What Lenses & Filters Do You Have?

[MrsD]

As the subject says, which lenses & filters do you have & which ones are the ones you use the most/are favourites? And any pics you've taken with them .

[Ripley]

I'm a beginner who likes taking photos and who is trying to teach herself, so I take a LOT of crap shots, but that's how you learn what not to do next time. I think it's all coming together now though, I kinda know what I'm doing wrong (I think) .

Anyway, 2 weeks ago I bought a polariser. I used it for the first time last weekend up around mum's place. Cost was about $70, so not too steep. It's a Circular polariser which means you affix it to your lens and rotate it for the desired effect.

I love it. Polarisers are great for landscapes as they cut through glare (and haze I noticed) and intensify colours. I think they also cut through water??

I also bought a neutral density filter, but I bought it so I can take photos of waterfalls etc on a slower shutter speed as it slightly cuts down the light that comes into the camera during a longer shutter speed, depending on the strength. I bought the average one.

As for lenses, I only have the pretty cheap kit ones that came with my Canon 350D last year. I hope that husband will buy me a better lens for Christmas and have my eye on a sigma wide angle so I can fit more into landscapes. But I also want a decent 200mm (the kit one isn't that great) so I can't decide!

Here are a few shots taken with the polariser affixed to my camera. I'm a total amateur at this, but the polariser seems to intensify blue skies. (photos taken mid morning).

Edited October 11, 2007 by Ripley

[Ashanali]

Polarisers are great. Just remember that if you venture into using manual settings, a polariser will cause you to lose 1-2 stops and also causes a drop in the sharpness.

[helen]

I always have a UV filter attached as it protects the lens. Better to replace a scratched UV filter than a lens.

I also have a polariser for landscape, but don't do what I once did and forget to take it off for other photos and they might not be so great with a polariser.

Ripley, if you don't want to spend too much look at the 50mm Canon EF 1.8. It is under $200 and gets rave reviews, even though it is plastic. I got one recently, it is the first non kit lens I purchased and the step uup in quality is amazing. You could then spend the extra on a longer fixed focal lens.

[Purple Julie]

Mrs D, I don't have any lenses or filters at the moment, but I thought I'd add to your post with another relevant question.

What do people think about the inexpensive filters that are available on Ebay? You can get a set of 5 colour filters for $49.

They have different packs, and I'm sure I've seen polarising filters by these people too, but I can't seem to find them at the moment.

ETA: I found the pack that has the polarising filter in it.Here 6 filters for $75 in this pack. Do people reckon these are decent?

Edited October 12, 2007 by Purple Julie

[wagsalot]

Ripley, if you don't want to spend too much look at the 50mm Canon EF 1.8. It is under $200 and gets rave reviews, even though it is plastic. I got one recently, it is the first non kit lens I purchased and the step uup in quality is amazing. You could then spend the extra on a longer fixed focal lens.

Yep, I've got this lens and Im really happy with it.

I took this one with it last weekend.

I've got a 70-300 lens with image stabiliser. I got it to replace the canon 200mm kit lens. Having the image stabiliser is great.

Took me a while to save up for it, but it was worth it.

Edited to add - Ripley those photo's look really good - I especially love the first one.

Edited October 15, 2007 by wagsalot

[Ripley]

Thank you wagsalot. The lens used is just the crappy kit 18-55m that came with the 350D. The polariser made all the difference, plus I took the shot around 9.30am so before the midday sun was above. I nearly got run over by a bread van in the process as I was standing in the middle of the road.

Ripley, if you don't want to spend too much look at the 50mm Canon EF 1.8. It is under $200 and gets rave reviews, even though it is plastic. I got one recently, it is the first non kit lens I purchased and the step uup in quality is amazing. You could then spend the extra on a longer fixed focal lens

Thanks Helen. I've seen a few of those on ebay but with the good exchange rate to the USD now, on Amazon it's available there too. I have my eye on a sigma lens right now, more of a wider angle for landscapes and multi purpose. tess32 told me about the sigma 17-70 and I've been googling it and it gets good reviews. As I want a good multi purpose lens, I might go for that as I can't afford a Canon one and it's actually cheaper to buy this lens on Amazon than it is here in Australia with the exchange rate being so good. I can wait for standard shipping.

I have the Canon kit 200mm but find I take more landscape and general travel photos than wildlife photos at present.

