Best lens for photographing waterfalls (Page 2): I went last fall and used my 24-70 and my 80-200. I got great shots. Bring a polarizer. I also used a 3 stop GND and a 6 stop neutral...

treadwl Loc: South Florida

I went last fall and used my 24-70 and my 80-200. I got great shots. Bring a polarizer. I also used a 3 stop GND and a 6 stop neutral density as well.

willy6419

Usually lots of contrast

Consider exposure bracketing and post hdr merge

nikon123 Loc: Toronto, Canada

Watkins Glen was apparently a project to put people to work, resulting from the devastation of the Great Depression. The canyons and the water falls are magnificent. A tripod is a must should you want to be creative with slow shutter speeds. I don’t believe that hand held will work at slow speeds of 1/8th of a second for example. I captured images without filters but s you should bring a polarizer and a ND filter to vary the look of your shots. Also wear comfortable shoes as you will be climbing stone steps and sometimes standing on uneven ground. The lenses you mention are appropriate. However, you should have a telephoto to get an effective focal length of 150mm or thereabouts. The water falls are not ‘that’ close to the walking paths. Enjoy the experience and post some photos afterwards.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I think the short zoom would do it. You could crop to bring distant vistas closer or else consider renting or buying something like the Nikkor 18-200 for more composition options.

ecurb1105

Jbrustrom wrote:

Hi all. I have a Nikon D7000 with the 35mm 1.8 and the 18-55mm VR 3.5/5.6 zoom. I am going to the Finger Lakes/Ithaca/Watkins Glen areas in two weeks for a waterfall workshop and was wondering if these two lenses would be sufficient. I want to keep things simple and light. I also have variable ND and CPLs for both lenses. I think these are fine, but just wanted your opinions. Thanks.

A decent sturdy tripod will be more important then some wonderlens if you're planning on long exposure effects. A variable ND filter could give you trouble, I'd pick up a fixed ND in a six or ten stop strength as well as what you already have.
Have fun!

fetzler Loc: North West PA

I can imagine photographing water falls with lenses from 10mm - 400mm (DX) It depends on the falls.

Start with your 18-55mm.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

speters wrote:

....best lens for shooting waterfalls, is the one you have with you, and your legs, to frame the fall for best composition!

Legs are not always an option.......terrain may not allow to physically leg it closer...

wildconc2001 Loc: Chicagoland

A few years back, I had a job photographing in that area. Only did one falls,Chittenango, which is beautiful. 18mm was adequate for that and I think should be enough. Having said that, any photos depend on your positioning, but you'll do fine with what you have.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

We all are different and obviously we have different opinions. Your 35mm f1.8 lens when used with your D7000 will give you the approximate field of view of a 50mm lens used with a full frame camera, designated by Nikon as a FX body. In low light it is very useful. If the approximately 50mm field of view is good enough for your subject you are the only one to decide that.

The 18-55 kit lens is kind of slow since at 55mm it is f5.6. If there is pretty good light you do not need to shoot at f5.6 but you could need a steady tripod.

Your polarizer acts as a ND filter with a filter factor of 2 stops, that is, you will loose 2 stops of light at full polarization. I have no experience with a variable ND but if you ask me 3-4 stops of a ND filter are more than enough if you keep the aperture of the lens around f16 when shooting the falls. Do not forget that it is becoming increasingly popular to shoot the water falls with a ND filter which makes all of those images exactly the same. Shoot at a fast shutter speed to make a difference.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Jbrustrom wrote:

Hi all. I have a Nikon D7000 with the 35mm 1.8 and the 18-55mm VR 3.5/5.6 zoom. I am going to the Finger Lakes/Ithaca/Watkins Glen areas in two weeks for a waterfall workshop and was wondering if these two lenses would be sufficient. I want to keep things simple and light. I also have variable ND and CPLs for both lenses. I think these are fine, but just wanted your opinions. Thanks.

I haven't been where you are going, but, depending on how close you can get, or how far away..... The 18-55 includes the 35, so I'd take it, and you should not need the low light capability of the 35. I love my 18-140, in case I can't get close enough...

BTW, I also have the 35, and love it, but not for this.

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

I did a waterfall workshop last month in North Carolina and found my 28-300 on my D850 to be all I needed. Spray and terrain make it difficult to change lens, keep equipment dry, and have much freedom of movement. Have fun and post your production.

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

...and be sure to take a sturdy tri-pod...you will need it.

home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

In my experience the best lens for waterfalls is not the lens but a sturdy tripod and maybe some ND filters or polarizer filters if you want long exposures

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Jbrustrom wrote:

Hi all. I have a Nikon D7000 with the 35mm 1.8 and the 18-55mm VR 3.5/5.6 zoom. I am going to the Finger Lakes/Ithaca/Watkins Glen areas in two weeks for a waterfall workshop and was wondering if these two lenses would be sufficient. I want to keep things simple and light. I also have variable ND and CPLs for both lenses. I think these are fine, but just wanted your opinions. Thanks.

The one you have on your camera will work. You'll need an ND filter to slow the shutter and make it look like it's flowing instead of stopping the water cold.

willaim Loc: Sunny Southern California

Jbrustrom wrote:

Hi all. I have a Nikon D7000 with the 35mm 1.8 and the 18-55mm VR 3.5/5.6 zoom. I am going to the Finger Lakes/Ithaca/Watkins Glen areas in two weeks for a waterfall workshop and was wondering if these two lenses would be sufficient. I want to keep things simple and light. I also have variable ND and CPLs for both lenses. I think these are fine, but just wanted your opinions. Thanks.