dRebelXT said:I can lay my hands on either EF 28-135mm IS OR EF 17-40mm L. When I travel to
Phuket, which lens give me a better view in the sky? Assume I get a window
seat. ;p
Thank you. My 77mm set of filters should have arrived by then.Snoweagle said:Definitely the 17-40 as it's wider. Don't forget to add a polarising filter too.
dRebelXT said:Thank you. My 77mm set of filters should have arrived by then.
Does a blue grad ND filter help get bluer skies?
dRebelXT said:Another question,
For a 4 day trip to Phuket, what are the curisiosities shall I shoot?
My 17-40mm will take care of landscape and seashores.
I can take another lens also.
Do they have large varieties of insects and birds which can not be found in Singapore?
How I wish Canon makes EF18-200 IS F/2.8L USM (Macro 1:1) within 800grams within $1k. ;pSnoweagle said:I've not been to Phuket so i'm not sure. But if i were you, i'd carry light. Maybe a walkaround lens or a wide to tele zoom will be good.
dRebelXT said:How I wish Canon makes EF18-200 IS F/2.8L USM (Macro 1:1) within 800grams within $1k. ;p
dRebelXT said:I can lay my hands on either EF 28-135mm IS OR EF 17-40mm L. When I travel to
Phuket, which lens give me a better view in the sky? Assume I get a window
seat. ;p
ywh said:Agree with Terence. The skies at higher altitudes are blue enough that a polarizer is not needed. It will give weird colours as the windows are birefringent.
Snoweagle,
No offence here, but I do realise you do give inaccurate advice at times. Confirm your research before posting will do you and the receiver much good.
ywh said:I dun get your idea but your statement of "the rest of your pics will be blue too" when using a blue grad filter is totally out.
17-40 will be too wide. I've tried shooting with a 24-70 on a 1.3x crop camera and could already see the window frame at 24mmdRebelXT said:I can lay my hands on either EF 28-135mm IS OR EF 17-40mm L. When I travel to
Phuket, which lens give me a better view in the sky? Assume I get a window
seat. ;p
Snoweagle said:Okok...maybe i didn't explain clearly. What i mean is of cos not the entire pic will turn blue cos if it's graduated colour. I have used ND grads before and didn't like the final outcome. Polarisers can do better IMO.
Here's an exerpt from the net to explain in detail what i mean:
"The position of the gradation over the lens can give a false impression. The percentage of shading over the front element does not necessarily equate to your slide. At f22 on certain lenses an apparent one-third gradation may not show at all on the final image. Only the part of the filter in line with the image coming through the diaphragm opening counts. Original designers of screw-in grads gave them a 50-50 split so they would work to some degree with any focal length or aperture.
A further complication is that when you hold these filters up they appear to be split at the light end of the gradation, but the edge you see on your film is near the dark end. What looks like a 50-50 split in the hand could be a 40-60 or even 35-65 split on your slide. This has dire consequences where the gradation is intended to hold down a bright background above your subject. If the edge ends above where you thought you put it, you'll have an unnaturally bright band that draws attention away from the intended subject."
Hope this explains.
ywh said:Thus it is important to know where exactly to place your grads. The use of the DOF preview will aid in this. Many pros that I know personally know have used ND grads with much success. Even with digital, many still stick by it with the Singh-Rays as the norm followed by Lee and Hitech. The polarizer and ND/coloured grads serve different purposes.
An advice to the threadstarter, use a black or dark coloured jacket to cut out reflections esp those from the overhead lights.
Snoweagle said:The problem with me is that i seldom use the DOF preview button. Though i know it's useful for letting one preview the actual DOF by stopping down the the aperture that is selected, but i just left that out.