Lens Recommendations

[bmb3]

I became the proud owner of a DLSR Canon Rebel T1i this summer and am looking at different lenses to purchase. My current lens (standard with the camera) is nice - but I would prefer lenses that will zoom and enhance my photography for a decent price. (I've been checking out KEH.com for deals - but would like to spend under $250 per lens.) What lenses do you recommend? I currently take photos of nature, people and vacations. Thanks!!!

[VVFF]

I became the proud owner of a DLSR Canon Rebel T1i this summer and am looking at different lenses to purchase. My current lens (standard with the camera) is nice - but I would prefer lenses that will zoom and enhance my photography for a decent price. (I've been checking out KEH.com for deals - but would like to spend under $250 per lens.) What lenses do you recommend? I currently take photos of nature, people and vacations. Thanks!!!

By zoom do you want a lens that can take pictures from farther away or do you want a lens that has a more "all in one" range?

Also how do you want the new lens to "enhance your photography"?

[SrisonS]

Although it's a little more than you want to spend (KEH has a 'like new' for $350), I've been really impressed with my Canon 18-135mm. It produces great image quality, and the zoom range is very useful... without the need to switch out lenses.

Most of my Flickr pictures were taken with that lens (on my T1i), if you want to give them a look.

A quick example of the range (these are untouched pictures, under crappy weather conditions though):

18mm
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2690/4079553400_d87efb5307.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/11654579@N07/4079553400/)
IMG_6319b (http://www.flickr.com/photos/11654579@N07/4079553400/) by Scott Smith (SRisonS) (http://www.flickr.com/people/11654579@N07/), on Flickr


135mm
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2771/4079553208_b961189cf8.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/11654579@N07/4079553208/)
IMG_6321a (http://www.flickr.com/photos/11654579@N07/4079553208/) by Scott Smith (SRisonS) (http://www.flickr.com/people/11654579@N07/), on Flickr

[JimbobJimbo]

Since you have the 18-55 IS, I would say to look into the Canon 55-250 IS. You can pick one up new for around $230. It's a good lens for the money, and it complements the 18-55 well.

[Mercenary]

Since you have the 18-55 IS, I would say to look into the Canon 55-250 IS. You can pick one up new for around $230. It's a good lens for the money, and it complements the 18-55 well.

If you are interested in the 55-250 send me a pm... I just bought a supper zoom. :) never used my 55-250.

If you are looking to replace your current lens with an all in one solution I would say save up for the canon 18-135 or 28-135.

quote from bobatkins.com

If you're willing to use two lenses, then the combination of the EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6is and the EF-S 55-250/4-5.6is gives you a very wide zoom range for about the same cost as the 18-135is. Although they aren't the best lenses in Canon's lineup either, they're both pretty useful lenses and capable of yielding good images.

[bob100]

Since you have the 18-55 IS, I would say to look into the Canon 55-250 IS. You can pick one up new for around $230. It's a good lens for the money, and it complements the 18-55 well.

true and it's only $199 at Adorama with one year warranty and free shipping

http://www.adorama.com/CA55250AFSR.html

[bmb3]

Thank you for the replies!

What is the difference between the 55-250 and the 18-135? From what I'm gathering, the 18-135 would 'replace' my current 18-55, just give me more zoom capabilities? Do either lens give a wide-angle as well?

[Wingman]

true and it's only $199 at Adorama with one year warranty and free shipping

http://www.adorama.com/CA55250AFSR.html

That is for a refurbished model.

[Wingman]

Thank you for the replies!

What is the difference between the 55-250 and the 18-135? From what I'm gathering, the 18-135 would 'replace' my current 18-55, just give me more zoom capabilities? Do either lens give a wide-angle as well?

The 18-135 would replace the lens that came with your kit. As noted by others in this thread, the 18-55IS combined with the 55-250IS covers 18-250 with two very good lenses for the money.

It is a great place to start until you decide where to spend the next batch of money.

[AlbertZeroK]

That is for a refurbished model.

I would recomend Adorama's refurbished lenses any day of the week and twice on tuesday.

[Wingman]

I would recomend Adorama's refurbished lenses any day of the week and twice on tuesday.

All well and good, just making sure it is clear to the OP that the lens is refurbished.

[VVFF]

Thank you for the replies!

What is the difference between the 55-250 and the 18-135? From what I'm gathering, the 18-135 would 'replace' my current 18-55, just give me more zoom capabilities? Do either lens give a wide-angle as well?

You are correct, 55-250 would be a "complement" to your current lens whereas the 18-135 would replace it. The 18-135 has about a 5x "zoom" to it. Whereas using the 18-55 and the 55-250 would give you a total of about 14x.

I don't normally like to use the "#x" convention for zoom but it can help put it in terms someone new to focal lengths can understand. Keep in mind that with the two lens solution you would have to change lenses when you wanted to change between the two focal length ranges.

[disneyboy2003]

Thank you for the replies!

What is the difference between the 55-250 and the 18-135? From what I'm gathering, the 18-135 would 'replace' my current 18-55, just give me more zoom capabilities? Do either lens give a wide-angle as well?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with focal lengths. The smaller the focal length number (ex. 18mm), the wider the view. The larger the focal length number (ex. 200mm), the more telephoto (or "zoomed in") the view.

For focal lengths, a 50mm lens is usually considered a "normal" lens. The range for "normal" is usually between 35-70mm.

Focal lengths less than 35mm are usually considered "wide angle" lenses. Anything less than about 21mm are usually considered "ultra wide angle".

Anything above 70mm is considered "telephoto".

(btw, here's some nerdy trivia: our eyes typically have a focal length of 22mm)


So, to answer your question, the 18-135mm lens will give you a range of views, from wide-angle up to telephoto.

The 55-250mm lens, however, will NOT have a wide-angle view. Instead, it will give you a normal to telephoto view.

