What camera are you using beermonster?

If a K5/Kr/Kx, you can expose the sky correctly and then correct the underexposed foreground in PP. This is more convenient than using a filter in most cases. (You can do this with any camera but the results are better with the newer sensors).

Alternatively you can bracket your exposures and merge the shots afterwards. That requires a tripod though.

I agree. It's too tempting to go on a shopping spree and buy all these bits of glass you never use. Filters are there to overcome problems, such as needing to increase exposure times with ND filters. Wait and see if you run into these problems in the course of your general photography before getting the filter. Otherwise you end up either storing this stuff under your bed or - even worse - fitting your photography around the filters rather than the other way round ('ooh I've bought a 10-stop ND filter, now I must go and photograph a waterfall'!)

I think everyone in the thread has said something similar John, so there isn't actually an argument here. When people say they shoot wide open, it's because they consciously want subject isolation. On APSC (with a normal-wide lens) you are often forced to shoot wide open on a fast lens to achieve that. This is one of the reasons people pine for faster lenses and bigger sensors. On 135mm you could achieve a similar effect but stop down couple of clicks.

But with portraits don't people like a slightly shallow dof, which makes the subject 'pop,' and differentiates the shot from a 'snap' taken on a compact camera? Claudefrog's shot is a good example - what parent wouldn't be thrilled with this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidbladon/5836492801/meta/in/photostream/

I can't work out who has said they use all their lenses wide open all the time, John!

Looking at Smeggy's shots for example, I see a lot of shallow DOF in evidence, except for the UWA/Fisheye shots where going for shallow DOF is just not possible (even wide open, although that's only f4) unless your subject is very close.

'Fly' is my favourite. Looks so metallic and you captured every hair.

I kind of know what he means about the build, the switches and stuff like that really could be a bit better, they're fine but a feel a bit cheap - but I do like the grip and the boxiness of the Kr. I think the white finish highlights the imperfections, screws etc, though.

Yes Matt, for most things you want a decent depth of field and higher aperture settings tend to flatter less renowned lenses like the 135mm/f3.5, which I also own and rarely use below f5.6. For landscapes I gravitate towards f8 give or take a stop depending on the light. But there are plenty of instances where you want to use DOF as a creative tool and I would have thought the FALtds were natural choices for that sort of photography (if you can afford them :lol

Re the Av thing, I have also always thought in terms of aperture first, shutter speed second - aperture just has a greater bearing on the image than shutter speed, which I usually think of in terms of a limiting factor on aperture rather than a creative tool. My first SLR was all manual, so I can't put it down to Pentax only offering Av mode.

That bird (Toucan?) shot is stunning. If I planned shooting wildlife I would have jumped on this lens.

A good example is the Sigma 30mm f1.4. There are probably better options for using at normal apertures, but the lens is extremely popular because it opens up low light shooting and, perhaps more importantly, offers a shallow dof combined with good sharpness in the middle of the image. That sort of effect was easy to achieve on a 35mm frame - a 50mm f2 would give just the same sort of look. The crop factor means you have to buy a faster lens to achieve the same effect.

For me, my 50mm f1.7 is stuck on wide open, as is my 35mm f2.4. The nice drift from sharp to out of focus which these lenses provide is what I want. I want parts of the image to stand out more than others.

DA35mm f2.4:




Only occasionally do I want them for their extra sharpness at f8. Actually my Tamron zoom lens probably beats them on sharpness at that setting anyway!

We love to knock Canon, but this made me feel very queasy.




Noooooooo!!!!