Which filter system? (Lee, Cokin P, Cokin XL, etc)greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
I have already been using a Cokin P holder with Singh-Ray filters for my 35mm gear. Will I run into problems using this system on my new 4x5 camera? I don't anticipate using anything wider than a 90mm lens, so I am concerned about vignetting.
I do both B&W and color work, so polarizers, ND grad filters, and color correcting filters will all be in my arsenal.
Also, do many people use gels? If so, how could you incorporate polarizers and ND grads into the holders?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
-- Andy Biggs (email@example.com), May 07, 2001
I use the Cokin P and it's good enough for most of my lenses. The polarizer cannot be used on 90/5,6 and wider with movements. The grad filter is a bit tight on 90 as well. The rings and lens covers are adaptable till 82mm diameter. A pitty that the new lens covers are not flat any longer. Lenses can't be piled up in the bag without a risk for the next lens to be damaged by the rounded shape. Otherwise fine.
-- Paul Schilliger (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 07, 2001.
I have been using both A and P series Cokin filters for many years but I decided to swith to Lee filters for the following reasons: 1. My cokin color compensation fiters, both blue and amber, are anything but consistent. I have four 81 A filters, no two of them are the same. This can be also seen as an advantage, depending on how you take it. It allows one to have a rather fine variation of density from one fiter of the same number to another. These variations are much finer than these between the filters of the same number. But I needed to buy several filters of the same number to get on the target. This "technique" also requires use of a thermocolorimeter, otherwise it does not have much sense. 2. Neutral graduated filters that I have, and I have four P 120 and four P 121, and some A120 and 121 as well, are in my case far from being neutral. Most of them have a rather noticeable magenta cast. 3. When used with some shift on both my 4x5 or 8x10 LF cameras, the optical quality of the filters that I possess becomes disatrous, probably because the light rays do not perpendicularly cross the filters. The more shift is used the worse is the quality. I wanted to make an 8x10 slide using a 450 mm Nikkor with a 2 inches vertical shift. The picture quality on the ground glass was so poor (kinda blurr)when I put the P121 in place that I had to remove it. When the filter was removed, the picture on the GG became OK again. Stopping down the lens with the filter mounted improved only partially the picture quality.(My 450 is is perfect order.)I also noticed the same problem with my 720 mm Nikkor T*ED, and by the way Paul Schilliger was with me that day and saw it as well. Paul, if you remember it you could perhaps post your description... I do not know whether I will have the same problem with Lee filters but I decided to give them a try.
Otherwise, I have been using Cokin P filters on my 90/4.5 and 75/4.5 Nikkors for 4x5 format and did not have any problems with vignetting. The 90 mm lens however requires the largest available adapter ring of 82 mm. A nice thing about Cokin filters is that the adapter is very light, several of them can be put together and the modular hood is real modulal. I was able to sufficiently shade any tele lens with my 7 modules, ether on a view camers or on my Hasselblad.
-- Emil Salek (email@example.com), May 07, 2001.
Well, if you encounter a photographer in Switzerland who looks at the world through Lee or Cokin filters... Emil, my advice is: throw all those filters away and shoot raw lights. Correct in Photoshop later. Sorry, I couldn't resist!
-- Paul Schilliger (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 07, 2001.
Hi, filters lovers..
First, being a French citizen, I have to tell you guys that Cokin Filters are NOT the best filters ever...
Cokin filters and gels are designed in such a way that you will not have the full benefit of your expensive 35 mm or LF lenses !! I'm not saying that Cokin stuff sucks, I'm saying that for the price you pay for Cokin stuff, you'd be better off with something else such as Lee Filters.
Lee Filters have ( IMHO ) better resistance to scratches and fingerprints. If you put them on a flash light, they would not get discolored too fast... Also, you have a nice compendium / filter holder from Lee Filters.
Lee may be a little bit more expensive though. One more thing, all the pros I know, 80 % of them work with Lee / Rosco gels and filter systems.
-- Bruce Barelly (email@example.com), May 07, 2001.
I made it one filter into the Cokin P system. Not exactly good in my experience.
I went to gels and despite my suspicions at first, they seem to work fine.
-- John O'Connell (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 07, 2001.
I use the Lee Filter system, with Lee filters and Sinar filters, when I'm forced to use a filter. They are the best!
-- Wil Hinds (email@example.com), May 07, 2001.
Could anyone please tell me: Where do I get Lee filters in Europe or USA? I've checked the San Diego (CA) photoshops recently and didn't find anything. Thanks
-- Tom Castelberg (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 10, 2001.
The Lee filter system is sold by Calumet photo under their own name. I compared (several years ago) Calumet prices to purchasing Lee at another dealer and the Calumet pricing was better.
-- Richard Stum (info@KinesisGear.com), May 12, 2001.
IMHO, HiTech's Optiflex (0.3 mm dyed-through optical resin)are better than Lee polyester. I shoot on-location & have used both. HiTech is destributed by Visual Departures USA 1-800-628-2003. I really like the machined aluminum adapter rings and use the wide angle adapter and wide angle 2 filter holder with no vignetting. BTW, Mention that B&H sells them for less than list & ask for a discount :)
-- Paul Chaplo (email@example.com), May 14, 2001.
Thanks for all the nice comments about Lee Filters. Calumet has a limited line of our products; the full line can be found at B&H Photo.
John Adler Lee Filters USA
-- John Adler (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 27, 2001.