Hope that helps! :)

[Cinbride]

I'm considering the 18-135 and the t2i body. I've read some reviews about it being heavy and big. Can someone help me out and give me more of a measurement so I can get an idea of how big? I'm looking for a nice walk around lens, would you consider it a pretty good quality for the price or is there one about the same that produces better images? I was also looking at the 50 mm 1.4 or 1.8 for portraits but would the 18-135 do good for that also?


using mostly kid shots, portraits, family events indoors/outdoors, parks.

thanks

not trying to take over op but I think we are looking for similiar things

[mom2rtk]

I'm considering the 18-135 and the t2i body. I've read some reviews about it being heavy and big. Can someone help me out and give me more of a measurement so I can get an idea of how big? I'm looking for a nice walk around lens, would you consider it a pretty good quality for the price or is there one about the same that produces better images? I was also looking at the 50 mm 1.4 or 1.8 for portraits but would the 18-135 do good for that also?


using mostly kid shots, portraits, family events indoors/outdoors, parks.

thanks

not trying to take over op but I think we are looking for similiar things

Superzooms are always going to be bigger than a prime. But it's a tradeoff for the flexibility of not having to change lenses all time. SrisonS posted above. Follow his flickr link and check out his images. I believe he uses the 18-135 most of the time. He does some really amazing work with that tool.

Primes will generally beat the zooms in image quality too. But you can miss a lot of shots changing lenses all the time. That's why many opt to keep both on hand. They get out the prime for portrait sessions and times when they won't need a zoom. Then they use the super-zoom for walking around the zoo, or Disney or places where you never know what the next shot will be.

[VVFF]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with focal lengths. The smaller the focal length number (ex. 18mm), the wider the view. The larger the focal length number (ex. 200mm), the more telephoto (or "zoomed in") the view.

For focal lengths, a 50mm lens is usually considered a "normal" lens. The range for "normal" is usually between 35-70mm.

Focal lengths less than 35mm are usually considered "wide angle" lenses. Anything less than about 21mm are usually considered "ultra wide angle".

Anything above 70mm is considered "telephoto".

(btw, here's some nerdy trivia: our eyes typically have a focal length of 22mm)


So, to answer your question, the 18-135mm lens will give you a range of views, from wide-angle up to telephoto.

The 55-250mm lens, however, will NOT have a wide-angle view. Instead, it will give you a normal to telephoto view.

Hope that helps! :)

Keep in mind a 50mm lens is considered normal on full frame cameras. This makes 30-35mm a normal lens on a typical crop camera. 17-24 or so is wide angle on a crop. UWA is lower than 17mm on crop. 50mm and on is telephoto.

[AlbertZeroK]

Superzooms are always going to be bigger than a prime. But it's a tradeoff for the flexibility of not having to change lenses all time. SrisonS posted above. Follow his flickr link and check out his images. I believe he uses the 18-135 most of the time. He does some really amazing work with that tool.

Primes will generally beat the zooms in image quality too. But you can miss a lot of shots changing lenses all the time. That's why many opt to keep both on hand. They get out the prime for portrait sessions and times when they won't need a zoom. Then they use the super-zoom for walking around the zoo, or Disney or places where you never know what the next shot will be.

The definition of a walk around lens is different for each of us. If I truely want freedom, I'm using my Nex, but if I'm carrying a DSLR, then it's a pair of 50d's with a belt and multiple lenses.

The 18-135 is a good lens, but it's no where near the best in Canon's line up. Now it will kick the butt of almost any point and shoot and for the money, as Kevin would say, "It has Value". Especially considering first, their is nothing comparable in Canon's Professional "L" glass and the closest thing, the 24-105 f/4 is $1k.

[Cinbride]

I messed up I meant I was looking at 28-125.

[AlbertZeroK]

I messed up I meant I was looking at 28-125.

You mean 28-135?

[Cinbride]

You mean 28-135?

oh good gosh!! yes. this is what I get for trying to type w/ kids talking to me.

thank you.

[AlbertZeroK]

oh good gosh!! yes. this is what I get for trying to type w/ kids talking to me.

thank you.

Some of the most anal people I know give this lens a 7.8, so it's not horrible. Here are the reviews:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=10&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

[Cinbride]

thank you. I was using an sx10is. can you recommend a good walk around zoom comparable to the sx10? I was also thinking a prime would really be good for me esp at home and holidays. I swear I knew I was going to get the 50mm 1.8 then I saw the 1.4, then the 85mm 1.8. So, now I just don't know. How do the primes handle at places like Disney/beach? for landscape? I wish I had a ton of money. ;)

[mom2rtk]

thank you. I was using an sx10is. can you recommend a good walk around zoom comparable to the sx10? I was also thinking a prime would really be good for me esp at home and holidays. I swear I knew I was going to get the 50mm 1.8 then I saw the 1.4, then the 85mm 1.8. So, now I just don't know. How do the primes handle at places like Disney/beach? for landscape? I wish I had a ton of money. ;)

I really prefer a wider angle at Disney. It allows you to shoot from closer with fewer people between you and your subject.

[VVFF]

thank you. I was using an sx10is. can you recommend a good walk around zoom comparable to the sx10? I was also thinking a prime would really be good for me esp at home and holidays. I swear I knew I was going to get the 50mm 1.8 then I saw the 1.4, then the 85mm 1.8. So, now I just don't know. How do the primes handle at places like Disney/beach? for landscape? I wish I had a ton of money. ;)

Nothing is equivalent to it. The closest you get is the tamrom 18-270mm which is a 15x lens. Not too much different than the SX10 though.

[rmdavis]

:woohoo: I just had to share I am excited, just ordered my first new lens... Granted it isn't the best but it is a start. Got the Canon 50 1.8 headed this way. Should be here by this time tomorrow... then I get to go play with it ...

[ChiSoxKeith]

Congrats!!

[photo_chick]

The 50mm f/1.8 is one of my favorite lenses. Have fun with it!

[disneyboy2003]

Congratulations on your brand new lens! I think the 50mm f/1.8 lens is one of the best deals out there!

It's a nice introductory lens for low-light photography. It's a nice focal length for portraits. If this is your largest-aperture lens, you can now blur your background (ie. "bokeh") like never before.

And you'll learn how very very VERY important it is to focus your pictures carefully. When you're using large apertures (small f-numbers), your depth-of-field can be very very shallow. For close-up portraits at f/1.8, you can potentially have sharp eyes, but out-of-focus nose. It's THAT shallow!

Congratulations again! I think you'll have a fun time learning with your new lens.

[AlbertZeroK]

Congrats!!!

[PrincessInOz]

I'm so envious! Have fun and I hope to see your shots on the boards soon.

[saturndb]

Congrats! Enjoy your new lens. :thumbsup2

[LPZ_Stitch!]

:woohoo: I just had to share I am excited, just ordered my first new lens... Granted it isn't the best but it is a start. Got the Canon 50 1.8 headed this way. Should be here by this time tomorrow... then I get to go play with it ...

