New To DSLR and bought a 40D, what else do i need?

Oakey22

Suspended / Banned
Messages
647
Name
Ian Oakey
Edit My Images
No
Bought this off Kerso on here, hopefully will get it nxt week as he is posting it tomorrow.

getting a 40D with 17-85MM IS USM lens
CANON 70-200MM F4 LENS
CANON 50MM F 1.8 MK II LENS

What other things do i need? I know i need a flashcard but what filters will i need?

dont need anything too fancy just something to protect the lenses from getting trashed.

Will be shooting wildlife at the local river and motorsport when i goto races, etc.

Kind Regards
Ian
 
Redsnapper do really good ones apparently, they're getting rave reviews for bang for buck quality.

He has a thread in the FS forums.
 
I would forget filters, unless you operate in harsh conditions where your front element really could get damaged (flying mud/stones, sandstorm, sea spray), where a plain UV filter might protect your lens from scratches. I have UVs for all my lenses but now subscribe to the school of thought that sticking something in front of my £1,000 lens is unlikely to improve the IQ. Much better to get lens hoods for the lenses that don't have them - a petal lens for the 17-85 and a rubber flexible hood for the 50 is what I use. I assume the 70-200 comes with. A hood will offer physical protection, to a large degree, and exclude spurious light, thus reducing lens flare and increasing contrast. The only filter I would suggest is a CPL, if that would be of use, which it well might. If you're into long exposures for streams and waterfalls then an ND filter might help get you those slow shutter speeds on brights days, although a CPL will help a little. With motorsport an ND filter will help you keep a wide aperture to throw fencing out of focus, while allowing a slowish shutter speed to blur backgrounds when panning. Again, a CPL will achieve a little of that.

A tripod is a good idea, but don't waste money by buying too cheap 'n' nasty. Wobbly tripods are worse than none. You also need to think about size (height) and possibly weight. If you raise the centre column then your stability/rigidity disappears very quickly. A short tripod that requires you to raise the centre column fully, and still leaves you stooping, is a very poor choice. I'm 6' in my shoes and my tripod will get the viewfinder just an inch or two below my eye level without extending the centre column at all. My old tripod is so wobbly that I would not use it for anything more than holding a flash gun now, or my point and shoot in extremis. Think about a monopod too - but really whether you need either does depend on what you plan to photograph. Either would be handy for wildlife and a monopod may be handy for motorsport. I shoot motorsport with no support but do favour a tripod for a lot of wildlife when I'm at 400mm+, although I can manage OK handheld. A tripod just makes things a lot more comfortable when you are waiting patiently for the lion to yawn, or roar, or for the bird to look in your direction. For BIF I handhold. You'll also need a decent head. Ball heads seem pretty popular for general purpose togging. I have a ball on my tripod and on my monopod, although you could get away with a tilt head for a monopod or perhaps even nothing. As with tripod legs, you get what you pay for - buy cheap, buy twice, as they say. Have a read of this article - http://www.bythom.com/support.htm.

Think about cleaning stuff - a Rocket blower for your sensor and a lenspen and microfibre cloth for your glass would be worthwhile. I do find the 40D anti-dust to be very effective, but the other day I found a hair had somehow got inside - must have been during a lens change. Anyway, a few puffs with my rocket soon had it banished. A spare battery might come in handy, although 40D battery life is excellent anyway. You can get two for a tenner, plus a bit of P&P, from 7dayshop.

I would recommend a flash gun, although perhaps of slightly limited use for wildlife and motorsport. I do use flash for garden birds, and fill in at the zoo, but a good one is a bit pricey.

I should think that lot will get you started nicely. I wouldn't go too mad until you figure out your own needs and where you feel let down by what you have. Practice first and then add to your toys when you know what you need (want :) ).

