Lens filters

[Glenn NK]

I shoot with polarizers when it is cloudy or raining out; they cut the glare on leaves regardless of the lighting.

Absolutely!!

It was raining today (light showers) when I went out at 3:00 pm to shoot at the ocean - I used my CPL to enhance the sky. There was a bit of blue showing with the clouds over the Olympics.

Glenn

[jeeperman]

Glenn, Light showers! Uhg....you got lucky cause we are flooding out just south of you today! lol

[CP140]

Seattle, Vancouver, Victoria... three regions a few (OK... maybe a hundred) km apart... let's face it... the weather from October/November to April/May generally is icky... yeah we each get a few days here and there when we actually feel like going outdoors without Goretex and an umbrella... but let's face it... winter weather here sucks... but at least we don't have to shovel the rain out of the driveway!

[Glenn NK]

Our local climate (extreme southeast end of Vancouver Island) is greatly modified by the Olympic Mountains of WA state (thanks Martin). As an aside, the mountains are snow covered year round and make a nice backdrop for photography.

Our location is sometimes referred to as being a in "rain shadow" - the Olympics divert a lot of Pacific weather away from us. Only a short distance up island and the weather changes considerably (I think the Malahat rains continuously all winter ). The Greater Vancouver area has large local variations - the word Tsawwassen means "hole in the sky" - the area gets more winter sun than the GV area in general.

But as we often say here, if you don't like the weather, wait ten minutes.

Glenn

[jcuknz]

Since the front of the CPL rotates I would think that it would be easier to add the CPL to the UV rather than the reverse, but I wouldn't know becuase I don't have any UV filters just lenshoods which until I modify them to provide access to the CPL have to be removed. Was it on CiC that I read about cutting a hole in the underside of the lenshood to give access to rotate the CPL or elsewhere?

I was amazed/concerned on my recent holday/tour to see so many DSLRs being toted around without lenshoods, hopefully relying on the UV filter for protection. Shocking behaviour to my way of thinking We need the Royal Family to recognise a RSPCL [ Royal Society for the Protection of Camera Lenses ]

[CP140]

Since the front of the CPL rotates I would think that it would be easier to add the CPL to the UV rather than the reverse, but I wouldn't know becuase I don't have any UV filters just lenshoods which until I modify them to provide access to the CPL have to be removed. Was it on CiC that I read about cutting a hole in the underside of the lenshood to give access to rotate the CPL or elsewhere?

I was amazed/concerned on my recent holday/tour to see so many DSLRs being toted around without lenshoods, hopefully relying on the UV filter for protection. Shocking behaviour to my way of thinking We need the Royal Family to recognise a RSPCL [ Royal Society for the Protection of Camera Lenses ]

That's one nice aspect of the Pentax lens hoods... a lot of them have a little piece on the underside that pulls out and leaves a hole you can stick a finger through and rotate a CPL

[sassyson]

Hadn't thought about the glare on leaves.... mind you, in this area it's mostly conifers.

Where I have used polarizers is in museums on vacation.... will usually get rid of some of the glare from the glass in the display case.... unless the glass has some funky metallic coating of course.

Hi CP140I am a complete novice but am trying to learn. Why do you say"...unless the glass has some funky metallic coating of course." ? How would that affect the use of a polarising filter? Or what effect would that have on the photograph taken with a polarising filter to reduce glare from glass?

And on the subjects of museums - what lense (focal length) would you use to photograph paintings in a museum for exact reproduction in a colour catalogue?

I am picking your brain. Bear with me, please ;-)

Sonja

[CP140]

Hi Sonja,

Sorry for the slow reply, I've been on vacation for the last week.

I can't explain why (something about the crystaline qualities of metals perhaps? ) but polarizing filters aren't very good at getting rid of glare from metallic surfaces. Some windows/glass have very thin metallic layers on them... newer energy efficient windows are bad for this.

As for your focal length question...I'm hardly an expert. Focal length of the lens should not affect colour rendition. Colour is going to be determined by white balance, lighting, in camera processing and whatever software you use to manipulate the image.

Focal length to use... use a fast lens as galleries are often dimly lit and often frown on flash photography and tripods...beyond that... there are far better opinions on this forum than mine...

I would say, not too wide angle as you may not be able to get close enough to the painting to fill the viewfinder and can wind up with some distortion... I would be tempted to say something like a 70mm (or so) short telephoto/zoom might be a good choice.

I will defer to others with more experience of course.

Regards

[aerao1]

I decided to own cost effective Canon EOS 6D full frame camera with EF 24-105 mm f/4 L USM kit lens. I took this decision after getting some hands on experience with Canon 550d with EFS 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens. Basically I am not a professional but take some Portrait and Landscape photos without any financial benefits/returns.

Also I would like to have either of the following lenses (which I can afford) thinking that these will enhance my portrait and landscape abilities/skills in low light conditions.

1) Canon EF 5o mm f/1.4 USM
2) Canon EF 28 mm f/1.8 USM IS

Now the question is "which lens I should purchase?"

[Glenn NK]

You might already have a good portrait lens (24-105).