:woohoo: Congrats!! Mine just arrived, yesterday, and after only a dozen or so pics with it, I LOVE IT!! I'm sure you're going to love yours, too! :goodvibes

It's super-sharp, awesome in low-light (especially when paired with the high ISO of my T2i!) and gives you nearly unlimited control over DOF! :thumbsup2 I've read that the AF is "slow" but it seems plenty fast to me....

I've barely scratched the surface of what I can do with this lens, but I'm looking forward to getting out-and-about with it, much more!

[MarkBarbieri]

I've barely scratched the surface of what I can do with this lens, but I'm looking forward to getting out-and-about with it, much more!

If you're worried about scratching the surface, you may want to consider a UV filter.

[LPZ_Stitch!]

If you're worried about scratching the surface, you may want to consider a UV filter.

Wise guy! :rotfl:

[rmdavis]

Got my new toy :thumbsup2 in earlier today and headed to a local park to try it out... here are a few pics with it. Eager to hear honest opinions and any tips.

1st pic with it
http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7782.jpg

a few others
http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7819.jpg

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7823.jpg

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7852.jpg

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7858.jpg

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7860.jpg

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7861.jpg

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7870.jpg

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7872.jpg

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7881.jpg

[PrincessInOz]

Robert - I love the bokeh and I see what a PP meant by shallow depth of field! WOW!

I've been holding out and saving my pennies for the 50 mm/f1.4. But your pictures are making me want to go out and get the 1.8 now!

[disneyboy2003]

Got my new toy :thumbsup2 in earlier today and headed to a local park to try it out... here are a few pics with it. Eager to hear honest opinions and any tips.

1st pic with it
http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7782.jpg

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/robresq2/flowers/IMG_7861.jpg


Mmmm...the bokeh in these two photos are nice and creamy. :love:

[AlbertZeroK]

Robert - I love the bokeh and I see what a PP meant by shallow depth of field! WOW!

I've been holding out and saving my pennies for the 50 mm/f1.4. But your pictures are making me want to go out and get the 1.8 now!

Becareful, the canon 50mm f/1.4 has issues with breaking really easy. I have the sigma version though, nice!

[Aerorea]

I'm thinking about getting (or at least renting) a new lens for my Canon T2i before our next WDW trip in Nov/Dec. I'd really like to go with a good mid-range zoom with a constant aperture. The two that I am considering the most are the Canon 17-55 IS f/2.8 and the Canon 24-105 IS f/4 L. I know these are both expensive, but they will also be used for future travel and conventions, etc., so I can live with the price for "the" lens. I am intending to leave the room without a camera bag, with just my camera on a long strap and necessities in my pockets. Something better than the kit lens would be nice. :)

I'm having a tough time deciding between the 17-55 and the 24-105L. They all get such great reviews. The f/2.8 and the wider angle on the 17-55 is very appealing, but the extended range of the 24-105 is too, even if it is f/4. Plus, it's L glass. I have also considered the 24-70 f/2.8 L, but really wish it had IS. It would be perfect for me then. I always hand-hold, so IS is important to me. As far as the 17-55 being EF-S, that doesn't bother me. I have no intention of ever going full frame.

If you had to pick one of these to walk around with - at WDW, Vegas, on a cruise, etc. - which would you choose? Or, what do you use? I'd appreciate your advice!

[Mockingjay12]

Both are great lenses for sure. If I had to choose between the 17-55 and the 24-105, I would go with the 17-55. Personally, I love wide angle shots and the 17-55 would be great for shooting structures but still have enough zoom get some shots of characters passing by. Also, the fixed aperture is a plus on the 17-55.

With the 24-105, being the great L lens that it is, it won't give you that much as far as wide angle shots (unless it's mounted on a camera with a full frame sensor), but would make up for it with zoom, if you were ever far from a subject you wanted to get a close shot of.

As an upgrade from the kit lens, I would say going with the 17-55 would be your best bet. But that's just me. :)

[mom2rtk]

I have the 17-55 and love it, but I'm sure you can't go wrong with either.

For just range, I'd go with the 17-55. At Disney there just always seems to be so many people around. That makes it hard to back up when the 24 is too long. I struggle with this too. A little more length on that 17-55 lens would be great, but given the choice, I'd go with the wider lens for Disney.

[Aerorea]

Thank you both for your input! The 17-55 was my original choice and then I started reading about the 24-105, and well, you know how that goes. :) Major lens lust all around!

[poplover777]

17-55mm. that is the only lens you need at Disney. I thought maybe my 70-200mm for AK but really didn't use it that much.

[AlbertZeroK]

I have owned both, sold the 24-105.

A couple things you may not know. The 17-55 is known to have a higher repair rate than the 24-105, however, I can see that with the build quality.

The 17-55 is made with L quality Glass and until the new 70-200 IS f/2.8 Mark II came out, had what some consider the BEST IS of any canon lens. But the build quality of the 17-55 is less than that of a standard "L" lens.

The 24-105 has a nice red line of paint around it.

[DizzyV6P]

Newer versions of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS haven't had as much problems than the older ones. It's usually THE LENS to have if you shoot weddings with a crop camera.

Another lens to consider is the Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS. Reviews and sample pictures on POTN have been great.

What's your budget? For about $200 less, the new Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM has also gotten very good reviews and appears to be comparable to the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

Putting a 24-105 on a crop camera will really cut in on your wide shots. I sold my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 to get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 precisely to get the wide options that I missed having from my kit lens. Wide shots are great at Disney so keep that in mind.

If money is tight, the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM ($590 at Abes of Maine w/ "loyalty15" discount code) plus a Canon 55-250 f/4.0-5.6 IS ($230 on Amazon) will cost about the same as the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. That will get net you a great combo that will last quite awhile. Want to go even higher? Then a used Canon 70-200 f/4L for $500 will be even better. I used my 70-200 F/4L at AK the entire time on the safari and got quite a lot of good shots. Be sure to ride the safari either in the early morning or late afternoon to see the most animals.

[photo_chick]

I'd go for the 24-105, but then my current walk around lens is an older 28-105 and it a range I really like on my crop camera. We all shoot differently so go with your gut because you know your shooting style a lot better than we do.

[Aerorea]

Thank you all so much for the further insight. I truly appreciate it.

