Newbie - what else should I be buying early on?

S

stockwell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
104
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

Basically building my kit from scratch. So far have purchased:

£310 450d
£190 17-85 IS with Hood
£169 55-250 IS
£20 Camera Rucksack
Compact Tripod


So what else should I buy? I think I should get UV filters for them from what I've read, if only to protect the glass.

What about other filters? a hood for the 55 - is this worthwhile?

What types of filters should I look for?
 
Looks to me as if you've got the basics pretty well covered :thumbs:

It'll depend a lot on the sort of thing you want to shoot as to whether you need much else at the moment, it's tempting to go crazy and buy loads of stuff at first (I know I did :whistling:) but most of it just ends up lying in a drawer gathering dust.

As far as UV filters go, I know a lot of people argue against their use, but I for one always get one for every new lens before it even goes out the front door, better to be safe than sorry and all that malarky...
 
Maybe a rocket blower and a circular polarizer.

But as Flash says, don't buy too much to start with.
 
Looks like a good start to me.

If landscapses are what you want to do - don't get a cheapy tripod though. A good sturdy one will help no end.
 
That's a sweet outfit as it stands :thumbs:

Personally, I wouldn't bother with a UV filter - hate the things - but a polariser for the 17-85 is a very good plan. And a lens hood for the 55-250 is also a good idea - prevents flare and also offers good protection.

As far as major extra kit is concerned, I would also advise against getting too much all at once - you won't know what you really want for a start, and fiddling with this and that as you may be tempted to do won't help you learn so quickly.

Having said that, a decent flash will open up areas of photography in all sorts of new ways.
 
As nobody has suggested a 50mm yet, I thought that I would be the one to mention it. The 1.8 is not terribly expensive and will serve well if you want to do some portraits with shallow depth of field.

That said, the earlier comments about your set up being good are spot-on and playing with that lot will help guide you as to what, if anything, you want to supplement it with.
 
A memory card (or two) appropriate for your camera?

If you're going to be photgraphing motorsport at close range (rallies, trials etc) rather than from the stands at a race meeting then a filter is probably a good idea, vehicles kick up a lot of stuff and better to break a £10 filter than a £200 lens - I was marshalling a trial at the weekend and got absolutely spattered with mud and the odd stone for example. Other than that, are you likely to drop a lens on a rock front element first?
 
very similar to andrewc above:

50/1.8 II - great for protraits, when you want to isolate an object and low light. £80.
Flash gun - I personally wish I had got into flash earlier. A used 420/430 for £120/150 will suffice.
Fliters - to protect your lenses, if only UV ones. £15/20 each ish.
Books - mipevo6 mentions, understanding exposure, I have it too, very helpful.
2 Memory cards - 8 gig SDHC, 30mb transfer rate for shooting in RAW. £20 each.
External hardrive - 320gig portable USB will suffice, they are only £50 or so.
Remote release - only if you are doing lanscapes at small apertures

Cheers

Bruce
 
UV filters for £10-£15-£20? Where are you guys buying this rubbish from?

If you must fit a UV filter, then please make sure it's a good one - Hoya HD or Pro-1 are the best and cheaper than B+W and others, but you'll not get one for £20.
 
Thanks for so many replies folks. Really helpful. I'm not really into portrait photoraghy. im more into out doors stuff - the hills, that isolated tree in the middle of nowhere, a bit of motor sports, and then just day to day things I like to record.
 
I'd argue against using UV filters to protect the glass, unless you are shooting in a sandstorm! They can degrade the image quality. Use lens hoods to protect the front elements. I'd recommend a polarizing filter for the 17-85 IS though.
 
Memory cards - sandisk preferaby (beware of ebay copies)
Filters - Better to scratch a filter than the front of you lens (I'm with Hoppy on buying the best ones out there!!)
Cirular polarizer - especially if you like shooting landscapes
External Hardrive for photo backups

Based on your shooting preferences I'm not sure a flash is essential at this stage - better to save up and get the best Canon do (580ex II) rather than buy a cheap one now.
 
If you've got a decent memory card, then the next thing I'd recommend you spending on is some petrol for the car and get out there shooting!
 
You've got enough to get you going, so get out there and take photos of everything you fancy! You'll soon find out what the weak point in your setup is! Or if you don't, just enjoy what you have until you find one!

Chris
 
HoppyUK said:
UV filters for £10-£15-£20? Where are you guys buying this rubbish from?