At one time, the classical focal length for a head and shoulders portrait (like your avatar) was 80 mm on a FF body (6D). The reason was that in order to not distort a person's features (large nose), the camera should be about 2 meters (six feet) from the subject. A 28 mm lens would be far too wide for this without severe cropping of the image.

For large groups, 80 mm would be awkward (you'd have to move back a long way to get them all in), so the 24 mm end might be just what you need.

Have you tried it?

Glenn

[rpcrowe]

Martin mentions:

"I can't explain why (something about the crystaline qualities of metals perhaps? ) but polarizing filters aren't very good at getting rid of glare from metallic surfaces. Some windows/glass have very thin metallic layers on them... newer energy efficient windows are bad for this."

The CIC tutorial on polarizing filters has a very good explanation (far better than I could offer) of why polarizing filters don't prevent glare off metallic surfaces...

[aerao1]

You might already have a good portrait lens (24-105).

At one time, the classical focal length for a head and shoulders portrait (like your avatar) was 80 mm on a FF body (6D). The reason was that in order to not distort a person's features (large nose), the camera should be about 2 meters (six feet) from the subject. A 28 mm lens would be far too wide for this without severe cropping of the image.

For large groups, 80 mm would be awkward (you'd have to move back a long way to get them all in), so the 24 mm end might be just what you need.

Have you tried it?

Glenn

Thanks Mr. Glenn for the quick reply. I haven't yet acquired that 24-105 mm lens. I will try the portraits at 24 mm. You mean to say that no need of those two lenses which I inquired about? Then what about low light photography and indoor video shooting?

Regards,
A E Rao

[Glenn NK]

Thanks Mr. Glenn for the quick reply. I haven't yet acquired that 24-105 mm lens. I will try the portraits at 24 mm. You mean to say that no need of those two lenses which I inquired about? Then what about low light photography and indoor video shooting?

Regards,
A E Rao

I would think a 24 mm lens on a FF body would be too wide for portraits (head and shoulders - like your avatar). When you get close enough to one person to fill the frame, you will almost surely have distortion.

Our eyes correct for this because we have stereo vision, and our brains also make adjustments. But the single camera lens cannot correct for this. When the camera is close to a person's face, the nose appears larger and rounder than it actually is. Not very flattering.

As for low light work, the 24-105 is an f/4 lens which is only one stop slower than most fairly fast lenses (f/2.8). The image stabilization (IS) of the Canon 24-105 is very good - I've shot still subjects at 1/15th second with no trouble.

Video could be a problem with f/4, but the simplest solution is to double the ISO, which achieves the same exposure as using a f/2.8 lens (for given lighting and shutter speeds).

[Colin Southern]

I will try the portraits at 24 mm.

Unless you're doing full-length portraits, I'd be shooting them more towards the 105mm end.

[Manfred M]

The most popular FF portrait lenses that both Canon and Nikon sell is the f/2.8 70-200mm lens. That should tell you something about the focal length range most commonly used for portraiture. The 24mm focal length means you will be crowding your subject and will be introducing some very funky distortions into the images. Not a route I would recommend...

[aerao1]

The most popular FF portrait lenses that both Canon and Nikon sell is the f/2.8 70-200mm lens. That should tell you something about the focal length range most commonly used for portraiture. The 24mm focal length means you will be crowding your subject and will be introducing some very funky distortions into the images. Not a route I would recommend...

[aerao1]

Thanks for the explanation. In general I do not use built-in flash (anyway 6d do not have this) and therefore I presume the two referred lenses would help in low light shooting but bot suitable for portraits? In that case I will drop the idea of possessing them.

[Colin Southern]

Thanks a lot for all the feedback about the UV and CP filters. Now I decide to own a variable ND2- ND400 filter for my Canon EF-S 18-135 mm lens. The question is whether I can use CP and variable ND filter together?

Singh-Ray make a Vari-ND Duo; 2 to 8 stops of attenuation and a polariser in one unit.

http://singh-ray.com/varinduo.html

[Colin Southern]

Thanks for the explanation. In general I do not use built-in flash (anyway 6d do not have this) and therefore I presume the two referred lenses would help in low light shooting but bot suitable for portraits? In that case I will drop the idea of possessing them.

If you're wanting to shoot quality portraiture then sooner or later you're going to need to invest in some lighting (sooner rather than later to be honest).

If you're wanting to shoot in low-light situations then your choices are limited; you can get some fast glass (F2.8 or faster), but be aware that the narrow DoF that they produce may be an issue. You can increase the camera ISO or you can decrease the shutterspeed (at which subject and/or camera shake can become an issue).

Alternatively, purchase and use a flash if possible; they're something every photographer should own.

[aerao1]

If you're wanting to shoot quality portraiture then sooner or later you're going to need to invest in some lighting (sooner rather than later to be honest).

If you're wanting to shoot in low-light situations then your choices are limited; you can get some fast glass (F2.8 or faster), but be aware that the narrow DoF that they produce may be an issue. You can increase the camera ISO or you can decrease the shutterspeed (at which subject and/or camera shake can become an issue).

Alternatively, purchase and use a flash if possible; they're something every photographer should own.