JimH wrote:
I'm assuming you'll be mostly shooting OUTSIDE, as neither filter is really necessary indoors, for the most part, IMO. ND filters darken down a scene so you can use a longer exposure. A longer exposure time is useful for getting that 'milky' waterfall/stream look, etc. Bottom line, an ND filter just lets you use a longer exposure time without overexposing. It ain't gonna buy you a whole lot except when you want to slow down time. In a static landscape, (e.g. a big ol hill sitting there, or something, a plain ND doesn't buy you much. Now a GRAD ND is actually more useful more times, since it lets you balance high-brightness areas against low-contrast areas and keep the exposure from going blooey. IMO.
That said, a polarizer is almost always useful outside in any but the dullest light, and gives you things an ND can not, and also can not be easily done in PP.
I'd get a good CP before an ND (and I did, actually...). Hoya and B+W make good ones. The extra $$$ covers better coatings, better glass, and better machining.
I'm assuming you'll be mostly shooting OUTSIDE, as... (
show quote)
Excellent advice and explanations, as usual, Jim. Thanks. You helped me with my non-kit lens choices last fall, btw. I went with your two lens option. Plus a nifty fifty just for fun.
Yes, I shoot mostly outside. Definitely will buy polarizing filter soon. What is CP circular polarizing?
I guess I need to think about whether to buy the graduated ND or non-grad. Seems no reason not to buy the graduated, unless theyre much more expensive than a non-grad ND? I dont quite understand all the specs when I browse/drill down at B & H though. The filter size Id want, 58 mm, is dimmed out when I look at 3 stop filters. Does that mean I cant buy a circular ND filter for my 58 mm diameter lenses, and must look at rectangular? And does that mean I need some other thingy to attach it to my camera?