We also have a Tokina 200 (or 300mm?) that I hardly use as it was on a film SLR camera we took overseas many years back but it fits our DLSR and auto focuses too It's just very heavy and best results are with a tripod which I don't always use - I'm lazy.

Nice kitty shot too wagsalot.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Ripley

[MrsD]

Love everyone's shots, very nice! Like Ripley we only have the standard kit lenses that came with the 350D, I was considering a polarising filter & thought I would like either an image stabiliser lens like Wagsalots or a macro lens but have been too scared to go into the camera shops to ask how much money they will set me back .

I'll have to look though my pics to see if I can find any to post, like Ripley (again) I tend to take heaps & heaps of shots & usually manage to get a few half decent ones .

Can anyone suggest what's best for taking sunsets?

[MrsD]

Here are a couple of pics that I like that I took in the NT when we were up there.

Saltwater crocodile in Kakadu - this was take with the 200mm lens that came with our camera,

[MrsD]

Water lillies at Kakadu & sunset over Litchfield NP .

[sidoney]

I don't have a digital SLR but for years used my Nikon FE2. (I miss it, it was simple and reliable - still have it but comparatively expensive to run these days.)

For the Nikon I have the standard skylight and polarisers, and also a bunch of different Cokin "creative" filters that do various colour and shade and texture things. They were great for creative effects on film, but I wonder whether you can do the same in photoshop now and whether they are somewhat redundant.

Edited October 15, 2007 by sidoney

[wagsalot]

I did some reading about UV filters when I first got my camera. A few sites that I read said it reduces the quality of your picture, and its not worth using. Apparantly lenses are made alot more scratch resistant these days and if you look after your lenses its very unlikely you'll scratch them.

The guy in the computer shop then told me pretty much the same thing, so I never bought one.

The polarizing filters and coloured filters look interesting though to play around with.

Ripley - I still use the canon 18-55 kit lens all the time. I can't decide, or afford which lens I want to replace it.

[Ripley]

I've got a 70-300 lens with image stabiliser. I got it to replace the canon 200mm kit lens. Having the image stabiliser is great.

Took me a while to save up for it, but it was worth it.

wagsalot, I was looking at the sigma 18-200 as well. Not the IS one though, it's out of my price range. I really don't know, is it better than my kit lens which isn't very good? Should I get the sigma 18-200 and buy the Canon 50mm 1.8 that you have? The kit canon 200mm lens I have is a bit soft and I've noticed it has trouble focusing in low light conditions. I wish we didn't pay the extra and get it when we got the camera now but we were in a hurry to get a good camera to take overseas with us, both not knowing anything about how to operate it (husband still has no idea). I took all my Europe photos using the dial settings like landscape and potrait back then. Now I try not to use those settings so I can force myself to learn, but a lot of times I use the 'P' (program) setting and fire away.

I bought a neutral density (ND) filter just before we went to Cradle Moutain in Aug. I wanted to try it out on a waterfall. I took this shot late afternoon and it was dark in the rainforest too so I don't think I needed it, photo came out a bit dark. I haven't had time to try and make this look better in photoshop, haven't got the time on weekends yet.

Anyway here is a waterfall shot I took using the kit 18-55 lens with ND filter affixed.

This is with the Canon 200mm kit lens, hand held and taken just after sunset, you get some great light just after the sun sets. Look kids, Big Ben (sorry, I love Chevy Chase).

Again, Canon kit lens 200mm hand held - we didn't take a tripod with us due to having to pack it and lug it around.

Same kit lens and trying to track a wild flamingo flying above my head.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Ripley

[wagsalot]

I don't know anything about the Sigma so I can't help you there, but I do recommend the 50mm 1.8 for a good portrait lens. I still use my 18-55 kit lens alot though for general shots.

My biggest problem with the 200mm kit lens was that I couldn't get very good shots at full zoom. I envy the last two shots that you took with it! Im always too lazy to cary a tripod around so need a lens with image stabiliser.

Thats why I bought the canon 70-300 with IS for $900 earlier on in the year.

I took these with the 70-300

Edited October 16, 2007 by wagsalot

[Ripley]

That's a great lens, wagsalot. Hmmm, $900 is half my airfare to Europe next year if we can afford it so I have to pass on that. But I'd love that lens, your photos are great.

