What filter set up, if any, are you landscape-heavy guys using.
FWIW, I don't own any of the UWA zooms. I'm just curious about the technique used when people need or want fiilters on the lenses whee the front element is bulbous. Or do you just work around it?
Well, there is the Wonderpana system with adapters allowing ND and polarizers that can be stacked. It's very nice. They are large and the system is relatively expensive.
For the Sony A7x series, the smooth reflections app can create a long exposure ND effect which is quite nice.
Fotodiox has an adapter that goes between the lens (ex EF mount) and the camera body with an 8 stop variable ND filter that is pretty good but apparently with poor flare performance. It is small and relatively inexpensive.
I have this lens, and i didn't test it yet, and i also bought Haida 150mm filter holder for this lens, hope sooner or later i can use and test this lens with the filters and see, i only need a CPL[150mm] to go with this lens and filter system.
I own the Haida filter system for it. I like it as it's almost no harder to use than a regular 100mm Lee holder on any other lens. As the lens cap stays secure even with the locking ring left in place, all you need to do is slot on/off the front holder itself as required.
I don't use filters a ton any more, I have a few NDs for it and a grad that I probably didn't need.
Lance, are you still considering selling your 16-35 and 14-24 because of the Tamron?
I'm considering an ultrawide for architecture and I assume that fixing distortion in post is nt a big deal for any of these lenses, but I'm interested in your take for IQ.
Ryukyu wrote:
Lance, are you still considering selling your 16-35 and 14-24 because of the Tamron?
I'm considering an ultrawide for architecture and I assume that fixing distortion in post is nt a big deal for any of these lenses, but I'm interested in your take for IQ.
Yes, I am still considering selling them or at least one of them. All three are easy to fix in post as they are linear distortion, ie not mustache distortion. You will lose about 1-2mm fixing the distortion of the 16-35, the 15-30 and the 14-24 less so.
They all have their advantages and disadvantages, you just need to work out which compromises fit your style best. For me, the Tamron is the best as it has the best balance of great IQ, zoom range, weight and size, ie I don't mind the weight and size! The 16-35 is a little lower on the IQ, but has great zoom range and is light and small. The 14-24has great IQ, but has limited zoom range and no VR but is also heavy and big.
Max Power wrote:
Not only are your images lovely, you have a knack for being in these beautiful places when there are no other people around!
Thank you very much for your kind comment, Robert.
A thing I have learnt over the years is that when you are taking photos of something, people just come and stand in front of you and take their photo not giving a damn about you. This is not just one person, but many in a constant flow. I usually have to stand there for quite a few minutes trying to get a shot whilst a procession on camera phone and P&S users try to get their photo. So, get yourself a super wide angle lens and then you can stand in front of them! Generally, their camera phone or DSLR has no where near the wide angle of view of my Tamron and thus I am able to encompass the particular scene and get the shot sans people. The thing is, even though I get in front of them, it is just ONE photographer, me, and I am but a few seconds or a minute at most, When they are doing it to me it could take up to 15 minutes at some places!
I just bought this lens last month and took it on my trip to Berlin at X-Mas time. My initial impression is that this Tamron 15-30mm lens is a superb piece of glass; clear and sharp images edge to edge. I use it with a D610. Highly recommend it to anyone considering an UWA. Ordered mine from B&H.
Max_Pain wrote:
What do you guys think about the weight? It's one of my major points of hesitation in consolidating the 16-35mm f/4L IS and the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.
The size/weight and more importantly the inability to use normal filters were significant considerations for me as well. I stuck with my 16-35 and have been very happy.
If you don't lug it around much and it's always on a tripod, the weight won't make much of a difference. If you walk around with it a lot, it might matter more to you.
Max_Pain wrote:
What do you guys think about the weight? It's one of my major points of hesitation in consolidating the 16-35mm f/4L IS and the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.
Weight doesn't bother me, but that's me. I traveled around Myanmar in 32+DEG C heat (90deg f) and 95% humidity with a D810, D500, Tamron 15-30 f2.8, Nikon 24-70 f2.8E VR, Nikon 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR in my backpack.
The new Canon 16-35mm has great coma, but expensive. The Tammy suits me well. If it were my heaviest lens, maybe I'd notice it more. It's quite versatile.
I just received the Haida 150mm filter holder and was trying it out with a 10-stop Ice ND filter. I was very pleased with both the Haida holder and the Ice filter. The Haida holder is quality construction and very well designed. The Ice filter was only $80 as compared to $175 for the Lee. I was very pleased with the performance of the filter. There was the slightest color shift that was very easy to correct in post. I also bought an Ice 10-stop filter for my 24-85 (72mm filter size) for only $29 and it performed just as well.
The thing is, even though I get in front of them, it is just ONE photographer, me, and I am but a few seconds or a minute at most, When they are doing it to me it could take up to 15 minutes at some places! 
