# Help with filter selection for Tokina 11-16 f2.8



## sheltiefan (May 15, 2010)

So......I'm thinking of pulling the trigger on the Tokina 11-16 ultra-wide lens.

I'm thinking it would be best to get a slim filter to protect it and avoid vignetting due to the wide angle.

I'll have to save my pennies for a circular polarizer as a second filter, but I'm thinking of getting a B+W Slim UV to start with for all-around shooting.

Any suggestions/comments/advice?

Cheers!

~sheltiefan


----------



## AlexColeman (May 16, 2010)

Why would you need a filter? Its too wide for CPLs, UV has no use.


----------



## sheltiefan (May 16, 2010)

My primary concern is to protect the lens.  Is there a different filter I should be looking into?


----------



## sheltiefan (May 16, 2010)

anybody?


----------



## Dallmeyer (May 16, 2010)

You can get a 77mm circ po - it will be very useful for reducing/eliminating relections even on a very wide lens. You could try also a Skylight 1A, 1B, Haze or Haze 2A.

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/filter/filter-UV.html


----------



## Montana (May 17, 2010)

I would skip the UV filter and use the hood.  Get a circular polarizer if you want to.


----------



## max3k (May 17, 2010)

i would get a UV filter to protect the lens. Its much easier to replace a scratched filter than a lens...why take the chance.


----------



## ghache (May 17, 2010)

i dont use a filter on mine, only thing i use is a large square ND filter.


----------



## myfotoguy (May 17, 2010)

There are a lot of arguments both ways for getting a protective filter. You don't need "UV" because the camera has that protection at the sensor. If you get one, get clear, and make sure it's multi-coated which will help reduce flare. If strong light sources are in the frame facing your lens, even then you may get issues, so take it off. 

I have heard the filter does more damage than good if it breaks in pieces, and you can scratch the front element trying to take off the broken filter. You could be caerfuil to avoid that though, and it still may have saved you from a front element. But, front elements are probably stronger than a filter. Others say that usually that's rare and that a filter has saved them from an expensive lens repair, but who knows if they had a lens hood on which would have prevented it anyway. ?????

I have them, but ony use them on the beach or something, I would rather clean sand off filter than the lens element, but would still take if off I got flare.

My protection is to use hoods all the time, and (as you can maybe tell) have mixed feelings about a clear prtective filter. If you do get one, don't get the cheapest you can find, get a good quality multi-coated one. By then, for the 77mm size of the Tokina, you have to consider if the cost of a good filter is worth the protection. ($60+ for a good multi-coat clear).


----------



## benhasajeep (May 17, 2010)

If you go with a protective filter I would go with a clear filter vs a UV.  As for the CirPol you are going to get uneven performance on a lenes as wide as the 11-16 / 10-20.  Just the inherant nature of how it blocks the light waves.  The lens is so wide say for example you adjust the filter so the center frame has the full effect.  As you go towards the outside corners the effect will lessen enough to be different than the center.  I have read that the area of full coverage is about 28mm (in 35mm terms).  Now this doesn't mean you can't use it.  And it may create an effect you like. 

As for any filter on the 11-16 or Sigma 10-20.  Any filter will need to be the thin type or you will get vingnetting in the corners.


----------



## sheltiefan (May 17, 2010)

Excellent!  Thank you all for your help!

Cheers!

~sheltiefan


----------



## benhasajeep (May 18, 2010)

Forgot to mention that I own a Tokina 11-16 in Nikon flavor.  :thumbup:


----------



## Montana (May 19, 2010)

benhasajeep said:


> If you go with a protective filter I would go with a clear filter vs a UV.  As for the CirPol you are going to get uneven performance on a lenes as wide as the 11-16 / 10-20.  Just the inherant nature of how it blocks the light waves.  The lens is so wide say for example you adjust the filter so the center frame has the full effect.  As you go towards the outside corners the effect will lessen enough to be different than the center.  I have read that the area of full coverage is about 28mm (in 35mm terms).  Now this doesn't mean you can't use it.  And it may create an effect you like.
> 
> As for any filter on the 11-16 or Sigma 10-20.  Any filter will need to be the thin type or you will get vingnetting in the corners.




This is true, but ultra wides are not just used in really wide landscape shots.  Ultra wides have other uses as well.  Therefore the circ polarizer can still be beneficial with green foliage and window reflections in architectural photography....etc.  But yes, you will get uneven polarization of blue skies and such.


----------



## Richichi (Jul 23, 2013)

I'm agreeing with AlexColeman, Speaking first hand from someone who been shooting a long time - don't waste your time or money it will only degrade the performance of this wonderful lens. As far as protection goes I'm in the corner of the use of the hood and common sense. I've been shooting for over 20 years using this method and it has worked perfectly. Some of my friends agree and between us we have over 100 years of shooting experience, 10's of thousands images, and not a single incident that a filter was needed - to me it's one of those old wives tales that gets past on and on like feed a cold starve a fever or my favorite carrots improve your vision . Anyway that's my opinion for what it's worth - Save your money buy insurance - as long as your an amateur the cost to add is very minimal, less than the cost of a good filter unless you have a big collection of equipment.


----------



## KmH (Jul 23, 2013)

2010 thread......

I wonder if a since banned spammer had dug it up today?


----------