After thinking about it more and more, I think I'm going to go with my initial choice of the 17-55. My budget is under $1500 as long as it is "THE" lens for a long while, and this sounds like it will be for me. I'm happy to hear about it's outstanding IS performance. It'll be an exact replacement of my 18-55 (that I'll sell). When I looked over my past photos at Disney, I found that I tended to take a lot more wider shots or telephoto shots of small details (I had an S3 and loved to see what it could do). I think I would be disappointed if I couldn't get wide enough to fit all the scenery I wanted, plus I can always just crop for tighter shots.

I have the 55-250 and the 50 f/1.8, both will likely stay in the room. I might bring my smaller camera bag and the 55-250 with me as need arises. Maybe for MVMCP? I don't think we're hitting AK this time.

Thanks, again!

[mabas9395]

For me, it would be the 17-55 at Disney and the 24-105 for everything else.

[Sunshineanddaisys]

So I have a D5000, the kit 18-55, 55-200 and 35mm lenses. While on my last Disney Cruise, I decided my next lens needs to be something that overlaps the 18-55 and 55-200, because I noticed I'd often want to take a quick candid (too close for the 55-200) and then shoot something too far for the 18-55. I want something that overlaps to try to avoid missing shots when trying to quickly change lenses.

My three options....18-105, 16-85 and 18-200. As much as I'd love to pick the solve all, 18-200, I think I've settled on the 18-105. The only problem is every time I think I'm certain, I switch to one of the other options....

If you were me, what would you pick?

[Experiment_626]

Have you considered the 18-135? I have one and use it often; it has a very versatile range. Reviews (not actual experience) lead me to believe it is optically better than the 18-200 -- or indeed all of Nikon's other 18-XX kit zooms, other than the 18-70. The only thing it lacks, of course, is VR. The 18-105 does have VR, so if that is really important to you, that might tip the scales in its favor.

[*pixie*]

I've been practicing with my new Canon XS with the kit lens. When taking fast action pics, I can't go much faster than about 1/500, because my pics get really dark even with the ISO set at 1600. Would a different lens fix this?

Also, when taking pics of things that I can't zoom in on, when I try to crop them down (i.e. pics of football players at the line and wanting to crop down to just one player) they get very blurry and out of focus. Would a different lens also fix this?

I really need to find a "general photography" board to ask all these technical questions that have nothing to do with Disney!

[ukcatfan]

If this is night time football under the lights (and not an NFL game) then you do need a faster lens than the kit to get very good results. I think you are at max at ISO 1600, but some cameras can get decent results with kit lenses and around ISO 6400. You will probably need to go with a fast telephoto to get really good results, but be aware that those typically run $900+.

[ukcatfan]

I really need to find a "general photography" board to ask all these technical questions that have nothing to do with Disney!

You are probably better off here because you will get honest answers that are not insulting. We realize that many newbies come here. Many camera specific boards make you feel about an inch tall for not knowing the answers already.

[*pixie*]

So, even if my camera maxes out at 1600 ISO, a better lens would allow me to take fast action pics in low light? And, if I had a lens with a better zoom, that would eliminate the need to crop pics down to get the close-up I want?

I have lurked around a couple of photography boards, and you are so right, they are downright vicious! I would never have the nerve to post a question.

Tonight, I'm going to try working on taking pics of my Halloween lights outside in the dark. Thought it might be good practice for Disney at night.

[ColleenG]

Hi Pixie, and :welcome: to the Dis Photography board. It's a great place to start. I have learned so much from all the great people on here, and no question is ever a dumb question. I have a Canon also. If you go into the menu and go to the custom functions setting. See if there is an ISO expansion, and turn it to on. It will get you upto 6400 and 128000. That might help some, but you will get more noise and will make it difficult to crop down really tight. As UKcatfan said to get a fast zoom lens will cost some big bucks.

[photo_chick]

Unlike the Rebel T1i and T2i, the Rebel XS tops out at ISO 1600.

With the 18-55 kit then you probably don't need to be faster than 1/500 to stop football action. However, one thing you can do to bump up the shutter speed with the existing lens is not zoom in. The shorter the focal length, the less light required for the exposure. Also at the wide end of the kit lens you have a wider aperture, which also lets in more light.

As far as why it's blurry, could be any number of reasons. Chances are it's more your technique than the lens.

[JR6ooo4]

You are probably better off here because you will get honest answers that are not insulting. We realize that many newbies come here. Many camera specific boards make you feel about an inch tall for not knowing the answers already.


But here, those that may actually be an inch tall, are often the main characters! Often turning out to be the hero as well! hehehehehe

Mikeeee

[seashoreCM]

The main question about zoom and indoor/night shots is, what is the maximum aperture you are really getting at the amount of zoom you are using.

[MHolleman]

Just wanted to chime in here and say that you just need a lens with a smaller f stop number. This will allow more light to enter the camera so that you can keep your shutter speed higher. Maybe try to rent a few and see if there is one that works well for the type of events you are trying to capture. Hope this helps some.

Melissa

[Frantasmic]

Football is difficult to shoot. I've gotten decent shots even with my point and shoot at some games, but I wasn't shooting an offspring either, so the little blurriness was okay (for me).

A better lens will help, but the lenses with a smaller f stop bring about new situations you need to deal with, mainly depth of field.

Some relatively inexpensive lenses to look at are the 85mm f1.8, the 100mm f2.0, and the 135mm f2.8. These are all about $400-$500 and will improve your photo taking, but since these are primes, you'll have to move around to get better pictures and these lenses can be very clear for a small portion of the picture, so you may get a good clear shot of someone's face, but his knees might be blurry.

You can also go up to the prime L lenses. The 135mm f2.0 is gorgeous. I rented it to shoot volleyball for my son's school yearbook last week and it was very sharp and produced good shots indoors. I imagine it would be awesome outside. The 200mm f2.8 is supposed to be really good too.

Then, you can get into the prime L zoom lenses. There are various varieties of the 70-200mm f2.8 that can run from $600 to close to $2000. But, they will increase your picture taking skills. Finally, I'd think the 300mm f4.0 might be good for you. It's about $1200. It would depend on how well lit your field is, but that lens would be great for field type sports. The f4.0 is the only worry.

You might try renting a lens since they aren't too bad to rent. I got the 135 L for $45 for 8 days. You may also google canon forum and go to the first link. That place has a thread with just various examples from lenses and cameras.

