Reading mode: Light Dark

Long exposure focal length

Go to last post
T

Thomerik

Leading Member
Messages
990
Reaction score
1,022
Hey all!

I have currently have the trio of ND filters (3, 6 & 10 stops) + a CPL all with step up rings (NiSi swift system 67-82mm) to use with all my lenses, including my 14-30mm f/4 fullframe lens and my 16mm f/1.8 fullframe prime. Lately I've been slowly arriving at the conclusion that I want to sell both my ultrawides in order to get the excellent Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 instead. The biggest drawback of the change will be filters. I do not really want to go for big and expensive 112mm filters, especially as I don't actually use filters that much. I'm still a bit torn, as having ND filters available for an ultra wide seems like something you'd want in future scenarios of landscape photography. I'm keeping my filter system, but currently it's only going to fit on my 24-120mm f/4 and my 28-400mm f/4-8. Keeping the 14-30mm f/4 would be too much of an investment in ultra wides.

As I scoured the internet I did notice that many excellent long exposure images has been taken at 24mm or longer. I understand the 16-24mm range is still useful, but it would be nice to hear from peoples experience on how much they actually use that range for long exposures compared to longer lengths. As mentioned I'm only doing this on a few occasions anyways, but I will go on trips where things like seascapes and waterfalls could benefit from ND filters. It's possible to just use a narrow aperture and such, but not allways. Anyways, what focal length range do you use the most for use of ND filter with things like seascape and waterfalls? How often do you need ND filters in the 16-23mm range (FF equivalent), where 24mm would be too tight for the composition?
 
How often one chooses to use a wide angle is a personal thing. Perhaps reference to the focal lengths in your library of keepers might help with this. Personally I don’t go wider than 24mm unless there is no other way to include something I want.


Regarding just stopping down, that works well for achieving that 1/6s to 2s for waves and waterfalls but if you want the full glassy look, I think you need filters or to shoot at dusk and dawn but beware the light changes fast at these times.

--
Put on a good pair of boots and walk out the door - H.W. "Bill" Tilman
There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept - A. Adams
https://www.flickr.com/photos/142390976@N06/
 
Last edited:
George 68 said:
How often one chooses to use a wide angle is a personal thing. Perhaps reference to the focal lengths in your library of keepers might help with this. Personally I don’t go wider than 24mm unless there is no other way to include something I want.

Regarding just stopping down, that works well for achieving that 1/6s to 2s for waves and waterfalls but if you want the full glassy look, I think you need filters or to shoot at dusk and dawn but beware the light changes fast at these times.
Click to expand...
Thank you. The thing is, I haven't really shot waterfalls or seascapes much yet. I will probably want to do it when travelling, though. I also might move to a place with way more waterfalls around later this year. Hence why I was interested in other peoples experiences, people who shoot those things quite a bit.
 
Thomerik said:
George 68 said:
How often one chooses to use a wide angle is a personal thing. Perhaps reference to the focal lengths in your library of keepers might help with this. Personally I don’t go wider than 24mm unless there is no other way to include something I want.

Regarding just stopping down, that works well for achieving that 1/6s to 2s for waves and waterfalls but if you want the full glassy look, I think you need filters or to shoot at dusk and dawn but beware the light changes fast at these times.
Click to expand...
Thank you. The thing is, I haven't really shot waterfalls or seascapes much yet. I will probably want to do it when travelling, though. I also might move to a place with way more waterfalls around later this year. Hence why I was interested in other peoples experiences, people who shoot those things quite a bit.
Click to expand...
You can definitely shoot waterfalls without filters but it depends on how milky you want them to look. Similarly, it would be unusual, in my experience, that you NEEDED to be wider than 24mm for waterfalls - you may wish to, though, for artistic reasons.
 
Thomerik
Thomerik said:
Anyways, what focal length range do you use the most for use of ND filter with things like seascape and waterfalls?
Click to expand...
14-70 (14-24/24-70)
Thomerik said:
How often do you need ND filters in the 16-23mm range (FF equivalent), where 24mm would be too tight for the composition?
Click to expand...
There is always the pano alternative. The advantage of that is higher resolution.

If you want really glassy seascapes, stitching should not be a problem.

For waterfalls, I would make sure all the water is in one frame if possible to minimize problems as each frame will have different water flow patterns.

Richard
 
Hi Thomerik

I photograph a lot of waterfalls and seascapes. Using 2024 to keep the numbers down I have 728 water images with a shutter speed of longer than 1/3s. I am not counting late in the evening/ early morning when I know that I didn't use a filter.

12-23mm 228 31%

24-35mm 238 33%

36-105mm 261 36%

Breaking it down more. I get very close to waterfall images or to be more exact I get very close to the splashpools and run offs from the falls and this is where I use ultrawide lenses, this adds depth to images. I am usually not using an ultrawide just to get everything in. With seascapes I usually use longer focal lengths as getting very close to breaking waves is usually foolish and can be dangerous, it doesn't stop me though. It is possible to get pseudo long exposures by taking lots of images and combining them using mean merging in photoshop and I have done that when I have forgotten my filters or they were misting up. It is impossible to tell the difference between 10 half second images mean merged and a 5s exposure. Lastly producing a seascape pano is asking for heartache as you try and match incoming waves. It can be done easily with 30s exposures but 1 or 2 seconds is frustrating as waves don't match and even when you do any minor ripple patterns betray the joins. Hope this helps and good luck. My gallery has a couple of ultrawide waterfall images. Ken
 
Last edited:
Most of my seascapes and waterfalls were shot with my APS-C Canon 10-18. So, the full frame equivalent would be 16-29.

I don't use any ND filters to smooth the water. I found that if I am shooting on a cloudy day or in the golden hours, using a small aperture like f/11 and a slow enough shutter speed to blur the water, then I didn't need any filter other than my polarizer to get the shutter speeds that I wanted.







--
www.flickr.com

photon79

Explore photon79’s 843 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
"You can't be young forever, but you can always be immature" - Larry Andersen
 
Greg I think that you must be having a slight memory problem with your waterfall image. Looking at the exif data f16, 6s ISO 100 on what looks like a pretty bright day although the water is in shade. Today is a dark and dismal day in Northern England in the middle of winter and with polariser I measure f16 0.5s ISO 100 (3.5 stops brighter and I am absolutely certain that Northern England on a gloomy day is a great deal darker than wherever this was shot on a sunny day). The sunny 16 rule would give us f16 1/100s ISO 100 or with polariser f16 1/30 to 1/50s ISO 100. I have just looked at your excellent flickr page and note lots of multiple second waterfall images all taken taken without ND filters??? Ken
 
Gloomy1 said:
Greg I think that you must be having a slight memory problem with your waterfall image. Looking at the exif data f16, 6s ISO 100 on what looks like a pretty bright day although the water is in shade. Today is a dark and dismal day in Northern England in the middle of winter and with polariser I measure f16 0.5s ISO 100 (3.5 stops brighter and I am absolutely certain that Northern England on a gloomy day is a great deal darker than wherever this was shot on a sunny day). The sunny 16 rule would give us f16 1/100s ISO 100 or with polariser f16 1/30 to 1/50s ISO 100. I have just looked at your excellent flickr page and note lots of multiple second waterfall images all taken taken without ND filters??? Ken
Click to expand...
Ken,

It may look like a sunny day, but it was cloudy. It's hard to tell because I tried to keep the sky out of the frame. I try not to take waterfall shots on sunny days because of the shadows. I was using my polarizer, as usual.

I bought a 6 stop ND filter for such occasions, but I've never used it. I generally only use a polarizer for waterfalls.

I know your waterfalls tend to be darker compared to mine. Maybe that is part of it. Thanks for the comment on my Flickr page.
 
For daytime long exposures, I find the iPhone 16 Pro to be just fantastic. I use an app called Even Longer and put the iPhone on a tripod. No filters. No lens changes. RAW files.

3d121c04f2604fc182ed5e5732111891.jpg


3540624a9dfe4c7da9c141d75b31fd10.jpg




2cb388fcae854d7893a4a3885bddec26.jpg
 
Last edited:
Algreen345 said:
For daytime long exposures, I find the iPhone 16 Pro to be just fantastic. I use an app called Even Longer and put the iPhone on a tripod. No filters. No lens changes. RAW files.

3d121c04f2604fc182ed5e5732111891.jpg


3540624a9dfe4c7da9c141d75b31fd10.jpg


2cb388fcae854d7893a4a3885bddec26.jpg
Click to expand...
Wow, these look amazing! That's crazy! :-)
 
Last edited:
Algreen345 said:
For daytime long exposures, I find the iPhone 16 Pro to be just fantastic. I use an app called Even Longer and put the iPhone on a tripod. No filters. No lens changes. RAW files.

3d121c04f2604fc182ed5e5732111891.jpg


3540624a9dfe4c7da9c141d75b31fd10.jpg


2cb388fcae854d7893a4a3885bddec26.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeah, those look like they could have been taken with a "real" camera. I wouldn't have guessed the aperture was 2.2.

--
www.flickr.com

photon79

Explore photon79’s 843 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
"You can't be young forever, but you can always be immature" - Larry Andersen
 
Krusty79 said:
Algreen345 said:
For daytime long exposures, I find the iPhone 16 Pro to be just fantastic. I use an app called Even Longer and put the iPhone on a tripod. No filters. No lens changes. RAW files.

3d121c04f2604fc182ed5e5732111891.jpg


3540624a9dfe4c7da9c141d75b31fd10.jpg


2cb388fcae854d7893a4a3885bddec26.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeah, those look like they could have been taken with a "real" camera. I wouldn't have guessed the aperture was 2.2.
Click to expand...
The best camera is the one you have with you.





3176da584aef475bab8248f5deb43caa.jpg
 
Thomerik said:
Hey all!

As I scoured the internet I did notice that many excellent long exposure images has been taken at 24mm or longer. I understand the 16-24mm range is still useful, but it would be nice to hear from peoples experience on how much they actually use that range for long exposures compared to longer lengths.
Click to expand...
Forget about this, don't worry about what other people are doing, the less you emulate others the more you grow your photography abilities.
Thomerik said:
I have currently have the trio of ND filters (3, 6 & 10 stops) + a CPL all with step up rings (NiSi swift system 67-82mm) to use with all my lenses, including my 14-30mm f/4 fullframe lens and my 16mm f/1.8 fullframe prime. Lately I've been slowly arriving at the conclusion that I want to sell both my ultrawides in order to get the excellent Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 instead. The biggest drawback of the change will be filters. I do not really want to go for big and expensive 112mm filters, especially as I don't actually use filters that much. I'm still a bit torn, as having ND filters available for an ultra wide seems like something you'd want in future scenarios of landscape photography. I'm keeping my filter system, but currently it's only going to fit on my 24-120mm f/4 and my 28-400mm f/4-8. Keeping the 14-30mm f/4 would be too much of an investment in ultra wides.
Click to expand...
These are your decisions, but if you feel you have to sacrifice everything else to get to this lens there are alternatives to ND filters and moving water.



I will just add at the end when he compares the ND version versus stacking multiple exposures and talks about how he blew out the sky in the stacking version, just remember if you're stacking anyways, one of the benefits is shooting under exposed frames also to extend the dynamic range which you won't get from an ND shot.

--
Thanks,
Mike
https://travel-curious.com/home/north-america/united-states/utah/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S II - form factors considerations
Replies
7
Views
131K
Rodenmg
Rodenmg
L
  • Question Question
Which ND filter to buy with a budget of £35
Replies
5
Views
12K
lukew2025
L
W
Travel friendly rear filters for Nikon Z 14-24mm S
2
Replies
31
Views
34K
BasilG
B
T
  • Question Question
Nisi Jetmag Pro ND kit with ultra wides
Replies
0
Views
7K
Thomerik
T
J
Portugal questions
Replies
15
Views
5K
jfn98
J

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top