|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/12/2012 06:45:11 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Morgan:
Yes, I use a filter on every lens, but it is more for protection of the front optical surface than for the reasons that I once used them for back in the film days - for correction. Today, I can achieve any filter effect in an image processing tool - Photoshop and the like. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There are at least two exceptions to that approach, though: neutral density filters allow much longer exposures without increased diffraction and/or DOF in daylight, and polarizing filters reduce reflection off surfaces in a way that can't easily be emulated in post processing... |
Originally posted by Citadel:
+1 to that brother. |
Yeah, but I still wouldn't base my camera and/or lens selections based on whatever of those filters I happened to have in my bag.... |
Agreed; it is not very practical to select lenses based upon on-hand filter inventory. This approach is driven by a false sense of economy rather than a creative endeavour approach to photography.
ND filters are no longer required with the current list of top cameras. With the ability to adjust ISO settings over such an amazing dynamic range, I rarely consider using my ND filters anymore. With lessor cameras, leveraging lower dynamic range chips and less capable CPUs, they would be useful. However, a polarizing filter is a nice item to in your kit and to continue to use creatively.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2012 07:03:21 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
ND filters are no longer required with the current list of top cameras. With the ability to adjust ISO settings over such an amazing dynamic range, I rarely consider using my ND filters anymore. With lessor cameras, leveraging lower dynamic range chips and less capable CPUs, they would be useful. However, a polarizing filter is a nice item to in your kit and to continue to use creatively. |
Sincerely curious as to how you manage a 1 second exposure in anything other than dusk without resorting to f/16 at the absolute least... |
|
|
|
12/12/2012 11:50:00 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
thanks for the advice dudes. i guess theres not really any nice wide angle 67mm lenses . |
No, probably not, especially not wide zooms. The high quality wide zooms all tend to be big, fat, heavy things. You might be able to find a wide prime that takes a 67, though. I haven't really looked into that. |
|
|
|
12/12/2012 12:11:49 PM · #29 |
| To follow up Ann's point, Nikon's premium ultra-wide 14-24mm doesn't have filter threads at all. |
|
|
|
12/12/2012 12:29:41 PM · #30 |
If you are concerned about the costs, you might consider sidegrading to a micro four thirds like the Oly OM-D or a Fujifilm X-E1 (APS-C size sensor, but better). Both appear to take fantastic pics, are much more convenient, and have smaller lenses which may meet your filter requirements.
I just upgraded from the D7000 to the D600. It's an investment to buy new lenses! (The old ones work on the Nikon but are lower res when they do, so you really want new lenses for the D600.)
While the D600 is a great camera, it, full frame lenses are quite big and heavy, and have big openings (large and expensive filters). I had to replace my Sigma 10-20mm, which is small and not too heavy, with a bigger wide angle. I picked the 16-35mm Nikon, it's a beast in size, and significantly heavier than the 10-20. 77mm threads. The 14-24 would have been heavier still, and almost $2k.
I have the 70-200 F2.8 and the 24-70 f2.8, but they are both heavy, and the 70-200 is a real beast. I rarely take it with me shooting, though it's WONDERFUL. Just too much "stuff" to carry around hiking or even urban shooting. The 24-70 is great too, but the D600 kit lens is also quite good (24-85 VR) much lighter, and has VR. I think the thread is 72mm on that (I used a step-up to 77mm on it.)
I still look at, and consider the Fujifilm E-X1 or the Olympus for the weight advantages. I think eventually I will switch.
Since you are just starting buying lenses (at least from your profile) you are at a good point to think about this from a lens perspective, and a personal "needs" perspective. Think about what you shoot, and what you want to (and don't mind) carrying. And if you end up small, yes, you will probably be able to use your 67mm filters (but that should be the least of your worries).
Message edited by author 2012-12-12 12:31:26. |
|
|
|
12/12/2012 12:34:38 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
To follow up Ann's point, Nikon's premium ultra-wide 14-24mm doesn't have filter threads at all. |
Same with the Tokina 16-28. No filters at all.
All, or nearly all, of the professional Nikon lenses take 77mm filters, so if you want to standardize on a filter size, that's probably the direction to go. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 07:50:29 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 07:50:29 AM EDT.
|
