Newbie lens questions

[yeleek]

Hi,

Recently purchased the 350d lens kit - getting on really well. Couple of questions....

1) Last night on TV on a photography program a guy was saying how the sky look bleached (I sometimes get this too depending on time of day) and to rectify this he was going to use a lens filter. What are they? How much? And would it help that blue sky bleached effect?

2) I want more focal range - nothing to big but ideally up to around 130. Not bothered about IS, I'd like a sharp lens but one that doesn't cause my bank manager to scream... any ideas?

Many thanks

Ben

[CorruptedPhotographer]

1) Some people use UV filters, but those are not very effective. There are skylight warming filters that add a little bit of Red to compensate for the "Washed out" effect *(especially between 11am and 2pm). Another filter to darken the sky is a Polarizer filter, it also eliminates reflections off of water and glass and metal.

2- Whats your budget? sharp and "doesnt cause my bank mgr to scream" usually dont walk hand in hand. With sharpness usually comes price, obviously, you pay for what you get. But again whats your budget?

To name a few are Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens (see review here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

Another is the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens (review found here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

Also, (dont know your budget) the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG HSM is a fantastic lens.

Again, we desperately need to know @ what amount will your bank manager give you a beating?

[yeleek]

Hi thanks for the reply...

1) Filters - so do you just hold them in front of the lens? Are they regually used? Do/Don't you use them?

2) Bank manager (Fiancée) would prolly start hurting me if i paid much more than £350... :)

Thank you

[Jon]

Filters generally screw into the threads in the front of your lens (except for extreme wide and extreme telephoto lenses). Skylight/UV filters are a religious issue around here. Some people use them all the time. Others would't dream of touching them. Personally, I have them on all my lenses (except when I put a polarizer on instead). I regularly use polarizers and graduated neutral density filters (which let you hold back the exposure on the sky so it doesn't wash out when you expose for the ground) as well. Good ND grads differ from most other filters in that they're rectangular and go in filter holders which are attached to the front of the lens (so you can adjust where the transition falls).

[Andy_T]

Yeleek,

you can hold the filters in front of the lens.
But ... if you get one with the correct filter thread for your lens (check the writing on the front of the lens, e.g. 58 mm for the 18-55 kit lens), you can screw it onto the lens and thus have your second hand free for taking pictures. Much more convenient :wink:

Other options to get a darker sky include underexposing (set exposure compensation to -1 or -2, check manual for that one) and using the fill flash for any subject you want to photograph in front of the sky. Reason is that the sky is normally so bright that the camera overexposes it.

As far as affordable zoom lenses are concerned, also take a look at these threads here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78099
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52136
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29166

I've also heard very good things about the inexpensive (plastic mount) Canon EF 55-200 zoom lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[CorruptedPhotographer]

1) no, with UV and Polarizers, you can usually screw them infront of your lens. Other filters like Neutral Density (and Graduated ND) filters can be screwed on, but the better method is to place them in a filter holder which attached to the front part of your lens.

There is a lot of debate regarding the usage of UV filters for "protection". Do a seach on the internet to develop your own opinion. But here is mine, UV filters degrade image quality, sure they protect the front part of the lens from finger prints and dust, but they dont protect it from getting smashed if something like a pole is hit directly @ ur lens, so why use a UV filter when it doesnt provide enough protection to justify degrading your images? I hoenstly have UV filters for my expensive lenses, seems contradiction? Well I have them to use in extreme environments/conditions. Extreme environments like when I shoot @ the desert or near splashing water (the sea / pool / waterfall ), I wont want sand/salty water getting into the lens. Other times I may use a UV filter to protect my lens is when I know for a fact that the environment I will be shooting in will be busy (with people) or kids who have this habit of fingering lenses (God only knows why). Other wise, screw filters :p

2- I also have the same kind of bank manager by the way, the best kind eh ? ;)

Hmm 350 quid is 621 U$D. For that amount, I would personally suggest a :

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM for Canon AF ( a little over your budget ), but in the long run you will be happy with this low light capable rate and excellent optical quality lens. (~740$)

Also a Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM EF Lens (~ 405$)

Also Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM EF Lens (~415$)

There is also the fantastic Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L (~580$), but then again you need to know whether you will be shooting with this lens in low-light situations.


You did not mention whether you wanted a zoom or a prime. So below are good primes

Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 Autofocus Lens Soft Focus (~280$)


Canon 100mm f/2.0 USM EF Lens (~360$)



On a side though, why not get a Macro lens which is in reality also a fast prime (low light-capable) lens?

The two Macro Sigmas are fantastic lenses optically and extremely sharp, plus they are both close to your maximum focal length requirement.

Sigmas 105mm f/2.8 EX DG for Canon AF (~360$)
and
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro EX DG HSM for Canon AF (~540$)

The Canon macro is also a splendid lens:

Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus (~470$)

Good luck and post any questions you may have :D

[Andy_T]

And ... of course ... that money will just buy you a Canon 70-200/4.0 L lens (with the current rebate at www.canonextrapromotion.com). No compromises with this one.

Best regards,
Andy

[condyk]

Ben

I saw that programme. It was a BBC one about Digital Britain. All pro film users: one guy was given a 2mp phone camera, the women had a P&S and the second guy you're talking about had the top of the line Canon Digital and the 16-35 2.8 (but lost half his images due to a fault - not a good advert :rolleyes: ).

Anyway, he seemed to have a coloured acetate film which he held over the lens. The sky was very bright compared to the pebble each. It wasn't a standard screw in filter. I dunno what it was exactly, but he got some cool shots in very difficult conditions. No doubt some others here will know what it was.

The others on the programme took some great shots too ... even the guy with the phone camera :lol: Shows you don't need L lenses coming out your ears to take a good shot :p

They certainly took time and reflected before shooting. I guess that's partly a film thing, which I still have to a degree myself, but also a Pro thing where they're mentally creating the outcome before taking the shot rather than shooting hit and miss.

I'll be looking out for more of that programme series. It was really worth watching.

PS as to longer focal length ... you can get the 70-200 f4 Canon or the Sigma 2.8 version (better in my experience as a 2.8, but larger/heavier). The F4 is regulary available SH via ebay, the 2.8 less so. Depends what you want it for mainly. Could be they're too short.

[Jon]

Anyway, he seemed to have a coloured acetate film which he held over the lens. The sky was very bright compared to the pebble each. It wasn't a standard screw in filter. I dunno what it was exactly, but he got some cool shots in very difficult conditions. No doubt some others here will know what it was.

Sounds like, without having seen the program, it might have been a neutral density grad (see above).

[Andy_T]

Yes, with Condyk's explanation, it sounds very much so.

Take a look at the Singh-ray website (http://www.singh-ray.com/grndgrads.html).
Explains how these kind of filters is used.

There are filter sytems for that kind of filters ... basically some kind of holder you put on your lens that will later hold the (rectangular) filter.

However, at the prices mentioned on the Singh-Ray website, I can understand anyone who would use a piece of acetate film to that effect :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[yeleek]

Thanks guys very much for the replies!