I took the shots of the architecture and the flamingo with the Canon 350D kit 200mm lens and hand holding it. If you hold your breath before firing the shutter, might cut down on a bit of shake. I've tried this.

I read that you need to use a faster shutter speed handholding the 200mm at its full zoom. I think the rule is use a faster shutter speed than the lens' length.

I didn't pack a tripod as you have to pack your big suitcase light on a long trip and leave space for shopping. :D

I'm looking forward to my next photos, taking them on full Manual mode, setting the apeture and shutter speed and seeing if they turn out

Edited October 16, 2007 by Ripley

[MrsD]

My biggest problem with the 200mm kit lens was that I couldn't get very good shots at full zoom.

Those pics I posted earlier of the waterlillies & the crocodile were both taken with the 200mm lens on full zoom from a boat (no tripod) in Kakadu. I find that sometimes they aren't clear but the majority of the pics I take with it are fairly good. Now Im wondering if getting an IS lens would be a bit of a waste of (a lot ;) ) of money :D .

BTW none of my pics are ever photoshopped, all I ever do is crop a bit if I need to & resize them.

[MrsD]

They were great for creative effects on film, but I wonder whether you can do the same in photoshop now and whether they are somewhat redundant.

Probably :D I often see really great pics & think "wow, wonder how they did that?" & then invariably when I ask they have photoshopped it ;) .

[wagsalot]

My biggest problem with the 200mm kit lens was that I couldn't get very good shots at full zoom.

Those pics I posted earlier of the waterlillies & the crocodile were both taken with the 200mm lens on full zoom from a boat (no tripod) in Kakadu. I find that sometimes they aren't clear but the majority of the pics I take with it are fairly good. Now Im wondering if getting an IS lens would be a bit of a waste of (a lot ) of money :D .

BTW none of my pics are ever photoshopped, all I ever do is crop a bit if I need to & resize them.

Depends on what your going to use it for.

I take alot of photo's at full zoom of moving objects, and I didn't find that the kit lens gave me really good results, the shots were ok, but never great. The new lens makes a massive difference.

I used the kit lens for about a year until I bought my new one. I had planned a trip to Melbourne and really wanted the lens for then, so went and out splurged. It was expensive, but it will be the only lens Ill buy for a long time so that made me feel better ;)

Re: photoshopping , I think theres limits.

I'll edit backgrounds out of a shot (like I did on the gorilla photo I posted), but thats about as much photoshopping as I'll do. I don't like to change the photo too much as then it doesn't feel like I really took it!

I'm looking forward to my next photos, taking them on full Manual mode, setting the apeture and shutter speed and seeing if they turn out

Ive just recently started using manual modes. Im always a bit reluctant to do it though incase I miss a really good shot because I stuffed the manual settings up

Edited October 16, 2007 by wagsalot

[MrsD]

My biggest problem with the 200mm kit lens was that I couldn't get very good shots at full zoom.

Those pics I posted earlier of the waterlillies & the crocodile were both taken with the 200mm lens on full zoom from a boat (no tripod) in Kakadu. I find that sometimes they aren't clear but the majority of the pics I take with it are fairly good. Now Im wondering if getting an IS lens would be a bit of a waste of (a lot ) of money :D .

BTW none of my pics are ever photoshopped, all I ever do is crop a bit if I need to & resize them.

Depends on what your going to use it for.

I take alot of photo's at full zoom of moving objects, and I didn't find that the kit lens gave me really good results, the shots were ok, but never great. The new lens makes a massive difference.

I used the kit lens for about a year until I bought my new one. I had planned a trip to Melbourne and really wanted the lens for then, so went and out splurged. It was expensive, but it will be the only lens Ill buy for a long time so that made me feel better ;)

Yep, I can see if you were taking pics of moving objects the IS would be much better, most of mine (so far anyway) have been full zoom but stationary objects.

[DagBoy]

BTW none of my pics are ever photoshopped, all I ever do is crop a bit if I need to & resize them.

Not strictly true. There was the time when Ebony was "vanished" from a picture that then ended up in your signature. Poor old thing - it was a bit like those photos that the Russians were so good at, where some member of the politburo was suddenly no longer flavour of the month and next thing you knew they were no longer in photos.

Spot the difference.

:D ;)

Cheers,

DagBoy