My approx timeline for acquiring stuff....
2005 - Sony DSC P200, Monopod and ball head
June 2006 - 30D and 17-85 IS, UV filter
September 2006 - Rocket, batteries, petal hood, 580EX, Lowepro Slingshot 200 AW, Spudz 18% grey microfibre cloth
December 2006 - Grip, nifty 50, rubber hood, UV filter, Gorillapod SLR (should have got the Zoom model)
June 2007 - 10-22, 17-55, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 100-400, Carbon Fire tripod legs, Hydrostatic ball head, UV filters, CPL, 80cm Light box, Les pens (By this time I had decided I was into photography :) )
September 2007 - 40D, eBay poverty Wizards (Cactus flash triggers), Think Tank Airport Acceleration
December 2007 - Sensor cleaning kit
May 2008 - 110cm 5-in1 reflector set, WFT-E3 wireless grip, 580EX II
June 2008 - light stands, umbrellas, reflector holder, flash brackets X2, off camera flash cord

I've also acquired flash modifiers (omnibounce and soft boxes) and various odds and sods over the past 2 years - ball bungees, quick release plates and no doubt other bits too.

I'm now toying with the idea of getting an ST-E2 to trigger both my 580EXs off camera, and I probably will. Poverty Wizards are a bit hit and miss.
 
^^^^ excellent advice in the first paragraph

I'd try a monopod for motorsport personally
 
^^^^ excellent advice in the first paragraph

i get spots of water/pollen, smears etc on my lenses.... a hood wont protect from these.
 
i get spots of water/pollen, smears etc on my lenses.... a hood wont protect from these.

I'll give you the pollen one, if you like sticking your lens into the flower bed, but how would you get smears on a lens with a deepish hood on it, unless you were extremely unlucky or careless? An occasional smudge can be easily wiped off. Grit and the like is another matter. A hood will surely reduce the likelihood of getting anything on your front piece of glass, whether that's a filter or the lens. Would you rather have a filter only (plus the lens flare) and forever be wiping down the filter, or a hood and the very occasional need to buff?

20080612_112647_02947_LR.jpg
 
I have to say I don't shoot in risky conditions for the lens but about a year ago I slammed my camera into a door frame (it was that or break my neck falling backwards down a flight of stairs!) and the lens would have taken an utter beating had it not been for my skylight taking the full brunt of the damage so from then on it has been filters all the way :)
 
Sorry I would always fit a decent quality UV filter to my lenses. I really would doubt that they affect the image quality that much. What affects the quality more a replaceable filter or a damaged front element? Decent filters and careful shooting will virtually eliminate lens flare especially when combined with a hood.
 
One reason why filters are frowned upon, apart from image degradation, is that if a thin, flimsy, filter gets broken on the front of your lens it is quite likely that it will end up scratching the front optic of your lens - glass on glass and all that. Your front element is bound to be thicker and more robust than a thin flat filter, and will probably survive a tougher impact than filter glass. Of course, a nice plastic lens hood would have prevented any glass smashing against the door frame and would have spread the impact around the whole front end of the lens, as well as absorbing shock itself.

It's horses for course, of course. I'll stick with my approach :)
 
Sorry I would always fit a decent quality UV filter to my lenses. I really would doubt that they affect the image quality that much. What affects the quality more a replaceable filter or a damaged front element? Decent filters and careful shooting will virtually eliminate lens flare especially when combined with a hood.

When light passes through glass at an angle it refracts. A lens gathers light across an angle and then focuses it down a lens tube. The front optic is usually curved and is critical in the design in order to accept light entering th lens at a specific angle and focus it correctly. If you put a flat filter element in front of your lens you will alter the path of the light as it is about to hit the lens and the light will not hit the lens at the intended angle. Your image will soften.

I have tried a test with my 100-400 lens, which has a reputation for not plying nicely with UV filters (especially cheap ones), and I can confirm that there is image degradation. It is small, but it is there. The lens hood on the 100-400 is so deep that there is very little chance of anything touching the lens, other than light or flying stones/mud thrown up by a rally car.

On a really wide lens, like the 10-22, the lens hood is very shallow and will do little to prevent things touching the front element. However, the hood does offer physical protection and shock absorbtion from knocks to the side. I haven't tested the effects of a filter on the IQ of my 10-22, but as it gathers light over such a wide angle I wonder whether IQ would be more affected. Perhaps I should try test on that lens too.

Check this out - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=667898&postcount=39
 
Of course, a nice plastic lens hood would have prevented any glass smashing against the door frame and would have spread the impact around the whole front end of the lens, as well as absorbing shock itself.

It's horses for course, of course. I'll stick with my approach :)

The point was that the filter absorbed the impact - there was no broken glass anywhere nor damage to the lens..god bless Hoya, lol! But as you say each to their own :)
 
Back
Top