The Official S-T.N Photography (methods) Thread

[doodah man]

Anyone have thoughts, opinions (), experience, etc with so-called "superzooms"?

Specifically, I'm thinking about:
1. Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO
2. Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX

Obviously there are some compromises with this type of lens, yet one of those and my Sigma 10-20 would make for a pretty good "walkabout" setup...

I do plan to head over to the local shop and test them out.

I would definitely take the Nikon over the Tamron.  Review of the Nikon lens here:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/250/cat/13

[torags v2]

The Nikon 18/200 is a DX lens. The new Nikon 700 is a FX lens. The DX lens don't workso good on a FX body.

As a result; a lot of Nikon owners are selling their DX lenses.

Here is one from a good photo site where the folks take care of their equipment. A lot of them have closet queens.

Here is one: http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=137&topic_id=57095&mesg_id=57095&page=

If you do buy used DON'T buy a gray market lens; If you break or the lens fails Nikon won't fix it ... period.

If you have one lens with the camera, it should be a 18/200 with VR.

Good luck

Rags

[torags v2]

Watching football, so I thought I would waste some bandwidth...

Went on a shooting day in San Fran. First I wanted to capture the moonrise from a new shooting site.  then I wanted to try out a new soft star lens on the Golden Gate Bridge lights. Then I wanted to get a long exposure of the bridge slope. Knowing I could get fogged out of those I went to the DeYoung Museum to shoot some Maya Lin stuff.

The museum went half well, the artist didn't allow photos of all but one large piece. You can call this art or you could say it's cleverly arranged 2X4 cut scrap from a construction job. (saturated in PP)



The moonrise didn't happen - fog moved in. Bridge lights with softstar didn't work, a couple of bright security lights ruined the images.

Well the bridge slope came out noisier than I would have liked, I'll have to try that again one night (maybe at twilight with less dynamic range) Notice some of the soft star lights.



Here's one of a reworked Chihouli vase from the museum



Ooops half time is over, the Pats are handing it to the Raiders..

Rags

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

A little Xmass cheer for all my fellow photographers, A image from my Saturday shoot.

[torags v2]

I got to stop what I'm doin' and get some cheesecake...... I just don't know where the bakery is..

Happy Holidays everybody..

 

[Thunder7]

Ok, I am now posting one of my first significant images from my new Leica. Its not indicative of the camera's quality by any means but more of an example of a shooting method. Due to the angle and shooting through a glass door, the image is not as sharp as it could have been. The subject's face has been blurred for the usual reasons.

Method involved in shooting- Your basic distraction method. In the presence of a friend and his wife, we all noticed the exhibition going on. I lamented the lack of possible shooting angles due to others in the room and the unwitting subject noticing the act of shooting, due to proximity. Friend's wife suggested that she stand by the door so it would look like I was shooting her instead, which allowed for a similar angle, in turn creating the necessary "opening" to get the shot.  

[torags v2]

Do ya think she's a plumber???  

Rags

[Thunder7]

Do ya think she's a plumber???  

Rags

Of course I can only imagine the deluge of one liners regarding clogged pipes and such.....  

[vitaminC]

Do you use UV filters as "protection" on your lenses? Or is it just one more thing to get dust on?

[torags v2]

Do you use UV filters as "protection" on your lenses? Or is it just one more thing to get dust on?

Any additional glass you put on a lens, can affect IQ, lots of photogs don't use UV. I use circular polarizers when the subject or sky has glare. I think all dslr owners should use them for exterior shooting in sun mid day  

my .02

Rags

[vitaminC]

Any additional glass you put on a lens, can affect IQ, lots of photogs don't use UV. I use circular polarizers when the subject or sky has glare. I think all dslr owners should use them for exterior shooting in sun mid day  

my .02

Rags

After doing some research, that's the conclusion I'm coming to as well. Actually, I hadn't really looked closely at my filters in a while, and they were not clean    Quite a bit of dust on my sensor, too.

