motor

sameerrao · 06-06-2006, 10:12 AM

Congrats on the purchase ... look forward to more great pics ...

TT · 06-06-2006, 04:50 PM

Laying flat on the ground is fucking messy

I never tried an anglefinder. is it really worth ?

MartijnGizmo · 06-06-2006, 05:38 PM

I don't now, never used one, but I think it's more intended for macro-shots.

I can't really squat since I broke my kneecap, that is kinda annoying when photographing.

dingo · 06-07-2006, 06:16 AM

Got my 70-300 today and I'm in love already, only had about 30mins to play around with it after work but the results were good enough to make me feel better about spending so much on it.

Very easy to achieve that blurred background.

TT, do you use this lense for close-up detail shots (rev counter, gear shifter etc) or the 18-55?

Another thing, do any of you guys use a UV (in addition to a polarizer) filter?

I can't get my damn polarizer to fit either (right size though - 58mm), no idea how its meant to screw on - it fits but doesn't want to secure to the lense.

nthfinity · 06-07-2006, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by dingo

Got my 70-300 today and I'm in love already, only had about 30mins to play around with it after work but the results were good enough to make me feel better about spending so much on it.

Very easy to achieve that blurred background.

TT, do you use this lense for close-up detail shots (rev counter, gear shifter etc) or the 18-55?

Another thing, do any of you guys use a UV (in addition to a polarizer) filter?

I can't get my damn polarizer to fit either (right size though - 58mm), no idea how its meant to screw on - it fits but doesn't want to secure to the lense.

your image quality is instatnly WAYYY better Dingo!

on my telephoto, i leave the UV on at all times, its easier not to take it off.... about the CPL, ive never had an issue with it not going on... hopefully you can figure that out soon.
-on that note, i never put the UV filter on the 18-55, as that + the CPL make for some tunneling on the photos at those wider angles.

also, do you have a lens hood for the 70-300? it reduces ligh-born reflections quite a bit.

MartijnGizmo · 06-07-2006, 10:33 AM

I use an UV-filter on all of my lenses for physical protection, cheaper to replace than the frontelement itself. I do take it of when using a polarizer. You should never stack them, you wouldn't be the first that can't seperate 2 filters.

nthfinity · 06-07-2006, 10:49 AM

You should never stack them

because of light distortion?

sameerrao · 06-07-2006, 11:00 AM

Yeah, I was also wondering why you shouldn't stack them. I've done that on my P&S and once on my D50. Though it is a bit of a pain to remove the CPL - need to remember which way to rotate it to get the CPL out and make sure the UV stays on.

MartijnGizmo · 06-07-2006, 11:40 AM

Because it's hard to seperate them, they easily get stuck on eachother.

TT · 06-07-2006, 03:37 PM

Never use UV filters myself, the polarizer is already enough/too much to deal with

As for the suggestion about the lense hood, I got one and actually I am not happy at all:

first, it's utter crap to use the polarizer filter with it on, and usually you have to change its angle for every pic, especially since in that lense the filter rotate when focusing.. would be a bit better on an L lense, but still..

And also, I noticed the extra weight added to the rotating part kinda affect the lense performance, so I dumped it.

As for the test shot, quality is much better than your other camera

depth of field must have been a tad deeper, or focusing point moved a bit toward the front 3/4 of the car to also have the back of the car sharp (always hard to guess in the small LCD anyway...)

sameerrao · 06-07-2006, 03:49 PM

I think a lens hood makes itself a lot more useful on a racetrack. With a hood you dont need to use the lens cap at all as the lens is securely protected behind the hood. The hood prevents a lot of dust getting into the lens anyway - this is a big issue in Laguna Seca where wind can kick the dust up into the air. Also a CPL is pretty much useless anyway as the cars are moving fast and with changing light and sun intensities you wont have time to fiddle with the lens anyway.

I think on the more expensive lenses, the front part wont rotate so the hood weight wont matter.

On a still shooting assignment, a CPL is definitely useful and then the lens hood can be foregone in lieu of a lens cap.

About your comments about Dingo's shot ... Where exactly would you aim the focus so as to get the whole car clear? - Front windscreen or is too far behind or perhaps right wheel. I always wanted to know that. I read somewhere the object is in focus for about 1/3 the distance ahead and 2/3 the distance behind the focal point. I used to aim at the front bumper and I think this made the rear of the car blurry if I used a big aperture.

MartijnGizmo · 06-07-2006, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by TT

first, it's utter crap to use the polarizer filter with it on, and usually you have to change its angle for every pic, especially since in that lense the filter rotate when focusing.. would be a bit better on an L lense, but still..

It's just as crap on an L lens.

I saw somebody who fabricated a lenshood from a PVC-pipe that went on the CPL, so that you could rotate the lenshood to rotate the filter. I just leave the hood off when using a CPL.

Other than that, I always use a lenshood, as 'false light' can really effect contrast.

And also, I noticed the extra weight added to the rotating part kinda affect the lense performance, so I dumped it.

I havn't got lenses that move/rotate.

Originally Posted by sameerrao

About your comments about Dingo's shot ... Where exactly would you aim the focus so as to get the whole car clear? - Front windscreen or is too far behind or perhaps right wheel. I always wanted to know that. I read somewhere the object is in focus for about 1/3 the distance ahead and 2/3 the distance behind the focal point. I used to aim at the front bumper and I think this made the rear of the car blurry if I used a big aperture.

On www.dofmaster.com you can find some nice tools to calculate focus-distances etc. Quite technical, but very usefull.....

TT · 06-07-2006, 04:14 PM

Too bad it is a bit painful to keep removing the hood.. you always end up with the damn thing in your hands and no idea where to fucking put it

anyway when the sun is really in the wrong place, it's for sure useful, but again, that weird thing I noticed about the rotating thing made me wonder. Quite often with the hood on, focusing wasn't good, and seemed even slower for panning shots

Originally Posted by MartijnGizmo

...

I havn't got lenses that move/rotate.

...

Bastard

As for the focusing, actually I must admit I go the easy way when I notice and when I have time: I add depth of field and that's it.

idea IMO would be to focus, for a 3/4 like this, behind the front wheel, but well, I am usually too lazy to change the focusing mode (putting it on a single point instead of all seven of them) and when you use a single one, sometimes it goes crazy because of reflections.. so most of the time I rely on the whole lot of focusing points and just use a slightly deeper field :bah:

sameerrao · 06-07-2006, 04:32 PM

I think I use the single point also too much - I should try the matrix metering mode as well. Good to know.

MartijnGizmo · 06-07-2006, 04:37 PM

I put my hood on the lens reversed, or just put it in my bag.

I never use all focus points, I want the be in control of where the damn thing focusses!

If you really want to be sure that everything is in focus you could use the "A-DEP" program. Basically it selects an aperture that keeps all focus points sharp. So you point at a car and make sure that all 7 points are on the car. Kinda hard to explain, and the manual isn't that clear on it either.