[Gianna'sPapa]

I've been practicing with my new Canon XS with the kit lens. When taking fast action pics, I can't go much faster than about 1/500, because my pics get really dark even with the ISO set at 1600. Would a different lens fix this?

Also, when taking pics of things that I can't zoom in on, when I try to crop them down (i.e. pics of football players at the line and wanting to crop down to just one player) they get very blurry and out of focus. Would a different lens also fix this?

I really need to find a "general photography" board to ask all these technical questions that have nothing to do with Disney!

Like you, I am limited to 1600 ISO and that is noisy ( I shoot a Pentax K10). To obtain the fast action low light pics, you will probably need faster glass and a good noise reduction program. Since my brand does not produce long fast glass, I had to go with an off brand 70-200 lens. Its a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II. I did have a minor problem with it, but it was quickly fixed and is now working great. The 70-200 gave me the lowlight and the reach that I need for what I photograph. As others have posted, the lower the f stop #, the shorter the depth of field. That is a consideration as you are shooting. I also use Topaz DeNoise 5 for my noise reduction. There are other applications out there and some other members can recommend further. I am very pleased with DeNoise 5.

[seashoreCM]

... these lenses can be very clear for a small portion of the picture, so you may get a good clear shot of someone's face, but his knees might be blurry..
1. If you are not taking a close up then this is a poor quality lens, not a depth of field issue.
2. Alternatively you are using the wrong lens for the camera. Do not use a lens intended for a smaller film frame or sensor on a camera with a larger film frame or sensor (working with a crop factor less than 1.0); you will get this problem because the sweet spot for the lens is too small.

[Bstanley]

Hmm, if you took a shot at 1/500th and it came out blurry it might also be that you weren't focused...was the entire frame (picture) blurry?

For Sports you should change your auto focus mode to 'AI Servo' - using the 'AF' button on the right rear of the camera you can change from the default setting.

This tells the camera to continuously adjust the focus (as long as the shutter is half-pressed) as you pan the camera - like if you were following soccer or a fast moving football play. Setting the Scene Mode to Sports will change to this setting as well.

You might want to give the focus a try - if you were able to shoot at 1/500th you should have been able to stop the action (ie - no blur).

A longer lens will enable you to 'reach' across a football field to get a picture, but alas those fast telephoto zoom lenses weigh about as much as a Buick and cost about the same :rotfl: (just a small exaggeration).

[GrillMouster]

Not sure what you're shooting, but if you're using a shutter speed of 1/500 to negate camera shake, then stabilizing the camera (on a tripod) will allow you to use a slower shutter speed, thereby increasing exposure (not so dark). If you need a shutter speed of 1/500 because you're trying to freeze a moving subject, then your alternatives are to increase ISO sensitivity and/or use a wider aperture (lower f-stop number). You've already said that you've maxed out the ISO on your camera body, so that's not an option for you right now, so let's look at aperture.

Your camera lens has a variable aperture. For example, let's say it's a 18mm-55mm lens with a variable aperture of f/3.5-5.6. That means that at the widest focal length (zoomed out to 18mm) the largest aperture you can get is f/3.5. At the longest focal length (zoomed in to 55mm) the largest aperture you can get is f/5.6. If you're zoomed all the way in but your image is still too dark (and you're at the max ISO and you're at the slowest useable shutter speed), then you'll need to zoom out so that you can select a wider aperture. That means that your subject will be smaller in the frame, so you may need to move the camera closer or crop the image in post-production.

A new camera body should allow a higher ISO limit and perhaps better high-ISO performance (lower noise). Prime lenses (fixed focal length) tend to offer wider apertures than zoom lenses and better zoom lenses tend to have a constant max wide aperture (like f/2.8) throughout the focal length range.

Better lenses tend to be clearer, have better transmition of light, better contrast, less distortion and less chromatic abberations. All of those things could result in better cropped images, but there's still a limit in how much you can crop and get a useable image, because cropping means throwing away pixels. You can't recover image detail that wasn't present in the original capture. The real world isn't like CSI where some technician can up-rez the license plate of a car one mile away and make is crystal clear.

[ChiSoxKeith]

I've been taking HS football shots for the last four seasons (my kid playing football) and I have to agree 100% with the previous poster......as the night goes on you really need to get a tripod / monopod to help steady the camera.

[GrillMouster]

For fast-moving subjects there are a few things you can do to minimize blur caused by their movement besides increasing shutter speed.

One is tracking. That' where you follow the moving subject with your camera. You pivot your body and in one smooth motion continue tracking the subject before, during, and after the exposure. Don't wait until you press the shutter release to begin tracking, and don't stop tracking after you've pressed the button. Keep following the subject. If you stop tracking right after you've pressed the button, then the subject will continue moving through the frame and will be blurred. It takes practice to get good at this.

Another thing to remember is that the more space a subject occupies in the frame, the faster it will appear to move across the frame and the faster the shutter speed will be required to capture it and maintain the appearance of sharpness. For example, if you take a picture of a plane flying through the air, but the picture is from far away and the plane is tiny in the frame, it will appear sharp, even with a relatively slow shutter speed. However, if you have a superzoom and manage to get that plane filling a bunch of the frame, that plane will appear to move across the frame more quickly (assuming you're not tracking). Any motion blur will be more apparent, so you'd need a faster shutter speed to freeze it.

Another thing you can do to minize subject motion blur is to photograph the subject moving toward you. Since the subject won't be moving across the frame as much there won't be as much blur. If you've ever photographed or looked at a photograph of horses, racecars, bikes, or runners going around the corner of a track you'll see that some horses (or racecars, bikers, runners) are running toward the camera while others are running across the frame. The ones who are running toward the camera appear sharper than the ones who are running across the frame.

Something else I'll add regarding camera shake, not motion blur: Zooming in magnifies the blur caused by your camera shake. To demonstrate this, imagine holding a broomstick at the far end and moving around slightly in a circular motion. At the point where your hand is holding it there may be very little movement, only an inch or so. However, at the far end of the broom, that circle you're making in the air may be a few feet in diameter. If that broomstick were a hundred feet long (and you had the wrist strength and stabilization to hold it) the circle would be even larger. The broomstick represents the line of sight of your camera. The slightest movement the camera's film/sensor plane will appear more maginified the more you zoom in.

[SrisonS]

Do you have a sample pic of how much you're trying to crop the photo??? If it's too much, that'll probably be why the player still looks blurry. And there's not really too much you can do about that.

