77mm Circular filters

Big-Mac-Please · 6 Sep 2010 at 16:53

Are you going to post the pictures you took of the power boat? Just interested to see how you got on

86JR · 6 Sep 2010 at 16:54

That was on the D70, i didnt have a tripod and i was in a situation where i needed a few seconds exposure in the dark with F5.6 glass. Shouldnt have even taken the shot really.

I did read that book and learnt hell of a lot with it, it actually tells you you should go and buy these filters (hence this thread) but ofcourse when i read it and do what it says stupot comes along and tells me i know nothing and am a noob blah blah.

Thanks, Syke

Stupot_ · 6 Sep 2010 at 17:08

Ok. In which case I totally retract everything I said.

You do need:

Polariser
UV filter
Protector
ND's
Grad ND's for landscapes
UV

If you want to take good photos. In fact, I'm surprised you're still using a D300. I thought that everyone knew they were a pile of turd and you need one of these if you want any hope of nailing the focus on a duck at 12 metres, iso 12800.

syke · 6 Sep 2010 at 17:14

twoblacklines said:
That was on the D70, i didnt have a tripod and i was in a situation where i needed a few seconds exposure in the dark with F5.6 glass. Shouldnt have even taken the shot really.

I did read that book and learnt hell of a lot with it, it actually tells you you should go and buy these filters (hence this thread) but ofcourse when i read it and do what it says stupot comes along and tells me i know nothing and am a noob blah blah.

Thanks, Syke

Fair enough - but you must understand when people say some things though, you post a lot of threads asking for what to buy next, but never post photos - you're not the only one though. Perhaps after asking about the CPL, posting your examples would be better

Stupot_ said:
snip

Oh come on, even i've criticised some of TBL's threads (SOME rightly so - sorry!

), but it is getting a bit ridiculous now.

Stupot_ · 6 Sep 2010 at 18:01

syke said:
Oh come on, even i've criticised some of TBL's threads (SOME rightly so - sorry! ), but it is getting a bit ridiculous now.

Yeah I know, I can't help it

I was just searching for some of my more helpful posts but instead stumbled across this by you. I hope you don't mind me quoting you totally out of context, I'll get rid of it if you do.

syke said:
In fairness, everyone tries to help - he is just selective with the advice he either takes, or ignores completely. At least he's starting to learn more, I guess.

^^ That's my problem. TBL receives some really sound advice in most threads, however theres always some tool (and there always will be on the internet) that suggests he needs a 24-70 f/2.8 etc etc, that is the person who gets listened to, or TBL has his own preconceptions about what is needed and won't really budge from them. sigh.

86JR · 6 Sep 2010 at 18:06

I just find it interesting that you never see people in professional levels, for example papparazi, using 18-70 F3.5-5.6G's. They all use 27-70 F2.8G's. Why is that if the latter is not needed for perfectly acceptable photos ?

syke · 6 Sep 2010 at 18:09

twoblacklines said:
I just find it interesting that you never see people in professional levels, for example papparazi, using 18-70 F3.5-5.6G's. They all use 27-70 F2.8G's. Why is that if the latter is not needed for perfectly acceptable photos ?

Do you really need that answered?

Phate · 6 Sep 2010 at 18:19

twoblacklines said:
I just find it interesting that you never see people in professional levels, for example papparazi, using 18-70 F3.5-5.6G's. They all use 27-70 F2.8G's. Why is that if the latter is not needed for perfectly acceptable photos ?

All taken on a 350D and kit lens.

Professionals use professional lenses for that reason, they NEED what they offer. Fast aperture, quick AF along with everything else.

However this does not mean thats what you need to take a decent photo. Yes those photos aren't anything amazing, but that is due to technique rather than equipment.

lolism · 6 Sep 2010 at 18:30

Before this thread gets even more derailed; I can quite honestly recommend the LightCraft Workshop 9 stop ND filter. Doesn't appear to be any loss in IQ, not one colour cast and a 77mm version can be had for 65 pounds, very pleased.

Re GND filters, I honestly don't like them, the whole square thing is too fiddely for me, I'd rather just HDR the scene. Also if I start stacking my Cokin's the colour cast is terrible.

As mentioned - UV filter, bit of a waste of time unless using on your film camera. As for IR, I'm not sure how good a filter would be against the cameras IR protection. If you really want the best you should maybe convert your D70 for IR? I'm thinking of doing this once I get it replaced. Please don't spend £200 per filter what ever you decide... I got a free Hama CPL when I bought my D70, it's lasted me this long and I haven't noticed one bit of difference with or without it (IQ wise).

p0ss3s3d · 6 Sep 2010 at 18:37

twoblacklines said:
I just find it interesting that you never see people in professional levels, for example papparazi, using 18-70 F3.5-5.6G's. They all use 27-70 F2.8G's. Why is that if the latter is not needed for perfectly acceptable photos ?

I use 1D's or Dx's because...

