Played With a 7D Today...

And while I was blown away by the high ISO performance vs. my 40D, I realized that I would have the same general focal length limitations that I have now and I can't guarantee getting better shots of my daughter's gymnastics events even if I pull the trigger on the new body. So I'm going the glass before body route (and temporarily saving a little bit of $$$) and planning on ordering the following:

Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC HSM

Sigma 30 f1.4 EX DC HSM

B&W 77mm Circular Polarizer Multi-Resistant Coated (MRC) Filter

I have a vacation to Tucson this summer (possibly tacking on a few days in Vegas) and I might be heading to Colorado Springs to climb Pike's Peak so I figured that a wide angle lens would really be beneficial over a new body. The prime is for shooting low-light around the house and at Girl Scout events where my 24-105 just can't cut it without the 430EX. I'll probably order an 85 f1.8 towards the end of summer to use at gymnastics competitions (or maybe a 135 f2 if I can get the wife to sign off on it).

One question for you all though, is it better to get the polarizer or should I go with a GND filter instead? I'm pretty new to filters so I don't know which one will really be more beneficial for getting nice blue skies with properly exposed foregrounds. Do I need both??? Thanks in advance.

cueball wrote in post #12329410
And while I was blown away by the high ISO performance vs. my 40D, I realized that I would have the same general focal length limitations that I have now and I can't guarantee getting better shots of my daughter's gymnastics events even if I pull the trigger on the new body. So I'm going the glass before body route (and temporarily saving a little bit of $$$) and planning on ordering the following:

Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC HSM

Sigma 30 f1.4 EX DC HSM

B&W 77mm Circular Polarizer Multi-Resistant Coated (MRC) Filter

I have a vacation to Tucson this summer (possibly tacking on a few days in Vegas) and I might be heading to Colorado Springs to climb Pike's Peak so I figured that a wide angle lens would really be beneficial over a new body. The prime is for shooting low-light around the house and at Girl Scout events where my 24-105 just can't cut it without the 430EX. I'll probably order an 85 f1.8 towards the end of summer to use at gymnastics competitions (or maybe a 135 f2 if I can get the wife to sign off on it).

One question for you all though, is it better to get the polarizer or should I go with a GND filter instead? I'm pretty new to filters so I don't know which one will really be more beneficial for getting nice blue skies with properly exposed foregrounds. Do I need both??? Thanks in advance.

Circular polarizers work very well...in certain situations. It has to be sunny and the sun has to be in the correct location in the sky.

GND are much more...scene specific. They take more time to set up...usually you'll want a tripod. They require more patience I would say and often require PP because they darken areas you might not want darkened.

I've always gone the route of using multiple exposures to achieve a similar effect to a GND.

Take a look at my beginner's guide and it may help you out a little

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=12148938#po​st12148938