Don, the bigger Lee adapter (FK100) has a slightly larger diameter hole than the OD of the 14-24G's petal shaped hood, so it requires a shim. You can obtain a custom made shim from Lee or fashion something yourself, as several folks have already done and posted about. From what I've gleaned so far from other's reports and talking to a LEE rep, the ideal shim would also cover the small openings in the petal hood where light can enter from the sides. So I'm thinking that a 1" - 1.5" slice of PVC pipe would kill both birds with one stone (fill the gap between hood and adapter - and go far enough back to cover the petal openings). Hopefully there's a pipe out there that happens to have an ID that fits snugly on to the hood...and that has the right wall thickness to make for a perfect shim. I don't know the exact measurements needed yet...but just thinking about it now...it's possible that the 14-24G's lens cap could work if the center was drilled out?
Cheers,
Scott

Cool. I looked at Nikon specs and they list max diameter at 132mm. I think I'll just cut a donut out of some hard foam. The type I'm thinking of is white. Maybe I should get the 115mm slip-on to have more room for a foam donut.
The cap's a real good idea if it's thick enough. If it's not, maybe a piece of velcro with adhesive added to the lenscap would thicken the diameter and allow a snug fit. Not both halves of the velcro, just the hook or loop side.

Don,
I just measured the OD of the 14-24G petal hood, and it's: 3,13/16". Sorry, I don't have a micrometer handy so that may not be ultra precise...but it pretty dang close.
I don't know what the exact ID on the LEE FK100 filter adapter is, and I wouldn't go by what is listed (I never trust marketing specs). Maybe someone here can measure theirs and let us know what it actually is.
There's a few more things to ponder, and maybe the lens gurus can chip in here:
1) Since the lens designers purposely put indentations in the petal hood...are they necessary? And if so, why?
2) Since some folks are purposely covering the petal openings when using the Lee filter adapter, why are they doing that? Is it because it is bad to get (presumably just a little stray light in most instances) light coming in from the sides that strikes between the lens and filter(s)?
3) From the outer lens glass to the outer edge of the 14-24G's fixed petal hood, there is approximately 3/4" of space. If the objective is usually to get the filters as close as possible to the lens...might it make sense to cut back the petal hood? Wouldn't doing so also reduce any possibility of vignetting...especially if one is shooting with 1-2 stacked filters and a circ-pol?

It may sound heretical to cut back the hood on a $1,500 lens...but is it any different than shaving a mirror, or modifying a mount? The 14-24G is a very versatile, world class superwide lens...why not do everything possible to maximize it's potential?
Cheers,
Scott

PS:
Don, here's a few pics that I've collected off the web, that show what some folks have done so far. These aren't my pics, and some may come from FMers. I'm reposting them without permission in the name of science. If anyone has an issue with that, I'll glady take them down.
Cheers,
Scott

I would very much like to know how to mount the filter onto the lens! But I'm satisfied as long as the filter is big enough to simply handheld it in front of the lens.

2 more pics at 14mm:

Anon Moss wrote:
PS:
Don, here's a few pics that I've collected off the web, that show what some folks have done so far. These aren't my pics, and some may come from FMers. I'm reposting them without permission in the name of science. If anyone has an issue with that, I'll glady take them down.
Cheers,
Scott



#3 looks like a Lee Filter, I wonder what they used as the mount onto the lens, any ideas?

#3 looks like the Nikon from #1, some sort of rubber or foam sleeve.

#3 looks like they screwed the lee side rails to a homemade ring. Not a bad idea.

#1 looks like pipe insulation is used to increase diameter to fit Lee. Fit doesn't look too god.

Why are we so obsessed in being able to mount a filter over this lens ? It is me or do you guys like blotchy skies from a polarizer? I understand the need for graduate filters from time to time but now it can be done using LR.... Maybe I like the convenience of a "software" graduate filter . Those resins filters scratch too easily, too. Like always, YMMV.

Yes, polarizers on anything wider than a 35mm or 28mm often shows a distracting dark blob in the sky at full polarization. But when shooting near water, or glass, a polarizer is the only way to penetrate glare if needed.

