Jump to content


Photo

Photography: lenses Filters


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Stone

Stone

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,571 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:09 PM

Ive got a Canon 40D with a 28-135mm lens. I'm heading to the Canadian Rockies. Is there a particular ens I should get for outdoor photography? Any type of filter? I think I've got a basic protective something over the lens now. (Sunpack 72mm UV)

Obviously, I don't know much about photography?

A Hudson Valley Home.  Kichels --  A Recipe from the Old Country.

Just take those old records off the shelf.


#2 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,141 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:27 PM

Not really. I mean you could pick up a polarizer to fiddle around with on bright sunny days. But eh...

 

28 mm on a cropped sensor isn't super wide, but a decent wide lens is a bit of cash.  You might want to think about bringing one of these bad boys to let you use longer exposure times for landscape shots. (the smaller the aperture, the larger the depth of field, the longer the shutter time)

 

If you want to shoot wildlife 135 is plenty long unless you want to spend a bunch of money.  And carry a 15lb lens.


"This is a battle of who blinks first, and we've cut off our eyelids"


#3 splinky

splinky

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,797 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:45 PM

there's lots of stuff to kill in the rockies


“One thing kids like is to be tricked. For instance, I was going to take my little nephew to Disneyland, but instead I drove him to an old burned-out warehouse. 'Oh, no!', I said, 'Disneyland burned down.' He cried and cried, but I think that deep down he thought it was a pretty good joke. I started to drive over to the real Disneyland, but it was getting pretty late.”
~Jack Handey

*proud descendant of cheese eating surrender monkeys*

 


#4 Lippy

Lippy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,454 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 06:43 PM

Learn how to use the panorama stitching program in the Canon software.



#5 beans

beans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 943 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:19 PM

Polarizing filter only in direct, bright sunshine.  Elsewise a UV, even if for mere protection.



We all know people who can be as gratuitously insulting about soup as they can about the Senate. - g.johnson


#6 Blondie

Blondie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,549 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 05:11 AM

Stone, if it's not too late, you might want to pick up a split graduated filter if you're shooting landscapes. Not necessarily recommending the Singh-Ray split grads (I have their Vari-ND and love it), but they have good info and examples on their site:

 

http://singh-ray.com/grndgrads.html

 

Basically a split grad is a rectangular (or square) filter that's clear on one half and darker on the other. You hold the darker side up in from of your lens, the transition area over the horizon so the dark side covers the sky. You can then meter for the foreground subject matter (mountains, etc) and the filter prevents the sky from overexposing.


BlondieNY.com

 

"Finally something intelligent."


#7 Blondie

Blondie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,549 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 05:25 AM

I don't bother with a UV filter any more and haven't missed it. It doesn't offer much protection at all, and as my photography mentor said, "Why would you want to interfere with the optics of your expensive lens with a filter that's not nearly as good?" I had to admit he had a point.

 

For what it's worth, I carry my camera every single day, and have been throwing it in my handbag for years with the lens sans filter and haven't had a scratch yet. 


BlondieNY.com

 

"Finally something intelligent."


#8 mongo_jones

mongo_jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,549 posts

Posted 13 December 2015 - 08:26 PM

calling all mavens. 

 

my sony nex 3n's kit lens died and after initially thinking i'd sell the body i learned that the nex line is apparently prized by far more adept photographers than me for matching vintage manual lenses to. i've purchased an olympus zuiko 50 mm lens with a nex adapter on ebay but also have someone locally who has the following pentax mount lenses available. i don't know prices yet but more importantly i have no idea if/which of these is worth my while. any assistance greatly appreciated.

-Soligor 28mm f2.8 auto aperture
-JC Penney 135mm f2.8
-Pentax 35-70mm f4.0 auto
-Ozunon 35-70mm f3.5-4.8 auto
-Pentax 75-150mm f4.0
-Pentax 200mm f4.0
-Vivitar 300mm f5.6
-Kiron 70-210 f4.5 auto
-Vivitar 70-300mm 4.2-5.8 auto
-Makinon 200mm f3.3
-Kiron 28-210mm f3.8-5.6 auto
-Vivitar 28mm f2.0
-Pentax 45-125mm f4.0
-Pentax 135mm f3.5
-Kiron 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 auto

 

the ones in bold apparently have some fungus on them but nothing that apparently affects image quality.


my annoying opinions: whisky, food and occasional cultural commentary

 

current restaurant review: house of curry (sri lankan in rosemount, mn)

 

current whisky review: glen ord 28

 

current recipe: white bean curry with green peppers

 

 

facts are meaningless. you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
~homer simpson


 


#9 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,141 posts

Posted 13 December 2015 - 08:31 PM

what is the crop on the body? That impacts the effective focal length of these lenses, I'm a whore for fast lenses so that 28mm f2 intrigues.

 

 On a small enough sensor that's a pretty useful prime for use in low light.

 

ETA: Actually googling that lens it sounds like it isn't so great.


"This is a battle of who blinks first, and we've cut off our eyelids"


#10 mongo_jones

mongo_jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,549 posts

Posted 13 December 2015 - 08:52 PM

the multiplier is 1.5.


my annoying opinions: whisky, food and occasional cultural commentary

 

current restaurant review: house of curry (sri lankan in rosemount, mn)

 

current whisky review: glen ord 28

 

current recipe: white bean curry with green peppers

 

 

facts are meaningless. you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
~homer simpson


 


#11 mongo_jones

mongo_jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,549 posts

Posted 13 December 2015 - 08:55 PM

the soligor 28 mm f2.8 is apparently variable depending on when it was made.

 

the vivitar 28 f2 gets a decent review here: http://www.pentaxfor...c-m-series.html

 

keep in mind that i'm not going to ever be a great photographer. what i'm looking for is a prime lens that does well in low light that i can take to restaurants instead of my new nikon d3300 (which is not large but is not point and shoot sized like the nex). but i have no idea what would be a decent price to offer for it.


my annoying opinions: whisky, food and occasional cultural commentary

 

current restaurant review: house of curry (sri lankan in rosemount, mn)

 

current whisky review: glen ord 28

 

current recipe: white bean curry with green peppers

 

 

facts are meaningless. you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
~homer simpson


 


#12 mongo_jones

mongo_jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,549 posts

Posted 16 December 2015 - 02:17 AM

so, as noted in the annoyances thread, the olympus zuiko 50 mm f1.8 lens i ordered turned out to be a 28mm 2.8 lens on arrival. but it works perfectly with my nex settings adjusted to allow for manual lens use. so much so that i'm actually contemplating returning my newly purchased nikon dslr and just buying another olympus manual zoom lens to go with the nex and adaptor.


my annoying opinions: whisky, food and occasional cultural commentary

 

current restaurant review: house of curry (sri lankan in rosemount, mn)

 

current whisky review: glen ord 28

 

current recipe: white bean curry with green peppers

 

 

facts are meaningless. you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
~homer simpson