Filters

[pisco]

I have been looking at buying the Cokin P system as well and found this great deal on Ebay. For $25 + Shipping you can get the holder and all of the adapters from 49-77 mm. Seems like a really good deal to me considering B&H want $13 per adapter.

 

[SharonLowe]

I have been looking at buying the Cokin P system as well and found this great deal on Ebay. For $25 + Shipping you can get the holder and all of the adapters from 49-77 mm. Seems like a really good deal to me considering B&H want $13 per adapter.

Those are aftermarket adapters so you aren't getting the real deal and of course, no guarantees/warranty.

 

[jann1033]

if you have step up rings you only need an adapter for your biggest lens then you can use step up rings to step up to that lens adapter.imo that is easier than changing the adapter/holder for each lens..i had step up rings already for my cp filters but maybe i'm the only one...and the only problem i have encountered with the 3rd party ie cheapo rings is some of them don't fit all that well and one bent pretty easy when i dropped it ( minus the cp filter at least). not sure if the others would hold up better or not, oh and i ordered it from hongkong by mistake and waited for ever for it

 

[Disney*Dreamer]

I am just a beginner and really don't know a lot about anything. I bought a Sony DSC-H2, since I thought it would be a good camera for me to learn on, but still have the capability of using it as a point and shoot. Now that I am learning the manuel modes a little more, I am interested in trying out some lenses or maybe filters. I am not sure what I want or what would be good to start with. I think I would like a Polerizing filter and a UV filter for sure, but I am not sure about the lenses.

So I have 2 questions.

1) What is good to start with?
2) Can you use any brand of filter on any camera? (The reason I ask this is because when I was in Ritz camera, they only had a few uv filters and I didn't see anywhere on the packaging what camera that they were compatible with, the clerks were very busy, so I didn't wait to ask)

There is a kit on ebay that includes .45x wide angle with macro, 2x telephoto, a uv filter, flourescent filter, and polarizer filter. Now. obviously I know these are the best that can be bought, you get what you pay for, but I am wondering at $69, if this would be a good kit for me to learn with. I don't want to put a Lot into this camera, since I plan to upgrade to a dslr when I am more confident.

Thanks for any help.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

The UV filter won't help your pictures at all, although many people like to use them to protect their front lens element from scratches.

I would start with a polarizer. It will be very helpful in many outdoor conditions. Just be aware that it is a bit like putting a pair of sunglasses on your camera. If you are having problems because you don't have enough light, it will make those problems worse. Use it outside on bright days and you'll be fine.

As for the wide angle and telephoto, I would buy those if you find that you want to be able to take wider or more zoomed in pictures. Just be aware that at the prices you are talking about, these are likely to have a noticeable impact on picture quality.

I would ignore the flourescent lighter filter. That made sense back when people shot film, but with digital cameras, color shifts are handled by white balance (usually automatically, but you can adjust it manually as well).

 

[Disney*Dreamer]

Thanks for the advice, I want the uv filter to help protect my lens, so I am going to get that for sure.

I also like what I have read about the polarizer. As for the Flouescent, I know how to take care of that with the camera, so that isn't really an issue.

Wide angle and telephoto, not real sure that I would ever have any use for those, though they would probably be fun to play with. I am much more interested in stuido portrait type photography, though I enjoy natural light too.

So maybe I would be better off, if I am going to get anything else right now, getting some sort of portable lighting source. I shoot my sil's family over the weekend at their home for their Chirstmas cards, and I am going to have to reshoot it, because the lighting was terrible, and since I am new and an idiot, I forgot about ISO, and for some reason it was on 1000, so you can imagine what I got. Ran them through noiseware and they are not even usable. I hate how that distorts images, I like really good really sharp pictures, though Sister-in-law was very happy with them, I was not. The poses were great I hope I can get them again.

So any suggestions on lighting for a beginner, and portable?

 

[ukcatfan]

Thanks for the advice, I want the uv filter to help protect my lens, so I am going to get that for sure.

I also like what I have read about the polarizer. As for the Flouescent, I know how to take care of that with the camera, so that isn't really an issue.

Wide angle and telephoto, not real sure that I would ever have any use for those, though they would probably be fun to play with. I am much more interested in stuido portrait type photography, though I enjoy natural light too.

So maybe I would be better off, if I am going to get anything else right now, getting some sort of portable lighting source. I shoot my sil's family over the weekend at their home for their Chirstmas cards, and I am going to have to reshoot it, because the lighting was terrible, and since I am new and an idiot, I forgot about ISO, and for some reason it was on 1000, so you can imagine what I got. Ran them through noiseware and they are not even usable. I hate how that distorts images, I like really good really sharp pictures, though Sister-in-law was very happy with them, I was not. The poses were great I hope I can get them again.

So any suggestions on lighting for a beginner, and portable?

I personally believe that your money would be better spent getting a DSLR and the right lens before investing in an sort of lighting.

Kevin

 

[Disney*Dreamer]

I personally believe that your money would be better spent getting a DSLR and the right lens before investing in an sort of lighting.