AGeoJO,
I'm personally not obsessed with filters...but I would like to be able use them in certain situations. Some of the best landscape shooters use ND grads regularly with very nice results. Yes blending/merging can be done in post...but some prefer filters or a combination of filters and blending - and that's a whole other issue. I don't like the weird sky colors/effects (oversaturation /blotchiness) than you can get with polarizers either, and personally don't use them much. But as jjlphoto pointed out, some landscape (and architectural) shooters use them to remove glare from water and other objects. I will use the LEE filter adapter on other lenses as well, not just on wide angle, and not just on the 14-24G, and having the option of adding a circ-pol is appealing to me for some situations.
Maybe some of the landscapers who use circ-pols can chime in about their experiences (pros and cons) using them at 24mm and below.
My posts about being able to use filters on the 14-24G, are hopefully meant to educate and promote discussions for solutions, and to help dispel the erroneous and common complaint that "you can't use filters" on the 14-24G.
Another complaint I often see is, "that filter set-up is too bulky".
Yes, the Lee adapter is a bit bulky using 4x4 or 4x6 filters...but a lot of landscape shooters use and prefer that size anyway for a variety of reasons...so I don't think that's a big issue. When I think of all the great landscape and architectural shooters that have (and still do) used bulky view cameras and related gear...I have to laugh when I hear someone whine about a Lee filter adapter being too bulky :-)
Like a lot of the regulars on the ALT forum, I love to tinker with things and find work-arounds. The 14-24G is such a ground-breaking and versatile lens that it
deserves to be used in as many situations as possible...and not be hobbled by
a persistent and inaccurate reputation that it can't be used with filters.
Cheers,
Scott

For what it's worth, I managed to figure out a way of getting filters on my Sigma 12-24 - the only ones large enough were the Cokin X-Pro filters and that was only just large enough. I estimated that a polariser for that would need to be around the size of a dinner plate - and cost more than the full dinner service :-(

The biggest problem I found, apart from getting the mounting rails to not show in the images, was reflections off the rear of the filter down into the lens. I had to add a couple of sheets of black plastic fitting under the filter and sloping back to fit around the outside of the lens.

AGeoJO wrote:
Why are we so obsessed in being able to mount a filter over this lens ? It is me or do you guys like blotchy skies from a polarizer? I understand the need for graduate filters from time to time but now it can be done using LR.... Maybe I like the convenience of a "software" graduate filter . Those resins filters scratch too easily, too. Like always, YMMV.

1) Polarizer for actual reflection. I do'nt use polarizers as color enhancers with digital.

2) Grad ND for video. I do prefer digital blending for stills, however.

3) ND filters for video is a fundamental requirement. (Shutter speed target is 1/60)

Indeed to remove reflection off non-metalic surfaces is one of the properties of PL filter but whether you like it or not, color enhancing will take place. Generally, I like saturated colors but it is blotchy sky due to the ultra-wide nature of this lens or any other ultra wides is what I don't like. As we all know, video is a new feature on still digital SLRs and I am not sure about using the Nikkor 14-24mm on a Canon body with the necessary adapter for this purpose. Yes, I do see the need of using filters on the video mode of DSLRs unlike the possibility of PP work/digital blending of stills.

Quick note to say that the long-delayed lever-operated version of this adaptor is now available - yay!

Hi Mark,
Can you describe the differences between the two adapters please?
Do you gave any pics?
TIA
Scott

Scott,

You can find some details at 16-9 website.

Looks like it costs $221 and has the following requirement listed on Mark's website:

"For those who find the concept of rotating the lens in its adaptor too unconenventional, the Lever-Operated version locks the lens and adaptor into fixed positions and actuates the diaphragm via a control ring installed inside the adaptor. A control switch mounted on the outside perimeter of the adaptor permits any aperture to be selected. Please note that the Nikon 14-24mm rear mount weatherproofing gasket must be modified or removed to accommodate the new aperture ring."

For right now I think I will stay with the lever-less version for my 14-24G.

Mark, I would still like to see some pictures of this new lever adapter as I need something simialar to control the aperture lever on the Sony SAL 135 f1.8Z lens which I hope to convert to work on a 1ds3.