prabhu_v

<p>Would this be good for the 16-35: </p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/77mm-Slim-Line-Clear-Single-Coating/dp/B0000BZLBR/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1355331460&sr=8-5&keywords=slim+filter+77mm</p>

<p>My Nikon 16-35 f/4 is on the way, and I was planning to get some filters for it. Before I go on Amazon and order some filters blindly, I thought I'd check to see if there are any particular type & brand of filters that work well with this lens. I need a UV, polarizing, and some ND filters, so suggestions appreciated!</p>

<p>I have a Nikon D600, just ordered my 16-35 lens, and plan to eventually have the 24-70 and the 70-200 f2.8. I was looking for a good bag that i can use to store these as well as something that's small enough for travel. It would be nice to have all three lenses (plus a flash) in the bag, but I can do with one camera and 2 lenses if that would mean a lighter bag for carrying around. I'd probably never need to take more than 2 lenses out anyway.<br>

I have 2 bags in mind, though leaning towards the Think Tank:<br>

Domke F6<br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Domke-F-6-Little-Smaller-Black/dp/B00009R89T">http://www.amazon.com/Domke-F-6-Little-Smaller-Black/dp/B00009R89T</a></p>

<p>Think Tank Retrospective 7<br>

<a href="http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/retrospective-7-blueslate.aspx">http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/retrospective-7-blueslate.aspx</a></p>

<p>What do you think about these bags? Do I need to get something larger?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I got a Fesiol travel tripod (<a href="http://www.feisol.net/feisol-traveler-tripod-ct3441s-rapid-p-38.html">http://www.feisol.net/feisol-traveler-tripod-ct3441s-rapid-p-38.html</a>) along with the photoclam 36NS ballhead (<a href="http://reallybigcameras.com/PhotoClam/PC-36N_NS.htm">http://reallybigcameras.com/PhotoClam/PC-36N_NS.htm</a>). Now I plan to exchange the Feisol travel tripod for the tournament one (<a href="http://www.feisol.net/feisol-tournament-tripod-ct3442-rapid-p-31.html">http://www.feisol.net/feisol-tournament-tripod-ct3442-rapid-p-31.html</a>) which is slightly bigger. Does this mean I need to get a larger ball head? How do you determine what sized ball head is right for you? Does it depend on the kind of tripod or does it depend on the kind of camera you will be mounting?<br /> For the tournament tripod, the photo clam 40 NS seems to be the popular choice on the web. But I am wondering why that would be better than the 36 NS.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks to all of you for all your responses. I've decided to return this tripod and get a taller one.</p>

<p>Everybody sees the world at <em>their</em> eye level, show them something different. :-)</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments so far. Just to clarify, I already got the 3441, and since it's still not too late to exchange it for the tournament one (and the tournament one isn't that much more expensive), cost -wise I'm good. Just wondering which one will serve me better in the long run.<br>

Thanks...</p>

<p>I'm almost 5-8. I ordered a Feisol traveler tripod (http://www.feisol.net/feisol-traveler-tripod-ct3441s-rapid-p-38.html), and it seems like I may have to bend a little bit, if I don't extend the center column. I considered getting the tournament tripod, which I believe is 2 inches taller, but I feared that it may be too tall. <br>

What's the optimum height for a tripod, should it be eye level? Should I get the tournament tripod instead? Any one else who is about 5-8 here, I'd like to know what kind of tripod you use and your thoughts on my dilemma<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>I got a Nikon D600 and plan to use it with a 70-200 as my heaviest lens. Which ballhead would you recommend to go along with it? I was thinking of the PhotoClam one, but not sure which size would be appropriate for me, and that would work well with the Feisol tournament tripod. Suggestions appreciated!</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses, much appreciated! I'm leaning towards the 16-35 for now, but you never know!</p>

<p>I know there are tons of discussions around these two lenses, and I think I've read them all, but I think there's room for more with a few slightly different questions. Please ignore the cost difference between the two lenses, I'm interested in a pure comparison of their optical abilities.<br>

1. Assuming that lenses are usually at their sharpest 2 stops down, would the 16-35 be sharper at f/8 to f/11? I'd probably be using it most at these apertures.<br>

2. I've heard several people say that the 14-24 is best suited for interiors & architecture (because of the f/2.8) and the 16-35 for landscapes. Assuming, I'd be shooting outdoor landscapes most of the time, which among the two is better?<br>

3. One of advantages of the 14-24 seem to be the unique perspective that you get from it (assuming because you are able to get real close to the subject). How is the perspective in the 16-35? Anything close? Can you get real close to the subject with the 16-35?<br>

4. I've heard people say that polarizing filters don't really work well in the ultra wide end, so that's not really an optical advantage for the 16-35. (I realize there's a safety/lens protection advantage). Is this true? Would you use a polarizing filter with the 16-35 on the wider end?<br>

5. People say that for landscapes, you are mostly at f/8 or higher, so the 14-24's f/2.8 is not really an advantage. When I get my "Landscape" lens I would like to experiment with astrophotography/star trails etc. Would the 16-35 f/4 work ok for that or is this one area where the 14-24 makes more sense?<br>

Thanks! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for all the advice! I think I got some good shots and learnt a few lessons along the way. I'll post them here shortly.</p>

