-= T2i / 550D users UNITE! (1) =-

Rafa, that's a pretty nice explanation. I want to get some ND filters. I was looking at the Lee Big stopper. But maybe a simple 77mm 3 stop would do.

I really want to have a try at those long shutter speed shots of sky/beach/water/clouds​. It always makes impressive pictures and I'd love to be able to do them

I agree with you Rivest... but the 3 Stop Filters are NOT the way to go! I thought the same, have one of 58mm for the kit lens and one of 67mm for the 70-200. I have used two of them on the kit lens adding to 6 f-stops and, in broad daylight, you are still nowhere in the long-shutter requirements.

Now, for twilight conditions, the 3 stops are perfect!! Also, there are huge discussions as to what color cast the filter will yield, as at that point (10 f-stops) there is no 'neutral' filter. The Lee Big is famous for the violet tone while the B+H is famous for its brown tone, or the other way around, I have not delved much into that, but I know its an issue.

So... some folks mix different brands to achieve other color casting effects. Its a really interesting aspect of photography I have always wanted to get into myself, but having so few waterfalls around, it will require a dedicated trip to get them.

Let us know what you decide.

Rafa.

Annie thank you for the compliment your going to give me a swelled head LoL

Rafa thanks to you also. As far as the ceilings there are stark white along with the walls. Not sure about the wb issue. Although I do find that I get a lot of pictures with a far too much red in them this is the first time with any orange.

Rafa, thanks for some tips, I will look into 9 stops filters. I might go with a 77mm B+W but it's a tad pricey for such a specialized piece of equipement. It's not the kind of filter you use every day. I feel like I could invest my money elsewhere, where's I'll use it a lot more (third flash, another set of RF-602, an octobox...).

But at the same times, those picture are so dreamy that it might be worth it only for one picture. Again, too much options here

RafaPolit wrote in post #11915150
As always thanks a lot for the kind words friends! Thanks Vectoria, Rivest, Annie, and Al.

Vectoria, what do you want to achieve with the filters? I ask because good filters can be expensive while cheap filters will surely degrade image quality. I find there are three useful filters to have.

- The first are UV filters to protect the lens. This has been discussed at-nauseum and there is no clear consensus: some say "leave the lens without UV, change front element if needed, specially at $50 per filter" others say "use it to protect the lens". I am with the latter group.
- The others are ND (Neutral Density) filters. These cut the light going into the sensor and have a few uses. They can help use wider apertures outdoors and still achieve good DoF, or to force longer shutter speeds for things like clouds or waterfalls. This are marginal situations for most of us, but the results could be quite pleasing. There are different strengths of filters, the most common cut 3 stops, but you can find all sorts to some that cut a whooping amount of 10 fstops at which point you can no longer see through the camera, you need to compose the image with the filter out, focus, measure light, then put the filter and calculate the new exposure and they are worth for 30 seconds and up... some to several minutes.
- The last type are the Circular Polarizing Filters. These help polarize the light and are used to wipe out reflections (for instance, fish inside a pond, you could take away the reflection of the pond in order to see the fish) or to concentrate the light from the sky... instead of a washed light blue you'll get a nice deep blue. There are some of these like the one Annie had that are, on top of that, warming filters... they'll render warmer tones.

So, what are you hoping to achieve with the filters?

Rafa.

I was just told getting a filter for a camera would be good idea. I take lots of pictures of family and dog lol. I do go to a aquariums every vacation I go to. I love fish.

Well, good news and bad news. Bad news is I didn't get a shot of the satellite. The good news is I got the Andromeda galaxy by accident. The bad news is I got that shot while I was testing exposure. Had I left the camera pointed right there I would have caught the satellite. But I second guessed myself and readjusted my alignment at the last minute. Oops.

Anyway, it's not a great shot by any means, but that fuzzy oval in kind of the right third of the image is a distant galaxy.

Sorry to hear that Maru! At any rate, the image is great! Have you thought of purchasing a GPS-driven motor like the ones the Telescope's have? That would allow you to expose longer to reveal deep space things like those galaxies but keep them perfectly sharp as the camera would be moving along with the sky volt? It would be interesting!

Well, nice image, as always!
Rafa.

