Help a newbie

theheyes

theheyes

theheyes

Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2007
Posts
8,944
Location
Manchester
Hi all, long time snapper short time DSLR user here with a few scrappy questions. I’ll probably have more as time goes on but at least now I’ll have a thread of my own rather than hijacking someone elses.

I have a soft spot for landscapes so I bought a Sigma 10-20mm – how essential would you say using a polarizing filter is? Also, would you leave a polarizing filter on as a lens protector or would you buy a UV filter for that purpose?

Does anyone use square/rectangular filters or do people just tend to stick with the screw on type? (I’m thinking more filters for filters now, and not about lens protection) Is one a compromise over the other?

My plan over the next 12 months or so was to replace the 18-55mm kit lens (I have a 500d) with the 18-55mm IS version, and then add the 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS. I’m now wondering whether to scrap that idea and just go for the EF 28-135mm f3.5/5.6 IS USM as a general purpose zoom. I used a compact camera for years that had an equivalent zoom end of 114mm which I was happy with so I’m thinking the 28-135mm might suit me better. My only hesitation is that it appears to be quite an old model – is it likely to be replaced soon or is it not really an issue? Good idea?

Thanks for reading, any insights/advice appreciated. :)
 
theheyes said:
I have a soft spot for landscapes so I bought a Sigma 10-20mm – how essential would you say using a polarizing filter is? Also, would you leave a polarizing filter on as a lens protector or would you buy a UV filter for that purpose?
Click to expand...

The CPL is really handy for landscapes as they not only give the sky a deep blue colour but also almost completely remove the reflection of the sky from water and foliage will be more vibrant, you'll find they bring out more detail in landscape shots because of the removal of reflections mostly. You get the best effect when you stand 45 degrees to the sun (I think, maybe it's 90 I can never remember until I'm there). As for protection I can't see why not, I think people only use UV filters because they are the cheapest, if you break a CPL it'll cost more than a UV to replace but still cheaper than replacing a lens!
 
Maximum polarisation is at 90 degrees to the sun but because the field of view is so wide at 10mm you'll get an uneven effect which normally looks bad to me. Whether it's worth buying one is up to you really. A quality 77mm CPL isn't cheap and if it can only be used on one of your lenses it's not such great value. I got a 67-77mm step up ring to use my 77mm CPL on other lenses but it's a bit much faff and it fouls the lens hood. Having said that a CPL does help to bring out contrast and colours.

I personally don't bother with UV filters, you get nasty flares and unless you get high quality ones you'll be reducing the IQ of the already average lens. Most my lenses have hoods which I always keep on when out to provide some barrier to knocks. After 4.5 years of photography I still haven't scratched a front element badly using this approach.

Regarding your lens progressions a kit>kit with IS is a bit pointless and the other lenses aren't much extra in terms of image quality. If I were you I'd shoot for a year on the kit lens and then see what you want...whether it be a ultra-wide angle like the Sigma 10-20mm or a high-quality fast standard lens like the Sigma/Tamron 18/17-50mm f2.8.
 
Last edited:
robertgilbert86 said:
Maximum polarisation is at 90 degrees to the sun but because the field of view is so wide at 10mm you'll get an uneven effect which normally looks bad to me.
Click to expand...

Well I haven't seen that before but I don't have a super wide angle lens. What would your suggestion be as I was planning on buying a 10-24 Tammy in a couple of months and kitting it with a CPL.

EDIT: Durr, I guess a neutral density is probably better on wide angles?
 
Last edited:
I don't know much about the Tamron but the CPL is up to you. When I use my 10-20 on a sunny day I take out a CPL and eat my words but it's certainly not an essential add-on.

I'd leave the ND filters to Lightroom personally. Of course this isn't the 'right' way to do it but it works well for someone like me who snaps fairly quickly rather than taking a tripod out and painstakingly setting up the shot.
 
ND Filters are very handy if you shoot a lot of seascapes or any scene with a wide dynamic range. They are also good if you plan to take blurred motion pics of, say, rivers, waterfalls etc or any other situation where you want to extend the exposure time but there is too much light.

Lightroom can pull back overexposed skys and lift underexposed areas to a certain extent, especially if you shoot RAW but you will have much more leeway in PP if you get the exposure closer to correct in the camera. The other way is to bracket your exposures and merge in Photoshop or HDR programme.

I have the Sigma 10-20 due to arrive tomorrow and I'll be interested to see if my 85mm Hitech ND filters will go anywhere near it without vignetting, I've read a one slot holder works - we'll see. Otherwise it's a very expensive upgrade to 100mm filters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom