Okay...I was looking into filters (specifically UV & Polarized) & I have a few questions:

1. Between the 3 above, which is most popular/commonly used by pros?

2. I was looking at the UV lenses specifically & found several versions: Multi-Resistant Coating, Slim, Standard, & Extra Wide Front. So my question is, which one is better? I would assume the one with the Multi-Resistant Coating?

3. Looks like there is a whole bunch of different Polarized filters as well such as Linear, Circular, Linear Warm, Circular Warm, Kasaemann, etc. I know the Circular Polarized is the most common but would any of the others be any better? I'm assuming it depends on the application but I just wanted to double-check.

4. Or should I just buy one of their kits which comes with a variety of pre-selected lenses?

Thanks!

 

It really depends on what the person shoots and what filter they will use. Someone that shoots indoors with models won't use a CP or someone that shoots landscape won't use an 812 filter. Most will at least have a good UV filter to protect the lens. Why put a $20 cheapo filter on a $1000+ lens? I keep a UV filter on the lens when I'm not shooting outdoors. When I'm outdoors, I'll switch to a CP. Some purists shun filters when not need and won't use them but I'll take a very small loss in image quality to protect my glass. But, technology has changed a lot over the last 30-40 years and filters can be made without any scratches and with harder glass.

Linear vs circular polarizer. A LP cannot be used on cameras that rely on split beam optics (metering and auto focus). On digital SLRs, get a CP. Some digital cameras can use a LP but some high end DSLRs will require a CP.

Yeah, get a filter with MRC. The coating will allow the use of less glass. Less glass = less chance of lens flare. The coating will also help against water and dust:


A few other filters worth looking at would be neutral density filters. These are designed to reduce the amount of light, which is useful when shooting in bright, sunny conditions. I like to use CP since it does reduce the amount of incoming light by about 1 stop. For example, yesterday I was shooting a rowing competition. With the CP, I could shoot at f/5.6 at 1/500 shutter. Without the CP, at f/5.6 my shutter would be 1/1000 (1 full shutter stop). There are times when you want a slow shutter speed but w/o an ND filter, it's not possible due to too much light. Such a case would be photographing a waterfall or river. You would want shutter speeds around 1/25 to get the water blur. Let's say you're shooting at ISO 100, f/8 - this would probably be set in your camera to shoot at 1/500 shutter, which is too fast to blur the water. To get from 1/500 to 1/25 is about 4 stops so you would need an ND filter. Anyway, I don't want to get too technical =)

To get to the point, for automotive photography, I'd suggest a circular polarizer with MRC and a UV (010) filter to start. You might eventually get some graduated ND filters that will change the color of the sky (but this can be done with photoshop). For any L lens you use, I'd suggest:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

 

^ Thanks! Exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for

 

Took these yesterday with the Canon 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 I rented the lens from a place nearby. Whaddaya think?

 

^ Damn...those are sweet!

I swear I need to learn how to do those action shots! Those are hawt!

 

Couple more

 

Awesome pics, Cyberz350!

 

action shots ftw!

Are you using a rig or riding in another vehicle?

 

Rig

 

care to elaborate?

 

So professional looking... awesome

 

oliver, that second pic is nuts!~

-B-

 

Congratulation! you finally get your whole car rig shot, well done! nice shot.

 

Hey guys, thanks for all the replies. It's pretty unanimous. The 20D seems to be the better buy I guess. I figured the 17-85 lens would be better for a decent first lens but I really thought you guys would also recommend the 30D. Man, you guys really do know your stuff. I can't wait to get into this and produce some nice images. Thanks for all your replies and i'll keep you guys updated as to what I end up doing.

BTW, stu46 did you see the Barrera fight on Saturday? What did you think?

 

Looking forward to your results.

I didn't get a chance to see the fight. Maybe tonight if I'm lucky. Had to do the Anniversary thing Saturday. Sounds like it was a good fight. Not to mention the scoring error.

 

alright, first of all, i'm loving all the pics you guys take, they're awesome. And just by readin all these pages you guys have pretty good advice and product knowledge too. I've been getting into photography lately but cant do much with a point and shoot HP 6.1 camera. I want to go SLR and was thinkin about the D50 w/18-55 lens. I love to take pics of my car but also take pics of scenery and what not. Would this be a good overall setup for a beginner like myself? Thanks for all the great info.
-GP-

 

I'd highly recommend the D50. It's a great beginner camera with full adjustment modes and flash, iso, etc. settings. It's the camera that I use for all my shots. I have the 18-55mm lens and I love the quality and the range of shots I can take with it. I can zoom really close on an object, or for scenery it allows a wider perspective.

Of course, adding a 70-300mm lens for longer distance shots helps too. Offers a great zoom, and again clarity.

For closer shots, I would recommend the 60mm macro lens.

Samples of my work can be seen here;

http://fd3sdriver.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

OMG those pics are insane, I have to get one of those soon.

 

I'm in love. Auto focus is instant regardless of how little light I have and the change in focus distance. I love my Tamron but the 16-35L blows it out of the water.

 

^ Sweet! Did you just get that bro?