Hi everyone,

I will be attending a workshop in Yosemite National Park during the first week in May. The shooting locations are in the valley and the south end of the park, not in the north end (Tollumne Medows, etc.). From what I have read, both online and offline (Yup, I still buy paper books :)), I gather I won't really need much over 400 mm or so, maybe not that much. Some sources suggest anything over 200 mm is not really useful, but opinions vary.
I shoot with a Nikon D7500 (APS-C sensor, 1.5 crop factor). I expect to work most with my 16-80 f/2.8-4 lens, which is 24-120 full-frame equivalent. I also have a 70-300 mm and 100-400 mm lens. The 70-300-mm lens is quite a bit smaller an lighter, so I'm considering taking that rather than the 100-400 mm lens. I will also take my 85 mm prime macro lens. I do have an 11-16 mm f/2.8 lens, but I suspect I can do small panoramas and leave that home.
I am flying there, so I'm going to lug whatever I decide to take in my backpack. I will include both a tripod and monopod, polarizers and ND filters for all the lenses, and a bunch of other gadgets.
So my question is, for those who have actual experience in Yosemite, will a full-frame focal length range of 24-450 mm be sufficient, or do I need the 450-600 mm range also? I realize the answer is "it depends", but educated opinions are valuable to me.
See seven-oaks.net/dickspics for some of my work.
Thanks,
Dick

To answer the question that you asked, the early suggestions for a CPL and for a star filter are good matches for what you say that you photograph. As you get started, you may find other possibilities.

One thing though...it is almost certainly a myth that you need every sort of filter for every single lens. For instance...you indicate that you photograph antique autompbiles. I would think that a star filter would be a good possibility for that. But I'm guessing that you have one or maybe two lenses that you use for that. They are the only ones that you would need a star filter for, at least to get started. It's also pretty unlikely that you will want to use a polarizing filter on any extreme wide angle lens that you own. The effect is usually pretty unacceptable.

So I suggest that you might slow down just a little bit. Pick a starting point and lens, and buy a filter to accomplish the effect you are looking for. Learn what you are doing. Make yourself an expert (a little at a time) so that you can make your own choices better than the ones we suggest to you.

Mostly, have fun with this.

What do you want to accomplish?

A few considerations:

a, What are your faster / fastest lenses? That is: do you have any f/2.8 lenses or wider?

b, What are the filter diameters of all your lenses? That is: how many of each do you have at: 52mm, 58mm, 67mm, 72mm, 77mm, 82mm? Do you have any non-standard lenses beyond these sizes?

Do you want ND (Neutral Density) filters to shoot wide-open in bright light, like your f/2 lens at noon at the beach in bright sun?

Do you want ND filters that are nearly black to shoot long - l o n g - exposures for silky waterfalls or ocean waves?

Of all your various lens sizes, do you want the same ND filters for every size? Or, should you get just the largest size(s) and step-up / -down rings to use that larger size onto smaller lenses?

Do you want screw-in filters or an external type that attaches to a frame that in-turn attaches to the outer edge of the lens hood?

Do you want multiple options like ND-2, ND-4, ND-6 that allow you to respond to the specifics of the available light, including the ability to stack two together to create a 'superdark' ND-10?

Filters work with lenses, not cameras. Consider the ideas / questions above as you research your filter options, capabilities, and purposes.

You can spend a lot of money on ideas that end up not being very useful, such as buying cheap and being disappointed. For screw-in type filters, you can't go wrong with products from B+W with MRC coatings, specifically their XS-Pro line, where the desired filter / filter size is offered in this line of filters.

mffox wrote "...Olympus (micro 4/3) kit lenses with extension tubes, tripod mount whenever possible; I use remote shutter. Results are "fair" but not sharp. I need guidance from more experienced UHH macro shooters on what lens choices I should check out..."

Technique trumps kit every time in macro...
VERY demanding paradigm... Experience is a brutal but highly effective teacher.

best to master macro photography BEFORE even thinking about stacking imagery...
Regardless of what some here may tell you (or programs they believe are great) you will not get anywhere without images of exceptional acuity (read EDGE CONTRAST/DEFINITION here)

The Lion's share of "Stacking" software relies heavily on image acuity... your results will not meet expectations unless you've got that handled first. No software will eliminate this BASIC macro requirement...

At the end of the day photographic excellence is NOT a consumer commodity...
It is a craft & art... And only repeated trial/error/failure will achieve what you are trying to accomplish.
Been there... Only the lazy losers give up... Stay the course and enjoy your journey mffox

Hope this helps... All the best of luck with your epic Olympus (micro 4/3)

Sippyjug does a lot of stacking, and I do stacking pretty often. Zerene Stacker (ZS) and Helicon Focus (HF) are the main commercial products that are dedicated to the process. I don't know about CombineZP, but no harm trying it!
As for ZS and HF, there is lots of info online about how they compare. Honestly I think both are very similar in the essentials. I happen to use ZS, and the instructional videos on their web site are extremely practical and clear. I had no confusion in how to use the product once I watched those. You can do the free trials of them if you like.
Stacking will produce various artifacts. You will see them. I know the commercial products have means to reduce and even remove artifacts with cloning tools where you paint bits of one picture onto the main picture, but they can't do everything. So be prepared to use something like PS for final clean up afterwards.
Have fun!

Mffox, some cameras have the ability to take a series of shots at a different area of focus it takes for each shot. Typically, it starts at a point closest to the camera and works its way further back. The number of shots to be taken depend on the lens magnification and aperture setting. To do this "in camera" the autofocus function of the lens must be compatible with the camera.

If the camera is not capable of producing an in-camera stack of images then it must be done using a different method such as focusing close on the subject and moving the point of focus further back (deeper) for each shot that you take. A focusing rail on a tripod is a great help in keeping the camera steady and advancing the camera a bit forward for each shot taken.

There's a wealth of informative videos on YouTube on focus stacking.

This may not be relevant in the digital age where fast lenses perform well at all apertures, but back in the day, the super fast lenses were optimized for the wider apertures. The focusing helicoids were less aggressive to allow for precise focusing.

Case in point. One of my first lenses in 1969 was a 55mm f/1.2 lens. I later bought a 50mm f/1.4 lens because the 1.2 lens was a huge brick and tiring to carry around attached to an all metal Nikon FTn. Just out of curiosity, I did a "Ken Rockwell" style test where I plastered news print all over the side of a garage and took pictures on Panatomic-X film to compare the performance of the two lenses. The camera was mounted on a tripod, and I used a cable release. I even adjusted the distance slightly to make sure that the frames captured were identical. Well the 1.2 lens just wiped the floor with the 1.4 at all apertures through f/4 in terms of contrast and print readability. It was no contest.

I recently posted these pictures I took with the 55mm f/1.2 in another thread. The exposure was 1/500 at f/2. The film was Tri-X developed to ASA 1200 in Acufine. Judge for yourself.