If you must fit a UV filter, then please make sure it's a good one - Hoya HD or Pro-1 are the best and cheaper than B+W and others, but you'll not get one for £20.
Click to expand...

I've heard a lot of people say this but I've always used cheap UV filters to protect my lenses and can't say I've noticed much difference with or without them.

This picture was taken on my 28-135mm IS USM lens with a filter that cost approx £6.00 (and that included a centre pinch lens cap) shooting not quite into the sun but at an angle:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/4326134540/sizes/o/

There is no sign of flare etc.

I intend to try a few tests with and without it but I'm happy with it and have never lost a pic because of excess flare or unsharpness caused by cheap filters.
 
Another vote for the 50mm f1.8 here. Great for portraits... slowly getting up the bottle to post a couple of snaps for C&C on here that I've taken with it.

Also, a flashgun is a great investment - although you don't have to spend a vast amount on one. I picked up a Sunpak one for £45 off the classifieds here - and it's great for my needs. The only thing I would suggest is to find one with tilt and swivel, not just tilt (or buy an off-camera cord) ;)

Another vote here for the UV filter to keep the lens protected!
 
petersmart said:
I've heard a lot of people say this but I've always used cheap UV filters to protect my lenses and can't say I've noticed much difference with or without them.
This picture was taken on my 28-135mm IS USM lens with a filter that cost approx £6.00 (and that included a centre pinch lens cap) shooting not quite into the sun but at an angle:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/4326134540/sizes/o/

There is no sign of flare etc.

I intend to try a few tests with and without it but I'm happy with it and have never lost a pic because of excess flare or unsharpness caused by cheap filters.
Click to expand...

The problem with filters is flare, and ghosting off the shiny surface of the sensor which reflects back of the flast surface of the filter, like a mirror.

If you shoot a night scene with bright lights in the picture, you will see it for sure. Some examples here http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=130960
 
Spend a quid or two on a decent quality cloth, everything above comes to nothing if your lens isn't perfectly clean.
 
Comfy said:
Spend a quid or two on a decent quality cloth, everything above comes to nothing if your lens isn't perfectly clean.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking that's not true!! See the thread on here somewhere, where the front element of a lens is completely smashed mangled, yet the lens in question still manages to produce a decent shot!! Also, using the same cloth over and over increases the risks of scratches to the lens anyway.

Buy a packet of Rizlas and clean the lens with them!! :D
 
HoppyUK said:
UV filters for £10-£15-£20? Where are you guys buying this rubbish from?

If you must fit a UV filter, then please make sure it's a good one - Hoya HD or Pro-1 are the best and cheaper than B+W and others, but you'll not get one for £20.
Click to expand...

I use a cheapie Jessops £25 UV filter for my 80-200/2.8 and it works a treat. I tried on one double the price and I didn't notice any difference. May be in specifc conditions, but my primary concern was to protect my lens.

However, I have made one mistake in the past. I bought a hoya circular polariser for my Sigma 10-20 and guess what, it vignettes when shooting ultra wide. Should have bought the pro version, you live and you learn.
 
Decent lens cleaning stuff and some good software!! The camera kit you have will see you right for a good while.
 
Lardinio said:
I use a cheapie Jessops £25 UV filter for my 80-200/2.8 and it works a treat. I tried on one double the price and I didn't notice any difference. May be in specifc conditions, but my primary concern was to protect my lens.

However, I have made one mistake in the past. I bought a hoya circular polariser for my Sigma 10-20 and guess what, it vignettes when shooting ultra wide. Should have bought the pro version, you live and you learn.
Click to expand...

Well I've also bought a circular polariser (72mm) so I'll be trying that soon - it only cost £7.00
 
HoppyUK said:
The problem with filters is flare, and ghosting off the shiny surface of the sensor which reflects back of the flast surface of the filter, like a mirror.
Click to expand...

Must say that seems unlikely since any reflection would have to go through several lens elements before it reached the filter and as I understand it sensors are coated to minimise reflections.
 
petersmart said:
Must say that seems unlikely since any reflection would have to go through several lens elements before it reached the filter and as I understand it sensors are coated to minimise reflections.
Click to expand...

You might think that but if you click on the link I gave in post #23 above, you will see it happening clearly enough.
 
I can certainly see them in your examples and maybe I'd worry if I took many pics at night.

Fortunately I don't and as far as I'm concerned - since I have filters on all my lenses - the money saved by buying cheapo filters can go towards buying better glass.