Kevin

Yeah, pretty much what I decided last night. I am still not ready for a DSLR though, I want to wait until I am more confident in using the manuel settings. I think I am just going to get a few filters for now, and maybe a few books to read.

 

[fitzperry]

I'm looking at a few wide angle zooms, some of which have a rear gelatin filter slot. In fact, as far as I can tell the Sigma 15-30 and 12-24 won't accept a filter on the front. Is there a way to use a polarizer on these lenses?

 

[SharonLowe]

The simplest answer is no unless by some miracle they can accept a Cokin filter set, which I doubt.

 

[jann1033]

I'm looking at a few wide angle zooms, some of which have a rear gelatin filter slot. In fact, as far as I can tell the Sigma 15-30 and 12-24 won't accept a filter on the front. Is there a way to use a polarizer on these lenses?

there is a wide angle cokin filter holder but not sure how you would attach it-- duct tape? maybe check on their website( cokin) and see what kind of filters they have for rear slots.....they have lots of info on some sites and forums if you google cokin, i thought i had them marked but don't...
that is the problem ( the cp) i just asked about under my fisheye ?, the sky is exposed fine but varies in color from the left to the right depending on where the sun is and no way to attach a filter or other hood. i think someone said it would cause vignetting if you tried to use a cp with an ultra wide

 

[fitzperry]

Thanks for the info. I'll do a little more research into the Cokin possibility, but based on my quick review I concur that duct tape might be the only answer. I wonder why a cp would cause vignetting on an ultra-wide angle lens. On second thought, I probably don't really want to know the technical answer.

 

[boBQuincy]

I am not sure which camera you have but Canon's EF-S design allowed their 10-22 to have a flat front element which takes a 77mm filter. Polarizers work fine on this lens.

 

[fitzperry]

Thanks Bob, but I'm a Nikon gal. I haven't seen a comparable Nikon lens, but I may be missing something. I have been focusing (pardon the pun ) on third-party options because it does seem I get more bang for my buck that way. If I spend $3000 on the lenses I'd like to buy right now (to say nothing of the D300 it's taken all my self-restraint not to order), I won't be able to go anywhere fun to use them next year (or the kids' college funds will suffer unfairly).

ETA: There is a Nikon 18-35 (around $450 at B&H) that takes a 77mm filter, but I was hoping to find something a little wider to complement my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Nikon 55-200. Any other suggestions?

 

[Furgus]

Thanks Bob, but I'm a Nikon gal. I haven't seen a comparable Nikon lens, but I may be missing something. I have been focusing (pardon the pun ) on third-party options because it does seem I get more bang for my buck that way. If I spend $3000 on the lenses I'd like to buy right now (to say nothing of the D300 it's taken all my self-restraint not to order), I won't be able to go anywhere fun to use them next year (or the kids' college funds will suffer unfairly).

ETA: There is a Nikon 18-35 (around $450 at B&H) that takes a 77mm filter, but I was hoping to find something a little wider to complement my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Nikon 55-200. Any other suggestions?

Sigma 10-20. Awesome lens and is a 77mm front end. It is a f/4-5.6 but I use this as my primay landscape lens and don't hand hold it very much.
(BTW I am looking at the Tamron 28-75 also for my D50)

 

[fitzperry]

Sigma 10-20. Awesome lens and is a 77mm front end. It is a f/4-5.6 but I use this as my primay landscape lens and don't hand hold it very much.
(BTW I am looking at the Tamron 28-75 also for my D50)

I was looking at that one the other day, and I can't figure out why I started considering the other 2 Sigmas mentioned in my op. It must have been because the 10-20 would leave me with a gap in the 20-28 range, but that doesn't seem like a big deal. I also recall noticing a few weeks ago that 2 of the 3 ribbon winners in a certain photography challenge were taken with the Sigma 10-20. It does look like a great lens.

The Tokina AT-X 124 AF PRO DX 12-24mm f/4 also seems to fare well in the reviews and takes 77mm filters.

 

[emmabelle]

Anybody ever use close-up lens filters on their D SLR? I've seen them on other sites and wonder if any of you have tried them?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/101154-REG/General_Brand_67CUS_67mm_Close_up_Kit_1_.html

I linked the very cheapest ones for my lens, but they range up to $83 depending on the brand. I know it will be awhile before I can buy a dedicated macro lens, I thought these might be fun in the meantime.

 

[boBQuincy]

Yes, I have a Canon 500D close-up filter which is made to use with longer lenses. It works well, here with a 70-200:

This lens is a doublet and is better than most close-up filters but Canon thinks pretty highly of them too ($$$).

 

[emmabelle]

Beautiful picture.

I saw some on Ebay for only $16.95 for a +2, +4, +8 set. Even if they stink, it's not much of an investment. Maybe I'll order them.

 

[El Nebuloso]

My brother has used them quite successfully on his D200. I think he has a three filter set that ran about $50 or so. Sorry I can't provide photos, but I was pretty impressed with what I saw for the price.