And I'm sure the answer will be 'yes'; but do you have image stabilization turned on?

[*pixie*]

Wow, what a wealth of info!

As far as the cropping goes, I think I was just trying to crop it down way too much. If I don't crop them as tight, they're not blurry.

My Halloween lights pics turned out pretty well last night. I am starting to get more of grasp for how ISO, aperture, and shutter speed work, and what to change for different pics.

I'm also still re-reading everyone's advice and will be trying things out. Thanks so much to everyone for taking the time to explain things.

[dan.k78]

Ok, obviously it doesn't exist, but I'm curious as to your opinions as to which lens offers the best compromise for the parks. If you had one lens to bring what would it be? Would you opt for the versatility of a nice zoom like the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, or sacrifice focal range for the speed of something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Which do you feel outweighs the other?

I've decided that on my next trip (hopefully will be soon) I'll be taking my dSLR gear instead of just my point and shoot.

Thanks in advance for your opinons :) !

[JoeDif]

If I had to take only one lens it would be my Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Other than the safari ride in AK and parade close ups, this lens can handle mostly any situation. I'm not much of a dark ride shooter so that isn't a concern for me.

[WDWFigment]

If this is a photo trip, the answer would easily be my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I'm most definitely a UWA man, and this lens takes the cake in that department for me.

If it's a family trip, probably the 18-200mm or Sigma 30. Most likely the 18-200 just because of its versatility.

[photo_chick]

The Canon 24-105.

[zackiedawg]

I'm not one for taking only one lens...but if I absolutely had to take only one, then hands-down it would be the 18-250mm, because of the enormous flexibility it offers for any theme park and any shooting condition.

Though in real life, I couldn't go to Disney without access at least to my 30mm F1.4, my 10-24mm UWA, or my 300mm F4 on top of the 18-250mm. As it is, I bring all of those, plus my 50mm F1.7, 90mm F2.8, and 200-500mm.

[dan.k78]

I guess what it boils down to is how much you want to make photography a part of the trip. I try to keep things at a happy medium (whether it be Disney or any other vacation destination). I want to go above P&S quality photos, but don't want photography to overtake the whole vacation. I don't think my fiancée would appreciate that very much. lol. I guess the versatility vs. speed issue depends on how much photography you plan to do on dark rides. If that isn't a big thing, then having fast glass isn't super critical I guess. I suppose the versatility of a zoom lens is more beneficial.

[NLD]

Easy. 50mm 1.4 (for FX sensor.... 35mm for DX).

The flexibility of having that wide aperture would be way more important to me than flexibility in focal length range.

Last month I brought several lenses and ended up using that "normal" fast prime most of the time, anyway. It actually got more use than the super-zoom (28-300).

[annnewjerz]

I'd definitely bring the Sigma 30 f/1.4 if I could only bring one lens. Last trip in December I brought the Sigma 30, Nikon 18-55 kit lens, Tokina 11-16, Lensbaby, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 and the majority of the time, the lens that stayed on my camera was the 30mm f/1.4.

The 30 f/1.4 is good for low-light shooting for indoors and dim rides, as far as focal length I love it because it's wide enough without having to worry about any UWA distortion, it can allow for great subject isolation when shooting at a low aperture and in general it just produces some of my favorite straight out of the camera images.

[poplover777]

I used to take a 28-135mm with great success. Now that I have a 17-55mm canon, its a no brainer. Perfect range for a crop camera at Disney.

[MarkBarbieri]

I don't think I could even begin to answer the question without more information on why I was at Disney and what I planned to do. I'll assume that the only reason I would be carrying a single lens was because I was there with family and wanted photography to be a minor element of the trip. In that case, I'd opt for a super-zoom (18-200 or such).

I would be using the camera to take pictures of my family. For fireworks shots, dark ride shots, show shots, or other stuff without my family in it, I'd just download other people's. For shots of family, I'd gain more by the focal length flexibility than having a fixed focal length and having aperture flexibility. Obviously, I would lose the ability to take really shallow DOF shots of my family, but I don't see that as a big problem because most of the time I'd want to see the background to help set the scene.

If I was there for photography, I'd take more than one lense. If I couldn't, which lens I would take would depend on my mood.

[rossb]

Like others have said, depends on why you are going. If this is a vacation trip and I could only carry 1 lens it would be my Nikkor 18-200VR. If I can carry two lenses on my vacation I'd add my Nikkor 10-24. If this is a photo outing I'd be carrying my 10-24 and a few primes.

[Gianna'sPapa]

My one lens would be the new Pentax DA 18-135 WR. While it may not work quite as well on the low light rides (with the newer high ISO bodies it may do better), it has both the wide angle and the reach for most things at Disney. Even better, is that it is weather resistant to go along with the Pentax WR bodies. No more having to wrap your camera in a plastic bag at the hint of the ever present rain storm and wet rides. Weighing in at less than a pound, it solves the weight issue. IMHO this lens, on a high ISO body, will be the perfect 'one' lens for the type of photography I do at WDW.

[bob100]

a nice zoom like the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, or sacrifice focal range for the speed of something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Which do you feel outweighs the other?
!

the Canon 17-55 2.8 would be more versatile but if I had those two I would take them both

[zetachi]

Any Oly owners want to chime in. My guess if I had to bring one lens would be the 11-22 or the 14-54. Choice of 2 I'd throw in the 70-300

[Mrs. Charming]

Hi! I never posted on the Photography board, but I thought you'd all know what I need. My mom's birthday is coming up, and she has a EOS Rebel K2, and I was thinking of getting her another lens. It looks like what she has is a EF 28-90mm. Is there something I can get her in the $50-100 range that would be good for photographing her grandkiddos?

She's not a serious photographer, she bought this camera because a former friend of hers recommended it. It's basically on auto all the time, so I'm looking for something basic. :goodvibes

I'm also open to other suggestions!

Thank you so much!! :)

[ChiSoxKeith]

You can get the 50mm f/1.8 for $99.

This would give her better low light performance.

But you really aren't going to find lenses for cheaper than that.

[bijoli666]

What about a How-to book for her camera? Hubby bought Rebel for Dummies when he got ours LOL. Camera bag? Gift certificate for a place to print her pictures, or photo paper/ink for her printer if she prints at home. A frame? Just spouting off ideas LOL. If she's on Auto most of the time now, not sure if another lense would make her branch out more, or if she would never use it, ya know?