After all if I'm in a situation where flare might occur it's easy enough to remove the filter for a few seconds.

But I find a good lens hood is far more effective at preventing flare.
 
ryanyboy said:
Memory cards - sandisk preferaby (beware of ebay copies).
Click to expand...

very true.......better to buy from GoMemory i think

their Kingston cards are genuine cos i ran the serial numbers through Kingston USA .....after i got a bad 2GB sandisk off ebay
 
im more into out doors stuff - the hills, that isolated tree in the middle of nowhere,

then a 0.6 Graduated GREY ND cokin filter system would help to tone down the sky and allow more foreground detail

mount like "this"

filter like "this"
 
Nothing. Stop spending money on gear and start spending more on petrol - get out and shoot stuff.
 
petersmart said:
I can certainly see them in your examples and maybe I'd worry if I took many pics at night.

Fortunately I don't and as far as I'm concerned - since I have filters on all my lenses - the money saved by buying cheapo filters can go towards buying better glass.

After all if I'm in a situation where flare might occur it's easy enough to remove the filter for a few seconds.

But I find a good lens hood is far more effective at preventing flare.
Click to expand...

There's some contradiction in your post about using cheap filters in order that you can have more money for a better lens, but that aside, if you have bright lights inside the frame area a lens hood will do nothing for you.

And the effect you are seeing so clearly at night is happening all the time in every shot, it's just not so obvious. When is it degrading your picture and when is it not? Unless you shoot identical pictures side by side with and without the filter, you will probably never know that you are throwing away image quality. It really is quite marked in some common shooting situations with cheap filters, but multi-coated filters are much better and only cause problems in extreme situations.

Having done a lot of comparsions, a) I never fit a protection filter unless I have to, basically only when there's sea spray or flying mud, b) when I do, it is a very high quality one, and c) I always fit a lens hood for both protection and improved image quality in some situations.

Edit: long lenses are much more susceptible to poor quality filters in terms of sharpness than wide angles, if they are not perfectly plano parallel (flat). Easy test is to hold one up aganist a binocular and see if the image changes as you move it.
 
HoppyUK said:
There's some contradiction in your post about using cheap filters in order that you can have more money for a better lens, but that aside, if you have bright lights inside the frame area a lens hood will do nothing for you.

And the effect you are seeing so clearly at night is happening all the time in every shot, it's just not so obvious. When is it degrading your picture and when is it not? Unless you shoot identical pictures side by side with and without the filter, you will probably never know that you are throwing away image quality. It really is quite marked in some common shooting situations with cheap filters, but multi-coated filters are much better and only cause problems in extreme situations.

Having done a lot of comparsions, a) I never fit a protection filter unless I have to, basically only when there's sea spray or flying mud, b) when I do, it is a very high quality one, and c) I always fit a lens hood for both protection and improved image quality in some situations.

Edit: long lenses are much more susceptible to poor quality filters in terms of sharpness than wide angles, if they are not perfectly plano parallel (flat). Easy test is to hold one up aganist a binocular and see if the image changes as you move it.
Click to expand...

People have been arguing about this stuff for years, you're not going to be convincing anyone. Might as well be arguing Canon vs. Nikon. Also, there is no contradiction in buying cheap filters (as opposed to expensive ones) in order to have more money to spend on lenses. Makes perfect sense to me.

YOO MUST SCHOOT LEIK MEE OR YUR SCHIT :lol:
 
acs said:
Maybe a rocket blower and a circular polarizer.

But as Flash says, don't buy too much to start with.
Click to expand...

Defo, keep what you have already well protected.
 
mustanir said:
People have been arguing about this stuff for years, you're not going to be convincing anyone. Might as well be arguing Canon vs. Nikon. Also, there is no contradiction in buying cheap filters (as opposed to expensive ones) in order to have more money to spend on lenses. Makes perfect sense to me.

YOO MUST SCHOOT LEIK MEE OR YUR SCHIT :lol:
Click to expand...

Not trying to convince anybody of anything, just stating facts. And that is, filters do degrade image quality. If they are good quality it's usually not enough to matter, but if they are cheap and poor quality the difference can be scary.

Until you have actually tested with and without in tricky conditions, which most folks rarely do and just take the saleman's word for it, then you'll never know one way or the other. Then it's an entirely personal decision, but at least based on sound knowledge.

You can still shoot like I do and be SCHIT, it happens to me most of the time, usually when I point the camera at a boring subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top