In many ways, even though I’ve been photographing all my life, I’m still in a discovery phase of what I like to shoot and what focal lengths I like (basically a bit of everything!).
I was reading about Steve McCurry the other day and how he does 95% of his shooting with a Leica SL2 and 24-90mm f/2.8-4 lens. That guy has obviously got to the stage of knowing exactly what he wants. Not sure if I’ll ever get to that stage, but I’m certainly not at his level yet and probably never will be!
At the moment a 90mm lens would be too short for my liking. I’ve gotten to like the 70-300mm lens a lot lately and used it the most during the last 3 months (basically since I’ve gotten it). Besides often using the framing technique with it (a lot of my work)… the lens is quite useful for taking photos of unreachable places where the only shooting spot is far away and cropping would eat too much resolution… I concentrate on urban stuff so for the subjects available I’m happy with what I’ve got.
Also, a random (anti)GAS quote –
If you get tired of building a house, you won’t buy a new hammer. You’ll build a different kind of house.
more lenses is easy if you shoot primes.
For my Nikon I have 15, 24, 50, 100, and 100-400mm.
3 Likes
Yeah, you’d just fill the whole range with appropriately spaced primes (as you did).
Also, I’d want to try using that one specific 58mm prime lens myself, if owning one is near impossible lol
Yes, exactly. On my shortlist of wanted lenses, I have several of the Viltrox EVO and Air primes. I’m considering building a kit based on the Sony A7C II or A7C R with a bunch of compact primes. The resolution will make those primes way more versatile and essentially mini zooms.
I’ve been looking at some voigtlander 35/40mm.
Have you considered the Nikkor 40mm f/2? It looks decent though may not be enough for a 45Mpx sensor…
No, mostly because in have the Nikon 50mm f1.8s, and I was looking at other manufacturers to get a different look.
1 Like
In several occasions, I found lenses take smaller (!) filters just fine, as long as they’re thin. After all, lenses are meant to be compatible with deep stacks of thick filters. So you might be able to get away with 67mm if you don’t stack too much and keep them thin.
I would first decide if you really need all those filters for all of those lenses. For example, I will probably not use an ND filter on my tele lenses, because I always want the most light there. I mostly use CPLs on wider lenses I do landscapes with.
Then think about your lens changing habits. The nicest thing about magnetic filters is that you can just leave the magnetic base on the lens and forget about it. Do you plan to get 20 of those? Really? With step up rings, always on the lens? That’s unneeded bulk. If not, for me, having to remove and put those back on every time would defeat the purpose.
Yes, quickly changing filters is nice, but I mostly do that when I cannot judge which ND I need. With CPL I always know if I want it or not beforehand.
Frankly, I think magnetic filters are overrated and have a lot of disadvantages. One of those is that they are like a magnet (
) for particles with iron in them. Those include sand in areas which had volcanic activity (even eons ago), and removing that is literally hell, they laugh off a blower, the only reliable way I found is to pick them off with tweezers, then deposit to a neodymium magnet.
These days I carry a 46mm ND set I can stack which works for a couple of micro 4/3 Panasonic lenses (not all), a 46mm CPL, all screw-in, non-magnetic. These fit in a tiny box. The magnetic set says at home most of the time.
1 Like
I read that CPLs can help with glare near water sources, ex, when photographing water wildlife, if so I’d say that it might be worth it. I have no experience with this though, but was looking at a CPL for my main telephoto. At 82mm it’s a bit expensive so I haven’t bought it yet 
Yes, they do. If you shoot anything with water, glass, or glossy surfaces, do get a CPL.
99% of the time you can just leave the CPL on while shooting though, which is what I do when I am hiking in areas with water. It does not eat up much light and is usually innocuous (unless the subject is itself is water, or glass, etc ).
Disclaimer: I thought that magnetic filter sets were the best solution for me before I actually got one and used them on a trip. They are so attractive on paper.
Unfortunately I could not return mine afterwards (aluminum parts scratched by volcanic sand particles; glass is fine), so now I have a 62mm set I don’t use much. The little soft box they came in is very neat though (K+F). I can put it on my belt.
1 Like
Oh, so the contact surface that the filter itself attaches to and slidles on got some abrasive dust stuck onto it, and that scratched both filter and the mount? I didn’t think of that…
Exactly.
Me neither. In fact, I was not even aware of some sand having magnetic particles at all until I had a magnetic filter. I am not a geologist.
Just to clarify: it is a nuisance/cosmetic issue. The sound of sand grinding in there when you turn your CPL drives me nuts, but it is mostly harmless.
It does not require magnetic particles per se, ordinary sand getting in there will do that. But that you can just wipe off and carry on. Magnetic particles are a pain in the posterior to clean in the field though.
2 Likes
It might not even have been magnetic, just static electricity or some sticky dirt. Even mud, as smooth as it may be, is strongly abrasive. You don’t want shiny rims on your car when going off-road for this exact reason.
1 Like
No, I certainly don’t need the filters for all those lenses. My list was more of an overview of the kinds of lenses I own or may own. But I want a kit that is as versatile as possible because I don’t really want to buy another kit ever again ideally.
For my current needs, 67mm would be the most used size (my Tamron zooms), although 72mm might get some use too (XF16-80). If I keep the 82mm kit, it would cover almost all needs for the future, but I don’t really want to carry and store something unnecessarily larger than what I need. 82mm threads are more common in fast, expensive and heavy lenses, so it’s hard to imagine I’ll go down that route. Plus, for 82mm filters, I need to buy more step-up rings, which is a pain.
Returning the item for a complete refund is probably not an option. I have some mild regret with the original purchase, but it’s too late to undo the initial decision, and now I’m just trying to get the most useful product for the money I’ve spent (I got a good reduced price at least).
1 Like
@hatsnp a CPL can also darken the blue sky and add nice contrast when you have blue sky and cloulds. It can also help intensify color (by helping cut glare).
5 Likes
Then just get a set of step up step up rings, eg this one pretty much covers all the sizes you have.
2 Likes
Thanks, I will definitely get it as soon as I can.
Me with 20 rings adapting an 82mm filter to my fujinon with a 43mm filter thread
2 Likes
This works especially well for grass and leaves, making them significantly more saturated in certain (quite common) cases – useful just after rain, but also in the dry. It’s quite a massive difference…
Yes, at some point that will become veeery silly. Also you have to hope none of the rings or the filter gets stuck, which is a pain to get sorted out (ask me how I know).
1 Like