[photo_chick]

A word of caution... since the Rebel K2 is a film Rebel avoid the EF-S lenses when you're looking around. Only the EF lenses will work on that camera.

A the 28-90 is one of the old Rebel kit lenses from film days. In your price range the 50mm f/1.8 would be about all you can afford that would give you more.

Also keep in mind that if she's not a serious photographer, and given that the K2 is an older camera so I'm guessing she's had it a while, she may not be interested in changing lenses. Some people are happy just to stick with the kit lens.

[jennifur25]

We are heading to Disneyland next week and I'm not sure what I should bring with me. I really don't want to lug all of them around with me.

I have a Nikon D90 and I have the kit lens 18-105mm, my 50mm and a 55-200mm. I don't care much about pictures on the dark rides but I would like to attempt to get some decent fireworks shots, though it seems I've never had any luck with that :)

[saturndb]

If you only want to bring one lens, I'd bring the 18-105.

[AlbertZeroK]

yeah, I shot fireworks with the kit lens last summer (18-105) and my only regret is not having anything wider. I had a 50mm with me and never used it. And the only time I used my old 75-300 was on an air boat.

[AlbertZeroK]

I would be torn between my 85 f/1.2 and my 17-55 f/2.8. But I'll likely pack different lenses for the days. For example, we're seeing woopie on Dec 10th, so 85 f/1.2 is being packed. For Animal Kingdom likely a 70-200 or my Bigma.

Personally, I would prefer a zoom over a prime for most things at disney. But the 30mm f/1.4 is tiny and easy to pack away.

[Experiment_626]

I'd also recommend the kit lens if you're sure you only want to take one. I've shot lots of fireworks and tons of other subjects at WDW with my 18-135, and I've found it to be a very useful focal range for the parks, and I expect your 18-105 would be similarly useful.

[mom2rtk]

I'm afraid taking good fireworks pictures requires that you add more to your load, not less. Most cameras and lenses with the correct reach can take nice fireworks shots, but do require a tripod and shutter release cable.

I'd take the kit lens and bring a tripod to stow in a locker until night time. And get your spot early for the fireworks. I was amazed at how early it fills up in front of the castle!

[photo_chick]

I'd take the 18-105 lens. I'd also take a tripod if I wanted to get foreworks shots.

[AlbertZeroK]

I'm afraid taking good fireworks pictures requires that you add more to your load, not less. Most cameras and lenses with the correct reach can take nice fireworks shots, but do require a tripod and shutter release cable.

I'd take the kit lens and bring a tripod to stow in a locker until night time. And get your spot early for the fireworks. I was amazed at how early it fills up in front of the castle!

The d90 has an awsome timer built in, you can set it for 2 second delay and have it take up to 9 pictures in a row. So I don't know that you need a remote shutter release cable. But a remote would make it more enjoyable for you, put the camera up, sit back, hit a button and let it do it's thing while you watch with the family!

[jennifur25]

I have no problem bringing 2, just didn't want to bring all 3. Should have said that last night- that will teach me to post too late at night. :) So maybe the 18-105 and the 50? I only had the 18-105 last time we went and I remember that all the photopass photographers were oohing and aahing over it LOL.

[Groucho]

I'd probably be in the "normal lens" camp - the Pentax Limited 31mm F1.8 with 1.5x crop factor comes in darn close to what a normal lens is "supposed" to be (around 43mm - which is why the next-bigger Limited is a 43mm, they were made for film originally)... fast, wonderful optics, etc. That's be my choice if I was looking for "good" pictures.

Of course, I could also make an argument for the 16-50mm F2.8 (wide, weathersealed, flexible enough for snapshots and HQ enough for quality) and heck, being who I am, I might even argue for the 10-17mm fisheye - at 17mm, not too fishy and easily "correctable" to be comparable to a UWA look, and of course at 10mm you get that fishy look that I love. :thumbsup2

[cinderella'smommy]

Hello---

You all were so very helpful in diagnosing my camera problem---shot autofocus motor on my lens for my D40. So, I thought I would ask some advice on a replacement lens.

I am an amateur, and really don't need the biggest and fanciest lens. I also don't really want to be changing lenses, so I need something versatile. And, of course, it needs to go with my D40. I have the true D40, not the D40x; I bought it in 2006.

I would like a longer zoom than my current lens (18mm-55mm); I was leaning towards a NIKKOR 18mm-105mm; but I guess they aren't making those anymore? Moving up to a 200mm zoom starts to get pretty expensive, and I wonder if it is worth it to use with a basic DSLR from 2006.

Basically, I am wondering if I am better off buying a new DSLR, but then I get stuck with the same 18mm-55mm lens (I won't go too much higher in price to get a better camera b/c its just a hobby for me). So, to buy a new camera, plus a better lens---then that really gets up there.

I am also thinking that I should just get another 18mm-55mm until I am ready to upgrade the whole camera.

The guy at Wolf was pushing me towards a Tamron that goes up to 200mm.

Any thoughts?

:confused:

[Suz725]

I have a D40 also and mine came with 2 lenses..the 18-55mm and a 50-200mm I use the zoom lens more often when out since I don't want to carry around 2 lenses. (If I were going to buy a new lens it would be an 18-200.

[photo_chick]

The AF motor has gone out that quickly? Did you manually focus a lot without turning the AF off? I killed my first AF lens this way many years ago.

Anyway, to the point. If you're happy with the image quality from your camera, I say just get the lens. If the one you want isn't made any longer, check KEH.com and see if you can pick it up in good shape used... though I do believe Nikon still makes an 18-105.

And never let the salesmen tell you what to buy. At many places they get more incentives to sell certain equipment... Wolf and Ritz camera are notorious for this.

[AlbertZeroK]

The kit lens that comes with the d90 might be an option, I think it's an 18-105. Anyways, when I had my d90, it was a nice lens. And you should be able to pick them up reasonably priced used.

If you know a pro picking up a new body, ask them if they want the kit lens, I know the kit lens for my 50d was worth $250 on ebay atleast, but was only a $100 upgrade from the 50d body to 50d body + lens kit.