<p>I'm not sure if this post belongs here or in the Fashion section, but basically, I've rented an 85mm 1.4 lens this weekend to take a few shots of my wife as I want to experiment with portrait photography. It's going to be outdoors as I don't have an indoor facility or lighting, and I won't have an assistant with me. Since it's not for a client, I'm not too worried about perfection, but I do want to do the best I can. <br /> I was thinking of taking her to a park or beach setting and take some shots of her posing "fashionably". I have a few scenarios in mind: head shots, full length, standing, sitting, near trees, leaning on a wall, near railway tracks, bokeh, Black and White, etc. <br /> I've never done this before so I wanted to get some advice, tips, do's and don'ts, and anything else that will help me make the most out of my rental. I'll be using a Nikon D5100 camera. I do have an external flash, and like I said it's going to be outdoors. <br /> I've read the portrait article here and have also looked at flickr and 500px for portrait examples. I have bookmarked the pictures I like and thought that I could simply start by imitating some of the styles and worry about originality when I become more experienced.<br /> Other than general advice and tips, I do have a few specific questions:<br /> 1. Are there any classic portrait/fashion portfolios online that are regarded as great portrait examples?<br /> 2. Are there any tools/apps/services online that are made for photographers to help find good spots in your neighborhood for taking photos? Something like geocaching is what I had in mind. I've heard of Stuck On Earth, but it's only available for the iPad.<br /> 3. Does the golden hour guideline apply for portraits too? If I'm not able to make it during sunrise or sunset time, can I still get away with doing this at other times of the day?<br /> 4. What are the guidelines about lighting the face with regards to shadows, etc. Are shadows generally good or bad?<br /> 5. What are the guidelines about where to "cut" the body. I've heard that you should not cut at the joints. Does that mean you can cut mid-thigh, mid arm, and mid-belly?<br /> Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@KJ: thanks for your input, makes sense. I have a 35f/1.8 and thought of that combination too. Have a 2.8 however means that I don't have to change lenses. I also am thinking of getting an ultra wide angle lens for landscape photography. Wondering how something like a Nikon 10-24mm or a Tokina 11-16 mm would fit in with the 16-85. </p>

<p>Awesome explanations, thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses. Aren't distance to subject and focal length inversely proportional? In other words, with the 35mm, I'll be closer to the subject but with a shorter focal length. With the 85 mm, I'll be farther from the subject but with a longer focal length. Why then would 85mm give me a shallower field of depth given everything else is equal? </p>

<p>When I use the 35mm 1.8 lens on my Nikon D5100 to take portraits, I have to be pretty close to the subject to get the bokeh effect. That means I can usually only get a headshot. If I move backwards so that the subject's full body is in the frame, then I lose the background blur. <br>

I know that to get a Bokeh effect, you need to be close to the subject and the subject needs to be far from the background. But does the focal length also matter? In other words, if I use a 85mm 1.8 instead of the 35, then I'd be further back from the subject. Will I have a better bokeh in this case?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think I'm going to try the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 16-85 and see for myself what works. Subject isolation is definitely important because I shoot people a lot, but then I do have a 35 1.8, but I don't like switching often. The one advantage of the 16-85 I see is the ability for it to be a general purpose landscape lens.</p>

<p>Gurpreet, just to clarify what I meant by $ not being an issue--I plan to buy a used lens, so the resale value should be good--I could likely sell it without making a loss if I decide to upgrade to a full frame later. And since I had already budgeted about $800 for a good walk-around lens, I didn't want cost to be a part of this discussion as I wanted to get a true IQ comparison between the Tamron and the Nikon, and not just whether the Tamron is cost-effective. <br /> Thanks for your input on the Olympus. Always good to know the options and what's out there, but I would have to sell my Nikon gear to switch platforms.</p>

<p>Eric--thanks for your response. I actually have no attachment to brand, in fact I'd prefer a plastic, lightweight option, but I don't want to compromise on IQ at any cost. Also, I want to remove price completely from the equation, because like you mentioned a used lens doesn't depreciate much in value. If the Tamron is on par with Nikon on IQ, then I'd prefer the Tamron, not because it's cheaper but because of its size. But is the overall feel of Tamron's picture quality really on par with the Nikon? And what if I get a bad copy when buying used? I'm a little afraid of that.<br /> Is there a reason you opted for the Sigma rather than the Nkon (other than cost)?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for all the insights! Based on the responses, I'm beginning to think I should try to get used to the 17-55 first, and if not I can always sell it and get the 16-85 or a tamron. <br /> Now a few more questions:<br>

<br /> - Between the 16-85mm and a Tamron 17-55, which one is better in terms of IQ? Other than the zoom range, what are the reasons I should get the 16-85 instead of the Tamron? Do I choose Brand or Aperture?<br>

- Other than the zoom range, how does the 17-55 compare to the 35mm 1.8? Is the 17-55 superior to the 35 (other than zoom capability)?<br>

- Adding the hood to the already large 17-55 makes it worse in the size category. How useful is the hood?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 17-55/2.8 hurts my neck...I'm afraid that I may get neck problems over time...is there a particular strap that works well with this monster? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses so far. Build quality isn't too important to me, but picture quality is. It seems like Tamron's IQ is almost on par with the Nikon? One concern I have is the possibility of getting a bad copy especially since I plan to get a used one. </p>

<p>I use a D5100 and currently have the 35mm 1.8 and the kit lens 18-55mm. I was looking for a good walk-around lens and rented the Nikon 17-55 2.8 thinking that it would be the ideal upgrade. However, after I got the lens, I realized that it's way too big and heavy for my liking as a walk-around lens. What are my alternatives? Price is not a factor (which is why I didn't look into the Tamron or Sigma alternatives) because I'm going to get a used one anyway, and Nikon would have a better resale value. The biggest factor for me is size, and the Tamron and Sigma alternatives are perfect in that category. However, for a walk-around lens that I would probably use 90% of the time, I don't want any compromise on quality/sharpness. I'd use this lens on hikes, city walks, portraits (so some bokeh is important), and indoor events (when I need more range than a prime). <br>

What lens would you recommend for me?<br>

Thanks!</p>