Both are much better now    

[torags v2]

I keep my filters in a pouch velcroed to my backpack with a velcro flap. I'm real careless with the bag, I'll just drop it and take a shot, filter on/off/on/off. It always gets sand in it, so all my filters have sand on them if I don't vacuum after every trip and I have to inspect before install. I carry a syn terry wipe rag (Tap plastics) that I use frequently. Just my little habit.

Rags

[Thunder7]

The suggestion from a camera dealer to use a filter for "protection" is nothing more than a profit motivated endeavor. Margins have been razor thin in the consumer market for a number of years now so add-ons are what raise them somewhat. The only time I have a filter on a lens is when I'm using a circular polarizer. Other than that, I protect my lenses the old fashioned way- I'm careful with them.

[kurtw]

Any additional glass you put on a lens, can affect IQ, lots of photogs don't use UV. I use circular polarizers when the subject or sky has glare. I think all dslr owners should use them for exterior shooting in sun mid day  

my .02

Rags

Torags and Thunder - How about when you are shooting the Baja or in other 'dirty' environments? Especially in low light where a polarizing filter makes things even more difficult?

If I'm shooting for extended periods, e.g. bikes in the dusty desert or surfers at the salt-spray oceanside, I'm glad to give up a tiny bit of IQ for knowing that I will be repeatedly cleaning my inexpensive UV filter and not an expensive front element with delicate coatings. I don't always have it on for general use, but in these cases it's a no-brainer for me.

[doodah man]

Do you use UV filters as "protection" on your lenses? Or is it just one more thing to get dust on?

I view the UV filter as I do insurance.  All of my lenses have UV filters and I have not noticed any degradation in IQ (filters are Hoya multi-coated).  If you don't want to use a UV filter then consider using a lens hood as this will provide some protection against impacts.

Dust will get on everything.  You just have to clean periodically.  Filters are the least of my concerns.  I'm most worried about push-pull zooms because these actually pull air in (you can feel the air coming out the back when you "pump" them) and they are not user-cleanable.  I already have one spec of dust inside my EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8.

[Thunder7]

Torags and Thunder - How about when you are shooting the Baja or in other 'dirty' environments? Especially in low light where a polarizing filter makes things even more difficult?

If I'm shooting for extended periods, e.g. bikes in the dusty desert or surfers at the salt-spray oceanside, I'm glad to give up a tiny bit of IQ for knowing that I will be repeatedly cleaning my inexpensive UV filter and not an expensive front element with delicate coatings. I don't always have it on for general use, but in these cases it's a no-brainer for me.

First off, higher quality lenses are sealed to some level. While in Chicago, the opportunity to shoot a Baja event is nil I have shot out in a snowfall that was one of those thick and wet ones. It was night time and I was doing set and unit photography for an independent  film production and one night it was just a nasty think slushy snow and the next night was about 20 degrees colder. On that night I was going in and out of a heated camper. The two lenses I was using were a Canon 28-135 IS zoom and a Canon "L" series 17-40 Zoom.

Never had a single problem with ether. As far as dust goes, beyond the usual amount that seems to get into a lens over years of use I've not had an issue.

[Thunder7]

I view the UV filter as I do insurance.  All of my lenses have UV filters and I have not noticed any degradation in IQ (filters are Hoya multi-coated).  If you don't want to use a UV filter then consider using a lens hood as this will provide some protection against impacts.

Dust will get on everything.  You just have to clean periodically.  Filters are the least of my concerns.  I'm most worried about push-pull zooms because these actually pull air in (you can feel the air coming out the back when you "pump" them) and they are not user-cleanable.  I already have one spec of dust inside my EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8.

Not saying you're wrong for using them that way by any means- Its just something I've never needed to do speaking from personal experience, of course being ultimately subjective.

