your suggestions

[rockos]

I am totally new to photography. I purchased a digital rebel two weeks ago and it came with the 18-55 lens. I am looking at getting a telephoto lens for those distant pictures such as landscaping and just all about picutes where the 18-55 seems so far away. my question is....is IS worth the money. and any suggestions on which lens to look at. I am not looking at spending a lot of money but $400-500 wont hurt the bank.

My second question is filters make that much of a difference.. such as a polirized filter. Thanks for the help. I plan on taking a couple of photography classes this spring to really get better.

rockos

[CoolToolGuy]

I'll pass on the 'which lens' question, as I'm sure you will get lots of responses there. As for your second question, I use a polarizer as much as possible. It takes out much of the glare and gives more pure color. Make sure you get a circular polarizer (mostly the only sort sold new nowadays), not an older linear. The other thing to keep in mind is that the polarizer costs you a stop and a half (it reduces the light level), so it is not good in dim situations. Plus, a polarizer's effect is minimal on metallic reflections.
Have Fun

[rockos]

cooltoolguy

thank you for your responses is. the biggest question i have about polarized is for the outdoor situation. i live in NM but travel to colorado often. come winter hiking and snowshoeing in the mountains will polarized really help?

rockos

[CyberDyneSystems]

Rockos,

Under those situations a Polerizer will not only help.. it will be a god send!

Get thee to a Polarizer store! :)

A polarizer helps to cut down on glare and reflection on overly bright days,. it can help to get your skies "blue" as opposed to a bright washed out "white". It will help with the snow as well I am sure.

The affordable "budget" telephoto zoom lenses are the 75-300mm and 100-300mm lenses.

The Canon 75-300mm IS is recomended often but will seem over priced compared to others.

Another great lens to look at although also a bit more than the $400.00 you budget, is the Sigma 100-300mm F/4 EX.... This is a different class of lens alltogether,. much better build and a bit heavier...

[openspace]

If you don't want to break the bank, check out the Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM. It is L glass, a great lens, and will run you around $575 US. The filter size is 67mm, which will save you money on filters as well.*

If you need a faster lens, both the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX and Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 AT-X Pro are good choices. The Sigma runs about $700 US and the Tokina around $600 US. Both take a 77mm filter.

My recommendation - Don't skimp by buying a cheap consumer telephoto no matter how much you may save. Most of them simply suck. There are deals out there to be had, but make sure you do your research! If you can scrape together a few extra bucks for the Canon, you won't be disappointed.

On polarizers - in my opinion a circular polarizer is invaluable when shooting outdoors, especially when using a telephoto, on hazy days or when your image includes water, sky or any shiny, reflective surface. A good circular polarizer can turn a worthless, lousy, hazy, flat color photo into an award winner. No kidding. A 67mm Hoya super multi-coated thin circular polarizer (for the Canon 70-200 f/4 L) will run you around $70.00. A 58mm version (for your 18-55mm lens) will cost around $60.00. If you can't get both, get the 67mm, and a 58mm - 67mm step up ring (around $20.00) so you can use the 67mm polarizer on both lenses (note that you won't be able to use your lens hood on the 18-55mm if you do this. Just shade with your hand. I'll warn you though - step up rings can be a hassle!). Just as with lenses, don't skimp on a cheap polarizer. If you do, you'll just end up replacing it in a year anyway.

*The majority of "pro" lenses have a filter size of 77mm, and anybody who has had to buy a 77mm polarizer knows they are not cheap! A 77mm Hoya super multi-coated thin polarizer is $140.00. Ouch.

[openspace]

Addendum...

I live in Colorado, and I can tell you that a polarizer sits on my lens about 90% of the time. At high altitude, even the tiniest bit of impurities in the air combined with our killer UV rays can destroy an afternoon of photography. That is unless you have that polarizer!

CDS is absolutely correct - on snow, a polarizer is a must have. Without one, you are sure to only produce featureless landscapes of washed out snow. A polarizer will bring out enormous detail. It is a miracle of biblical proportions, hallelujiah! Really. ;)

[robertwgross]

Although I use my polarizer on the camera when I am at high elevation, I would add that it is often not necessary to crank the polarizer to the maximum effect. I've found that maximum polarization sometimes brings an artificial look, and that about 2/3 of maximum is what gets the necessary result. Of course, all that varies with the direction toward or away from the sun, the white of the clouds, the blue of the sky, and the focal length of the lens.

---Bob Gross---

[rockos]

thanks for the help guys what about the EF 75-300mm
f/4-5.6 IS USM. yes or no. and as far as polarized lenses
Circular Polarizing Filter PL-C in a 77mm or 72mm. thanks guys for your suggestions

rockos

[DAMphyne]

I say YES to the 75-300 IS lens, I use it all the time outdoors, although it's a little long for landscapes.
I use mine for sports and flowers and butterflies.
For the price, it works great for me.

[openspace]

robertwgross wrote:
Although I use my polarizer on the camera when I am at high elevation, I would add that it is often not necessary to crank the polarizer to the maximum effect. I've found that maximum polarization sometimes brings an artificial look, and that about 2/3 of maximum is what gets the necessary result. Of course, all that varies with the direction toward or away from the sun, the white of the clouds, the blue of the sky, and the focal length of the lens.

Good points, Bob. You can definitely beat the polarizer effect to death and end up with some seriously artificial looking skies.

On the Canon polarizers - I've heard they aren't anything special, and in some cases are more expensive than both the multi-coated Hoyas and B+W polarizers. Shop around. If you can swing it, get a thin polarizer. While not totally necessary, a thin polarizer reduces the risk of vignetting (cutting off the corners of your print) especially if you mount another filter at the same time (an 81A warming filter for example). I do not believe Canon offers a thin polarizer.

[robertwgross]

Unfortunately, when you get up to really large filter sizes on a polarizer, hardly anybody makes them. They get pricey.

---Bob Gross---

[DonCoon]

rockos wrote:
thanks for the help guys what about the EF 75-300mm
f/4-5.6 IS USM. yes or no.

rockos


The 75-300 USM IS runs about $414 from B&H

The 70-200 f4L runs about $560 after rebate.

I own the 75-300. If there's any possible way you can arrange your budget to get the 70-200 F4L, DO IT.

For about $145 more you'll get a MUCH higher rated lens with higher residual value should you decide to sell it in 5 years.

Realtive ratings (75-300, 70-200; 1 to 5)

PhotoZone Optical.............. 2.62 vs. 4.17
PhotoZone Users Optical...... 2.19 vs. 4.69
PhotoZone Users Build.......... Bad vs. Superb
FredMiranda (users).............. 3.1 vs. 4.9
PhotographyReview users..... 3.6 vs. 4.92

I'll be replacing my 75-300 USM IS with the 70-200 f4L soon -- unless I find a better 3rd party zoom in this price range.

Good Shooting!

[rockos]

thanks for the replys .....$600 wont hurt the bank...just want to make sure i get the best lens for my needs. thanks for all your help.