CPL Good for Aircraft?

geebs2006

geebs2006

Messages
445
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
Just got my Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR today. I want to get a filter to protect it but also benefit my pictures as well.

The lens will mainly be used for aircraft and possibly some wildlife.

Would a CPL be any benefit in these areas or would a UV filter be better?
 
UV filter will do just fine...Just change it every year or so if you're like me and smash them up a bit...
 
Depends what you want to use the filter for! If you just want a piece of glass stuck in front of your lens, then yes it will work and protect it from meteorites or whatever you think might damage your lens.

If you mean as an filter creating an effect, probably not as unless you have it setup for the angle you are shooting then its effect won't be as you intend - and aircraft tend to be quite uncompromising when you ask them to appear somewhere in the sky in particular.
 
I think a CPL can definitely add value for aircraft shots. I don't bother with UV filters for everyday shooting - only if conditions are harsh - flying mud/salt spray/sand/dust - which they rarely are.

Here's a shot with a CPL. It can help darken the sky and make a plane stand out more without a wishy washy background....

20090808_140513_0575_LR.jpg


I can't think what use a UV filter would be in such conditions. The sensor already has a natural UV filter over the front of it. You do not need to filter UV. You also do not need protection against things that are not there, like non-existent dirt/debris. Use a lens hood for physical protection against knocks etc. and to improve contrast and reduce flare. Long lenses often do not take well to flat bits of glass stuck on the front of them. That is why Canon's supertelephoto lenses have built in protectors that are purposely curved. Scroll to the bottom of this page for more on the subject - http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200308/report.html

A further advantage of a CPL is that by losing a stop or two of light you can more easily use a slower shutter speed, to create prop/rotor blur, without stopping down to crazy apertures and suffering diffraction. You'll also most likely be using the sweet spot of the lens rather than going past that point. For example, in this shot (no CPL) the sky is very wishy washy and I had to stop down to f/13 just to try to get some rotor blur at 1/125. A CPL would have probably improved matters on three counts - deeper toned sky, f/8 for better sharpness, 1/100 for more blur....

20090808_120813_0349_LR.jpg
 
Having a CPL will, as said above , lose you a couple of stops. Do you want this on a permanent basis (or having to remove it to recover your missing light)?
 
MisterE said:
Having a CPL will, as said above , lose you a couple of stops. Do you want this on a permanent basis (or having to remove it to recover your missing light)?
Click to expand...

I think a polariser is probably a good idea for this kind of thing, but you don't want to be losing all that light shooting action.

Hoya HD Circular Polariser only loses 1.1 stops, which is 0.6 stops less than the Hoya Pro1. I got one the other day from Amazon for £80 in 77mm - really good. Multicoated both sides too. Best polariser you can get IMHO and a snip at this price :thumbs:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hoya-Digita...PMGS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250128438&sr=8-1
 
tdodd said:
I think a CPL can definitely add value for aircraft shots. I don't bother with UV filters for everyday shooting - only if conditions are harsh - flying mud/salt spray/sand/dust - which they rarely are.

Here's a shot with a CPL. It can help darken the sky and make a plane stand out more without a wishy washy background....

20090808_140513_0575_LR.jpg


I can't think what use a UV filter would be in such conditions. The sensor already has a natural UV filter over the front of it. You do not need to filter UV. You also do not need protection against things that are not there, like non-existent dirt/debris. Use a lens hood for physical protection against knocks etc. and to improve contrast and reduce flare. Long lenses often do not take well to flat bits of glass stuck on the front of them. That is why Canon's supertelephoto lenses have built in protectors that are purposely curved. Scroll to the bottom of this page for more on the subject - http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200308/report.html

A further advantage of a CPL is that by losing a stop or two of light you can more easily use a slower shutter speed, to create prop/rotor blur, without stopping down to crazy apertures and suffering diffraction. You'll also most likely be using the sweet spot of the lens rather than going past that point. For example, in this shot (no CPL) the sky is very wishy washy and I had to stop down to f/13 just to try to get some rotor blur at 1/125. A CPL would have probably improved matters on three counts - deeper toned sky, f/8 for better sharpness, 1/100 for more blur....

20090808_120813_0349_LR.jpg
Click to expand...

Were you by any chance at Upminster at the weekend Tim ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top