RafaPolit wrote in post #11915326
Sorry to hear that Maru! At any rate, the image is great! Have you thought of purchasing a GPS-driven motor like the ones the Telescope's have? That would allow you to expose longer to reveal deep space things like those galaxies but keep them perfectly sharp as the camera would be moving along with the sky volt? It would be interesting!

Well, nice image, as always!
Rafa.

Oh yeah, that is on my gear list for sure. So many things to buy and so little money!

Ok, here are my afternoon shots toying around with magic hour light. I finally took these two Chinese carvings I love so much (they are my mother's, inherited from my grandmother), and I took a 'product' shot of my 70-200 when light was a bit fainter.

I think the carvings caught the best light, but it only lasted a few minutes (as always!), by the time I had the lens ready, the light was quite different. I'm only posting one of the carvings as they are nearly identical.

Well, here they are:

Vectoria wrote in post #11915274
I was just told getting a filter for a camera would be good idea. I take lots of pictures of family and dog lol. I do go to a aquariums every vacation I go to. I love fish.

As I understand it, in film photography filter use was extremely important for doing a lot of the things we can now do really easily, either in camera or in post production (e.g. white balance). By far the most common filter now is the simple UV filter, but actually most digital sensors block UV light by themselves--it's used mainly just to keep the lens from accidentally getting dirty or scratched. As mentioned by Rafa and others, the polarizing filter is one of the few that can't have it's effect reproduced in post, but its effects are usually fairly subtle, and work best when in specific relation to either the sun or to glare. (90 degrees off axis for the sun, and I believe 67 degrees for glare--off leaves and foliage, for example.) A polarizer will darken your pictures by 1-1.5 stops or so, however--which might actually be handy on a really bright day, but may be a disaster if you forget to take them off in low light. Also, it is important to get circular polarizers if you use auto-focus, as the other kind can cause problems for the AF system.
I recently bought a couple pretty good polarizers, but frankly I haven't noticed much change in my pictures since I started using them...

Thanks everyone for all your help on the filters I will take all this is consideration

I just bought another Marumi filter for my T2i...a DHG ND-8 this time (3-stop neutral density filter). $22 on 2filter.com. I want to experiment with longer exposures (this will give me 8x the exposure), but it won't do the really long ones like that lee big stopper.

Rafa, your 17-55 is a beast! I'm glad your happy with it, and I can see why!


Here are a couple of more from today.

IMAGE LINK: http://wolfy317.smugmu​g.com …ihh#1198755363_​gJ3dG-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://wolfy317.smugmu​g.com …ihh#1198758256_​BLfsU-A-LB

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Rafa, those are quite nice.

And wolfy, nice golf capture. I'm a big time golfer myself, so I hope to pack the gear up for a few golf outings next year.

And I must say, I have total L glass envy right now. I spent most of last week shooting with the 70-200 exclusively, and the last couple of days I've been playing with the 28 and 28-105 and I'm just disappointed all around. Yeah, it isn't quite an apples to apples comparison, but I can clearly see the differences in quality. I'm sure the average person probably can't, but still.

Oh well. I guess I should just be happy with what I have and make the best use of it I can for the time being.

Thanks Wolfy! I think Rivest was not exaggerating that this you have posted rank amongst the best bird pictures in this thread. There is some quality to them that few others have... I don't know if it the lighting, the completely blurred background, the composition... perhaps its all of that. I think they are fantastic! Could you, after using the lens for a bit longer, run a deeper review of what you have found? I'd love to hear that. This is the 5.6 right? Or did you rent the 2.8?

Thanks Marubozo. Well, its not precisely glass envy if you actually have one! ... Care to elaborate what you find so different? Is it image quality, is it handling? I, for instance, been playing around with the 17-55 have found out that the zooming mechanism of the 70-200 (only comparison I have) is leaps and bounds better. The 17-55 is still stiff, not fluent, has a distinctive pull at the end of the travel (I suspect to prevent creep), its not the best by far. But, other than that, the overall experience is incredible. Its even sharper than the 70-200 if that's even possible. The fast 2.8 can make a difference in bringing the subject up front. The full time MF is great, and the added luminosity actually allows for accurate viewfinder manual focusing. The USM focus is just snappy and ultra quick. So, safe for the zoom, I have no complaints.

I can see that all those features apply to your 28mm f1.8 minus the only problem I have, which is the zooming ring, so I am curious as to what exactly you have found lacking. On the 28-105 I can more or less paint myself the picture . Thanks,

Rafa.