They AF better, a 5D/40D/400D will probably only get a hit rate of 60-70% at a pro football match. A 1D/Dx can easily hit 90%+
They shoot faster
They are much quicker to start firing and easier to control
Much more customizable
They are built to last
They are reliable

Thats not to say a 350D can't take the same photo as a 1DIV. But when your earning money you want to have the greatest chance of capturing the moment for sale.

I use pro lenses because...

They AF better
They are quicker
They are tough
They are sealed against the elements - invaluable when I want to get 'the' shot.
They offer greater seperation (300mm f/2.8 vs f/4 - BIG difference)
They allow us to crop more.

Essentially, becuase of it being sports (or even a bit of news), everything happens fast and it's tough to capture often, so any advantage you get is a good one.

You can take great photos with any kit. Great kit increases your chances of getting "the" photo for the cover/published/printed/multiple sales.

bigredshark · 6 Sep 2010 at 18:53

darrenbe said:
To be honest, Ive got the 24-70mm f.2.8 AF-S Nikkor and it's a pain in the ass.....it's big, long and very heavy...I wouldnt bother if i was you and I would go with the Nikon AF-S 50mm f.1.4, just move forward and backwards to zoom.....its a nice compact lens, light and gives great results and less than 300 pounds....

Remember, you may think you need the 24-70 but in actual practise you may well use it a lot less then you think you will.....

Very true. It's a beast, capable of amazing IQ but you do not want to walk around a city with it on a body over your shoulder...

Mud · 6 Sep 2010 at 20:11

bigredshark said:
Very true. It's a beast, capable of amazing IQ but you do not want to walk around a city with it on a body over your shoulder...

Half the reason I recommended sticking with the 50/1.8 for the time-being, photography should be fun!

Marzipanogram · 6 Sep 2010 at 20:28

darrenbe said:
To be honest, Ive got the 24-70mm f.2.8 AF-S Nikkor and it's a pain in the ass.....it's big, long and very heavy

I carry a D700, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 everywhere I go.
Yes I knackered

darrenbe · 7 Sep 2010 at 13:30

Marzipanogram said:
I carry a D700, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 everywhere I go.
Yes I knackered

Yup all that glass gets very heavy......

I took the D3, 70-200mm f.2.8 and 14-24mm f.2.8 and 50mm f.1.4 with me to spain and left the 24-70 and 105 at home - to be honest I used all three of those lenses but probabaly used the 50 and 14-24 more - I didnt miss the 24-70 at all, and the 105 is really quite specifically for macro (yes i know it make a great protrait lens as well)....

I carried the whole lot in a new rig - i jumped ship from LowePro and went over to ThinkTank - what a great setup and it was super comfy hiking in the mountains of Murcia with that lot.....but thats another story...

But going back to one of the original subject items in this thread, I think we seem to agree that the 50mm would be a better initial purchase than a 24-70mm......

86JR · 11 Sep 2010 at 04:10

I already have the 50mm, i never use it except for uni portraits in their studio. I find it too long. For example i have to set a tripod up around 20 feet away from a car to fit it in the frame, whats the point of that with a 50mm lens thats 2 inches long physically ?

Rojin · 11 Sep 2010 at 08:17

The closer you get with a wide angle lens the more distortion you get. There are many ways to approach a subject, pick the one you're happy with.

D.P. · 11 Sep 2010 at 08:32

twoblacklines said:
Im getting ready to buy the 24-70 F2.8 Nikon lens for my D300s, its pretty much the perfect range for most of my shots, i checked all of my best pictures and most hovered around 40mm.

twoblacklines said:
already have the 50mm, i never use it except for uni portraits in their studio. I find it too long. For example i have to set a tripod up around 20 feet away from a car to fit it in the frame, whats the point of that with a 50mm lens thats 2 inches long physically ?

So which is it, one of your post must be wrong.

Seriously buy the 35mm 1.8 to compliment the 50mm.

And if you really want the wide angles covered then the 24-70 is definitely the wrong lens for you. Buy a 17-50 2.8.

darrenbe · 12 Sep 2010 at 02:06

Ah, forgot you are dx sensor.....then maybe consider replacing 50mm for 35mm f.1.8 dx.....that's equivalent of 50mm on the dx.

Amp34 · 12 Sep 2010 at 02:54

D.P. said:
So which is it, one of your post must be wrong.

Seriously buy the 35mm 1.8 to compliment the 50mm.

And if you really want the wide angles covered then the 24-70 is definitely the wrong lens for you. Buy a 17-50 2.8.

Why wrong? I can see his point, 10mm at that sort of focal length can be a lot. Those two posts can compliment each other IMO.

I'd also say if Nikon do them, go for either a 28 or 30mm instead of a 35 perhaps, although if most shots are at 40mm then no problem (and I guess I need to remember the different crop factors that essentially make a 30mm on Canon around a 35 on Nikon).

bigredshark · 13 Sep 2010 at 09:50

Neatly illustrating the problem with circular polarisers - the effect isn't completely consistent across the sky with a wide angle (that's only 25mm in that shot too). That however was a cheap Marumi polariser I had with me yesterday almost by accident...