Thin Polarizer for 17-40, or is it a 22-40?

Two questions, please:

1-Does anyone have experience with a thin screw-on polarizer for a 17-40 that wont be visible and wont show any vignetting when used with the full frame 5DII? Evidently, I need one. I've been using the Cokin P holder and polarizer with the 40D (1.6 crop factor) and a 17-85. No problem with the 40D. But with the 5D, the filter is visible unless I zoom the 17-40 to about 22-24mm.

2-With or without a polrizer, I get barrelling and pincushioning unless I zoom to 22-24mm. I know some of this can be fixed in PS, but who wants to mess with that? Not me. Especially since sometimes it can't be fixed. I took a shot of the houses on my street at 17 and it looks like Diagon Alley. So is the 17-40 really a 22-40 if you don't want distortion?

Thanks.

Hey Lance-
I'm a big fan of B+W filters - I don't think I'd buy anything else. They offer 3 options for the 77mm filter sized slim polarizers:
77E SLIM CIRCULAR POLARIZER
77E SLIM CIRCULAR-POL MRC
77E SLIM KAESEMANN CIRCPOL MRC
I don't own a slim filter (since I'm currently using a 50D), but when I get my 5D2, I'll probably get the Kaesemann CPL MRC. I own a standard height 72mm Kaesemann CPL MRC right now - I don't usually get all "frothy" talking about filters - but **** this thing is nice. Sharp, neutral, and well constructed. They are expensive - but you get what you pay for.

1. Singh-Ray makes a 77mm thin-mount, screw-on Polarizer that does not vignette at 17mm, at least not at f16.

2. With many natural history subjects, barrel and pincushion distortion won't be noticeable. For these images, 17mm is fine. Even some images with horizon lines look OK to me, or can be fixed easily in Photoshop. Harder to fix is severe keystoning that results with any wideangle lens when it is pointed significantly up or down from level. Again, it isn't a big deal for many natural history images. For images with buildings, keeping the lens close to level or using the shift capability of a tilt-shift lens can eliminate or reduce the problem. The 16-35 II is said to have less barrel/pincushion distortion than the 17-40, but that lens, like the T/S lenses, costs at least twice as much.

Lance, Cokin now has a wide angle holder for your situation. It only holds one filter instead of having the ability to stack several filters.

Adorama:

Mfr. Part: BPW700 SKU: CKBPPW
Cokin Blister Pack P - Slim Holder for Wide Angle Lenses - Filter Holder & Instruction Book for Cokin P system (P system works w/48mm-82mm filter sizes)

Cheers, Jay

In my experience, the Cokin P slim holder still vignettes at 17mm, though not as badly as the standard Cokin P holder. As the Cokin P slim holder, like thin-mount, screw-in filters, can't stack additional filters, some photographers have switched to the larger Cokin Z (and similar) holders that take 4 x 6" grads and (I think) 105mm polarizers.

As Dave mentioned previously, I too have had excellent results with the B+W circular polarizers. I bought it when I got my first 17-40, and continued to use it with subsequent lenses including the Canon 10-22 EF-S and my current Tokina 12-24. They are made very well and are expensive but IMHO well worth it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cliff Beittel

In my experience, the Cokin P slim holder still vignettes at 17mm, though not as badly as the standard Cokin P holder. As the Cokin P slim holder, like thin-mount, screw-in filters, can't stack additional filters, some photographers have switched to the larger Cokin Z (and similar) holders that take 4 x 6" grads and (I think) 105mm polarizers.

---

Hi Cliff,

The price jumps on the GNDs from $99 - $160 per filter, and on the RGNDs from $120 - $190.

For that price when I use the 16-35 fully wide the vignetting will go with the crop.

Cheers, Jay

Lance,
17-40 is not a good performer in corner and distortion department on a 5DII, if you really want a lens that can stand up to MKII IQ standard you need to get a Nikon 14-24 and a F to EOS G-type adapter. If you get the 16-35 MKII (not I) the distortion and CA will be improved to some extent but corner softness remains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Taylor

Hey Lance-
I'm a big fan of B+W filters - I don't think I'd buy anything else. They offer 3 options for the 77mm filter sized slim polarizers:
77E SLIM CIRCULAR POLARIZER
77E SLIM CIRCULAR-POL MRC
77E SLIM KAESEMANN CIRCPOL MRC
I don't own a slim filter (since I'm currently using a 50D), but when I get my 5D2, I'll probably get the Kaesemann CPL MRC. I own a standard height 72mm Kaesemann CPL MRC right now - I don't usually get all "frothy" talking about filters - but **** this thing is nice. Sharp, neutral, and well constructed. They are expensive - but you get what you pay for.

---

My vote for slim CP B&W also, no filter thread however.

Thanks, everyone.