[torags v2]

Torags and Thunder - How about when you are shooting the Baja or in other 'dirty' environments? Especially in low light where a polarizing filter makes things even more difficult?

If I'm shooting for extended periods, e.g. bikes in the dusty desert or surfers at the salt-spray oceanside, I'm glad to give up a tiny bit of IQ for knowing that I will be repeatedly cleaning my inexpensive UV filter and not an expensive front element with delicate coatings. I don't always have it on for general use, but in these cases it's a no-brainer for me.

A Circular Polarizer is adjustable. You mentioned 2 different shooting environments, let's address each.

surfing: The glare from water is like thousands of mirrors mid day, think of a lake with wind chirp on it's surface - the glare is unbelievable draining color. Surfer suds also has glare, even shooting with the sun at your back. If you have sky in your frame its probably colorless mid day and thats because of glare.

A CP will saturate the colors that are unrecoverable in PP.

Baja dust also contains glare (dust particles reflect back) . The ground sand is reflective the sky is washed out, a CP retains the color lost from the glare

I have found mid sunny day from like 10am - 3pm to be the best times for a cp. Thats when most people like to do their thing (sports promoters, participants)

I also have a linear polarizer (Cokin) that allows me to get about 10 seconds more of a rising sun, than I could without it. It's a graduated neutral density - 3 stop.

Baja 10am +/-; I kept the blue sky - CP on medium



A water sky shot - 1pm +/- cp allowed color retention of water/sky



Linear polarizer example



Polarizers are personal preferences

Rags

BTW.. Use of CPs can result in vignetting. The thin expensive ones purportedly reduce that. I crop all my sports stuff so it doesn't matter to me; but it's worth a mention.

[Thunder7]

A Circular Polarizer is adjustable. You mentioned 2 different shooting environments, let's address each.

surfing: The glare from water is like thousands of mirrors mid day, think of a lake with wind chirp on it's surface - the glare is unbelievable draining color. Surfer suds also has glare, even shooting with the sun at your back. If you have sky in your frame its probably colorless mid day and thats because of glare.

A CP will saturate the colors that are unrecoverable in PP.

Baja dust also contains glare (dust particles reflect back) . The ground sand is reflective the sky is washed out, a CP retains the color lost from the glare

I have found mid sunny day from like 10am - 3pm to be the best times for a cp. Thats when most people like to do their thing (sports promoters, participants)

I also have a linear polarizer (Cokin) that allows me to get about 10 seconds more of a rising sun, than I could without it. It's a graduated neutral density - 3 stop.

Baja 10am +/-; I kept the blue sky - CP on medium



A water sky shot - 1pm +/- cp allowed color retention of water/sky



Linear polarizer example



Polarizers are personal preferences

Rags

BTW.. Use of CPs can result in vignetting. The thin expensive ones purportedly reduce that. I crop all my sports stuff so it doesn't matter to me; but it's worth a mention.

Good stuff, all. The only vignetting issue I have ever encountered was with my Tokina 12-24 and a standard thickness CirPol. Problem solved for the most part with a low profile CirPol.

[kurtw]

A Circular Polarizer is adjustable. You mentioned 2 different shooting environments, let's address each.

Don't get me wrong. I use a CP in many of the cases that you posted and it's my default filter most days. Even on a cloudy day they enhance the contrast in the clouds for landscapes. But the low-light example above was not an action shooting example.

If you have to shoot action in low light, why would you want to use a CP? Take for example the shaded offroad photos I posted further up this page. Or surfing action on a cloudy day. The CP doesn't buy you much in those situations and limits your ISO/shutter-speed options. Both situations are good one to protect your lens so why not use a clear UV filter and preserve your shooting options?

You're right about the CP in the situations you posted. But I'm just saying that there is also a time and a place where UV filters make sense.

Here is what I'm talking about:

Offroad action in the shade:



PNW surfing on a cloudy day (you'd be surprisd how little light there can be):



Am I off base here?