[lindsroc]

Hello,
I have a Nikon D80 and only the kit lens that came with it. I really wish i could get into a class to learn all the ins and outs of this camera but i just dont have the time between work and 2 kids. Alas, I am trying to learn on my own as i truly love photography. That being said... on our next trip I plan on bringing my DSLR as well as my P&S. I am going to invest in another lens before then, and wondering whats the best lens for pics around the parks... as well as fireworks. Any info would be great. Thank you.

[Gianna'sPapa]

This is a totally subjective decision that is based primarily on your shooting style. Everyone has their favorite. On my last trip, mine was a 28-70 f2.8. I wanted the range and the low light capability. As far as fireworks, your kit lens should do fine, but you will need a tripod or a way of stabilizing your camera. You should have a remote shutter release or the camera's built-in delay can work because you will need long exposures and you don't want to be touching the camera. There is a very good thread on the Boards that explains how to do it. If you want to photograph the animals on the safari ride, you will probably need a zoom out to 200mm. The DW used her 50-200mm with success on this ride. For lowlight rides probably the best lens I've seen used is a 30mm f1.4.

Hopefully, you will see that you can end up carrying a whole bunch of lenses which leads to the question, "is there one that can do it all?" Probably not. There are the all-in-ones (18-135, 200, 250, 270, etc.) which will do most of what you will probably want to shoot but are slow and will not work as well in low light situations without the use of a flash. The use of a flash on many rides and shows is discouraged or prohibited.

My recommendation would be to first determine what you want to shoot and go from there, ie, if low light rides, inside shows and night parades are not an interest then an all-in-one would work fine. If you are going to shoot the inside shows and the night parades you should use something with a constant f2.8, etc.

I wish I could provide a simple answer, but with the variety of things to photograph at WDW, its not possible for me. Once you define what you want to shoot, it will be easier to point you in the right direction. Also what your budget is will also help because third party lenses are somewhat cheaper than the manufacturers.

[ChiSoxKeith]

Try renting some stuff from either www.borrowlenses.com or www.lensrentals.com

[My2Girls66]

If you have the 18-135mm that should be a really good lens for the parks, even fireworks. I have a D80 and that lens and for most stuff it was fine. If you want something for lowlight the 35mm 1.8 is fairly inexpensive($190 from beachcamera) and small enough to carry around.

[Evad]

I like my Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Great for most situations. For longer reach and detail shots I use my Nikkor 70-300mm vr lens.

[WriteDisney]

I just got a Canon Rebel T2i and I'm looking to get a lens with more range then my kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm Kit Lens). We're going to Disney next month and I'm really looking for a good walk around lens. I really love the range on these and they're within my price but I'm having trouble deciding.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens
Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF)

I've checked out photos with these lenses on flickr, I've read reviews but I just don't know. I think I really like the Canon more but I've afraid that the zoom won't be enough for me and I'd really like this one to last awhile. That's why I'm considering this one:

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens

But I would definitely want quality photos over zoom. I already have the Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 for dark rides or night shots and I'm not worried about that. I'm also considering getting a circular polarizing filter because all the books I've been reading have been saying to invest in one. Not sure if that's really necessary or if it will show a big difference in my photos.

Thank you!!

[SrisonS]

The Canon 18-135mm is my main lens; and I love it. It provides great picture quality, plus the range is very very nice. At Disney, the only time you MIGHT feel the need for more zoom is at Animal Kingdom. And even that only matters if you really really want to zoom in on the animals. You still won't think they're too far to get an intereting shot.

You can check my Flickr for examples (not those recent concert pics though). And yes, the pictures have been through Lightroom, but the quality is still there.

[WriteDisney]

The Canon 18-135mm is my main lens; and I love it. It provides great picture quality, plus the range is very very nice. At Disney, the only time you MIGHT feel the need for more zoom is at Animal Kingdom. And even that only matters if you really really want to zoom in on the animals. You still won't think they're too far to get an intereting shot.

You can check my Flickr for examples (not those recent concert pics though). And yes, the pictures have been through Lightroom, but the quality is still there.

Your photos are really awesome and that's an endorsement enough for that lens! I think I'm gonna do it. I really like that 50 mm lens you recommended. It was a really great deal and takes really nice night shots (especially considering the price!).

I'm having trouble getting my photos really bright, do you think a polarizing lens would help at all with that? It hasn't been really bright and nice outside when I get out to practice but it shouldn't matter. I'm reading the Magic Lantern Guide for my camera which is really helping and I have Understanding Exposure by Brian Peterson which I'll start next but any tips for helping brighten up photos on an overcast day?

[SrisonS]

Do you have any examples to post of photos that are too dark???

I've never used any filters, so I couldn't tell you if they'd work or not. But it can be tough working with pictures taken on an overcast day. I'd personally try to go in in post-production to see if I can do something. Adding warmth helps out a lot; then i just go from there.

[WriteDisney]

Do you have any examples to post of photos that are too dark???

I've never used any filters, so I couldn't tell you if they'd work or not. But it can be tough working with pictures taken on an overcast day. I'd personally try to go in in post-production to see if I can do something. Adding warmth helps out a lot; then i just go from there.

I'm not sure that it's a matter of darkness but maybe a compensating for the overcast sky. These aren't the best examples because I used the program that came with the camera to touch them up a little bit (maybe that made them worse).

http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n580/DisRunnr525/2-2.jpg
http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n580/DisRunnr525/1-5.jpg
http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n580/DisRunnr525/3-2.jpg

But I think they best describe what I mean. I'm just having trouble getting decent photos on an overcast day. I took these with my 50mm lens.

[SrisonS]

Those don't appear to be uncommon at all. I don't think a filter would help bring much to the sky. And the rest of the scene just doesn't have much light, and you can't really do much there.

But a couple of things you could do is just crop out the unfriendly sky, or just give the pics a black & white touch. Then color, warmth, brightness won't be much of a deal. I'm assuming you want more of a in-camera/technique approach; but I'm not sure if there is a way. If there is,I'd like to know myself. ;)

[WriteDisney]

Those don't appear to be uncommon at all. I don't think a filter would help bring much to the sky. And the rest of the scene just doesn't have much light, and you can't really do much there.

But a couple of things you could do is just crop out the unfriendly sky, or just give the pics a black & white touch. Then color, warmth, brightness won't be much of a deal. I'm assuming you want more of a in-camera/technique approach; but I'm not sure if there is a way. If there is,I'd like to know myself. ;)

Ok, good advice! Well I ordered my new lens and now I'm just going to keep reading those books and hope for some nicer weather!