A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > Filters for a Sigma 10-20mm

Filters for a Sigma 10-20mm

Paulo Cortez , Feb 04, 2007; 08:46 p.m.


I want to buy UV and polarizer circular filters for a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 (filter size - 77mm) lens which I'll use with a Canon EOS 400D (Rebel XTi) for color photos.

Do I need wide-angle filters (much more expensive than the non wide-angle) to reduce the likelihood of vignetting?

By the way, what do you recommend in terms of brands and models?

Thanks in advance for your reply,



    1   |   2     Next    Last

Mark Nagel , Feb 04, 2007; 09:38 p.m.

Yes, WA filters are thinner to reduce vignetting. I use a Hoya ultra thin, (its the one with white and red sphere on the packaging) on my 16-35mm and on my old 10-22EFs. About $100 on ebay.


Roger Edgington , Feb 04, 2007; 09:41 p.m.

Paulo, I have this lens. I bought it in October 2005 and I use it frequently. I have a Quantaray (Sigma) polarizer lens. $50.00 from Ritz Camera. I do not have a UV filter for this lens as I keep the polarizer on all the time. I use the lens often. Great for pictures in small villages etc. I also have Cokin, Tiffen and Hoya filters on my other lenses. I have not used a WA filter. Here is a shot I took a day or too after I bought the lens. I have not done any editing except a slight lightening with Levels.

Roger Edgington , Feb 04, 2007; 09:47 p.m.

Sorry that was the shot before I used Levels. Here is the shot with Levels adjusing.

Roger Edgington , Feb 04, 2007; 09:52 p.m.

I give up. I posted the same shot again. Totally undedited. No Levels. Sorry

Alistair Windsor , Feb 04, 2007; 11:41 p.m.

I do not have your lens so I cannot say directly.

I use a standard polarizer on my 17-40/4 on full frame without vignetting. You can use standard width filters on the EF-S 10-22 too but a regular width polarizer causes vignetting. I don't know about the 16-35/2.8.

The chances are that you will be fine with regular filters but polarizers are thicker and more problematic. Someone with this lens will have to advise you there.

It is not automatic that you need a thin polarizer. If you can avoid one then do since they cost more and you cannot mount a regular lens cap on most thin polarizers. I believe that the Hoya Pro 1 Super HMC polarizers are thinner than regular polarizers but have front threads so they are worth considering. The thin polarizers can be a pain to rotate.

Alistair Windsor , Feb 04, 2007; 11:46 p.m.

Roger suggests you will be fine with a regular polarizer. I would suggest a multicoated B+W filter (non-Kasemann). Their coatings seem to be easier to clean than the Hoya coatings.

Geoff Francis , Feb 05, 2007; 02:07 a.m.

I have this lens. A regular polariser works fine without vignetting. It doesn't need to be thin. I use a cheap Quantarray one, but I also have a multicoated Hoya. The multicoating does not make any difference in most situations. They are a little bit less flare prone.

Geoff Francis , Feb 05, 2007; 02:10 a.m.

Yes and the thin polarisers are a pain to rotate. The quantarray has a rough edge that allows me to rotate with one finger with the hood on. The Hoya only has a rough surface on the outside of the rim, not edge, meaning it can only be rotated with the hood off.

Istvan Sandor , Feb 05, 2007; 02:39 a.m.

Paulo, I have the lens and I use regular filters with no problem. Even if I stack my polarizer and the UV filter ( both regular) there is only a very minimal vignetting which disappears at 12mm or very easy to take away with PhotoShop. Also, watch out with slim filters as they often do not have a front filter thread which is a pain for two reasons: 1. you cannot put a second filter on them 2. they have a stupid "push-on type" lens cap which (at least in the case of my B&W I used to have) comes off all the time and it is very likely to be lost very soon. Just my 2 cents..

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses