ARGHHHHHHH!!!!! wide angle lenses = bigger glass

[Albert Harrison, Jr.]

I just visited a local camera shop yesterday and learned what most of you veterans already know...wide angle lenses = bigger glass. Was comparing the Canon 18-55mm kit lens for the 20D with the 17-85mm. The bulk of my filters are round 62mm. The 17-85 lens is 67mm. I didn't want to have to settle for the cheapo kit lens, but it appears I'll have to. Oh well, better start saving for filters....

BTW, I read in one of the posts about www.shutterstock.com (http://www.shutterstock.com). I'm a bit careful about giving my address out over the internet to someone I don't know. Is this a safe site for submitting stock photos? I'd feel safer with several opinions.

Thanks,
Albert Harrison, Jr.
:D

[nation]

A simple step down ring will solve your filter to lens problem. $5/10 it'll alow you to fit your filters on your larger 67mm lens

[Albert Harrison, Jr.]

what about vignetting? How much trouble will I have with that?

thanks for the reply/help!

[DavidEB]

with a digital camera you don't need as many filters as with film. all the color filters can be replaced in silico (photoshop). You can also manage a pretty good gradient filter in photoshop, particularly if you shoot raw. so the only one that really can't be replaced is a circular polarizer, and maybe a dark ND filter if you want really long time exposures of moving water.

[tim]

Like David said, what do you need the filters for? The only filters you can't simulate in Photoshop are ND and polarizing AFAIK, though filters can save post processing time.

[MrChad]

If you do plan to buy a nice CPL I suggest you buy a 77mm and a step down ring, that way even if you go L one day (or a 10-22mm EF-S), odds are better then most this filter will fit that future lens.

[zacker]

with a digital camera you don't need as many filters as with film. all the color filters can be replaced in silico (photoshop). You can also manage a pretty good gradient filter in photoshop, particularly if you shoot raw. so the only one that really can't be replaced is a circular polarizer, and maybe a dark ND filter if you want really long time exposures of moving water.

lol... in silico... thats a new one to me.
-zacker-

[Sam]

lol... in silico... thats a new one to me.
-zacker-

yep, I had to look that one up...

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-ins1.htm

[Tdragone]

Remember though; Using a Polarizing filter on a Wiiide lens like canons 10-22 (77mm) will make some weird looking skys.

I think 2-3 people have posted pix they tried to stitch where the sky looks totally different on the left vs right of the same pic.

This only leaves a UV filter and if you want; a ND filter to buy for your newly found wide lens size.

[Jman13]

And yet, I've shot (inadvertantly, forgetting my cpol was on) a 220 degree panorama with a polarizer. I was able to correct the uneven polarization enough that it looks ok. (it's still somewhat uneven, but not bad at all, IMO). You can look at it here if you want. (http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/jungfraupano.jpg)