Hey guys, I'd like an ND filter for my 17-40L, but the 10x ND's are quite pricey. Is there a way to use the rear gelatin filter slot instead and insert an ND filter there? How does it work and what are the options here?
I could be wrong but i don't think the 17-40 has a rear filter slot.
Rear gelatin filters are a pain to use. But you can buy sheets of gelatin filters and then you cut them to size, to fit the holder in the rear of the lens.
But why put a cheap gelatin filter on a good lens? Why not just buy a really cheap lens?
Personally I would just save up for Lee or Singh-Ray filter system. It's totally worth it if you are getting into using filters for your shots.
> Is there a way to use the rear gelatin filter slot instead and insert an ND filter there?
Yes, but you have to dismount the lens to add or remove the filters. You can buy Kodak Wratten gel filters and cut them into the required diameter for the lens rear slot, but that's not what I do.
>...what are the options here?
I use 75mm x 75mm (3" x 3") Kodak Wratten gel filters, and I cut them to fit inside 77mm round screw-thread filters. Depending on what I'm shooting (and the reduction in light that I need), I use an outside filter that's either; a UV, a 2-stop CP, or a 3-stop ND, and then simply put one or more layers of Wratten gel filters between the front filter and the front element of the lens.
jcolwell wrote:
I use 75mm x 75mm (3" x 3") Kodak Wratten gel filters, and I cut them to fit inside 77mm round screw-thread filters. Depending on what I'm shooting (and the reduction in light that I need), I use an outside filter that's either; a UV, a 2-stop CP, or a 3-stop ND, and then simply put one or more layers of Wratten gel filters between the front filter and the front element of the lens.
Why do you prefer having the filter in front of the lens rather than behind?
Does the filter maintain its flat shape and not cause any problems being flexed and warped?
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Why do you prefer having the filter in front of the lens rather than behind?
It's a lot more convenient, as I don't have to take the lens off the camera to change things. Also, the front element 'entrapment' method lets me put many combinations of gel filters on the lens, without 'stacking' filters.
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Why do you prefer having the filter in front of the lens rather than behind?
Does the filter maintain its flat shape and not cause any problems being flexed and warped?
I have a (LCW) fader as well. Works very well. There is some color cast but not too bad. When I use it to get some clouds movement or traffic trails I combine it with an image I take without the filter anyway for the other elements.
Nowhere Man wrote:
But why put a cheap gelatin filter on a good lens? Why not just buy a really cheap lens?
As long as it isn't scratched, a proper optical-grade gelatin filter (like Kodak) will be optically superior to any front-mounted glass or plastic filter.
So, since I happened to have a 16-35 rolling around on my desk here, and it looks the same, am I to assume that we just need to stuff a piece of filter gel on the back before mounting the lens and it's going to stay flat and behave itself (under the shim of course)?
Is it possible to cut this Kodak filter down to size if one wanted to use the rare filter holder on a lens? Are there specific gel filters that can and can not be cut to size? Sorry to for the dumb question, I'm new to filters. Only filters I use is a screw on polarizer and a B+W 10 stop ND. Would love to try this Kodak filter on the 16-35 II. Would be so much cheaper than going for a Lee filter holder and the Big Stopper.
Thanks guys!
Chris
EDIT I should have read Jim's reply before posting this
molson wrote:
As long as it isn't scratched, a proper optical-grade gelatin filter (like Kodak) will be optically superior to any front-mounted glass or plastic filter.
I wish Canon would build in low-ISO settins that can be used to mimic the behavior of using anND filter. ISO 50 when available is partially-sampled ISO 100...so why can't they give you lower settings to allow us to increase exposure time? Seems that should be easy!
I have played with taking multiple exposures (on a tripod of course) and layering them together to get the long exposure effect you get with an ND filter.
Just realized the 16-35 II doesn't have a filter holder on the rare of the lens