Rebel 300D & Polarizers

[Liz]

Hi folks -

Do you use a polarizer - is it necessary - with a digital SLR?

I haven't used a polarizer on any of my lenses since using the digital Rebel. However, the sun hasn't really been around too much either - and I haven't been far away from the house lately

I'll be in NYC tomorrow and the sun is supposed to shine! And I'll be on a Ferry!

Thanks.....

Liz

[Peter_AUS]

Hi Liz,

I would treat your digital Rebel the same as you would with the film camera and just use the Polarizer the way you did with that in mine. Essentially the difference between digital and film is just that, no film everything is the same. Well that is what I understand anyway.

Have fun in NYC.

[Liz]

The reason I'm asking is because I got great results - deep blue skies, etc. even on bright sunny mid-afternoons with the G3. I know they're set up differently though. I really haven't had a chance to shoot with the Rebel during the daylight hours. However, I'll have to do without a polarizer tomorrow since the local photo shop had them backordered and the other stores don't sell them. I have none to fit the lens - that's okay. I'm just psyched to be able to meet some of the crew from PR.

Liz

Hi Liz,

I would treat your digital Rebel the same as you would with the film camera and just use the Polarizer the way you did with that in mine. Essentially the difference between digital and film is just that, no film everything is the same. Well that is what I understand anyway.

Have fun in NYC.

[Peter_AUS]

You have a polarizing filter for a lens don't you liz, which lens is it for. Maybe you could use a step down ring for it, if the lens you are trying to fit it to is smaller than the filter, I don't do that, but then I have only one and use that on the 28-135 IS lens. I have lost track of your hardware and what lenses you are using now and I know weight is an issue with you which is unfortunate but I can relate to that very easily.

[Liz]

This morning I made a BIG decision - I had an idea and went with it! I'm glad I did though, and I have no regrets.

I sold my Canon 85mm/f1.8 which I never use, along with the Canon 20mm/2.8. I then purchased the Canon 17-40mm/f4L lens. After selling these 2 lenses I only had to pay $150 upfront after a $40 rebate. I've really wanted a wider angle, and after reading the rave reviews of this lens and seeing some of the photos here shot with it, I decided it's worth selling 2 lenses I seldom use. Needless to say, I don't have any 77mm filters. However, it came with a hood - that should help. I'll take my chances - I'm going to NY for fun - not to sell any photos!

Liz

You have a polarizing filter for a lens don't you liz, which lens is it for. Maybe you could use a step down ring for it, if the lens you are trying to fit it to is smaller than the filter, I don't do that, but then I have only one and use that on the 28-135 IS lens. I have lost track of your hardware and what lenses you are using now and I know weight is an issue with you which is unfortunate but I can relate to that very easily.

[Peter_AUS]

I have lenses I would like to sell to do similar but the price they want to give me for the lenses is just too restrictive, may as well keep the lenses and just buy a new lens. I too have been thinking of the 17-40L lens but funds aren't there at present to consider it, need to do other things first. Main reason I have stuck with the 28-135 lens most of the time. Even the 50mm lens is too long for some shots, especially in doors, but it is good for head and shoulder, which is what I will mostly use it for anyway.

I'm still thinking of website names, have about 10 days before my schuckphotographics.com name expires and I want to change it to something that is a little more catchy, like 1stopcreations or canvasphotocreations or even wowphotocreations it is a big decision to go with a name, although I don't have to stick with one in particular, I want to have something that is a little catchy and maybe be able to design a graphic or small flash movie to accentuate the meaning a little.

I have fiddle with the http://www.schuckphotograhics.com website last night and changed the gallery link on the left of the page to show a different gallery system that I am considering using. If you have some time, maybe have a look and comment back here, would be great.

[Liz]

I'll check out your website. I've been hanging around here off & on instead of working this evening. Now I have to get my office cleaned up so I can get out early tomorrow morning. But I won't forget to look at it. Actually I'm looking forward to it. Thanks for asking me.

Liz

I have lenses I would like to sell to do similar but the price they want to give me for the lenses is just too restrictive, may as well keep the lenses and just buy a new lens. I too have been thinking of the 17-40L lens but funds aren't there at present to consider it, need to do other things first. Main reason I have stuck with the 28-135 lens most of the time. Even the 50mm lens is too long for some shots, especially in doors, but it is good for head and shoulder, which is what I will mostly use it for anyway.

I'm still thinking of website names, have about 10 days before my schuckphotographics.com name expires and I want to change it to something that is a little more catchy, like 1stopcreations or canvasphotocreations or even wowphotocreations it is a big decision to go with a name, although I don't have to stick with one in particular, I want to have something that is a little catchy and maybe be able to design a graphic or small flash movie to accentuate the meaning a little.

I have fiddle with the http://www.schuckphotograhics.com website last night and changed the gallery link on the left of the page to show a different gallery system that I am considering using. If you have some time, maybe have a look and comment back here, would be great.

[Sebastian]

Liz,

First, congrats on the new lens, I keep being amazed by the optics.

Second, the polarizer is not necessary. I haven't used one since I started shooting slides. I always get deep blue skies, unlike I did with negative film. Digital seems to react the same way, so I still don't bother with a polarizer. I have tried it, and there is a difference, but not significant enought to mess with it. I find myself using it when I need to cut or intensify reflections though.

Good luck.

[darkman]

Liz,

Definately keep the polarizer for reducing reflections. For instance, light refelecting off the water (though sometimes the specular highlights look good). I've played with sofware polarizers and all they do is simplify the process of making the sky more blue.

Mike

[Trevor Ash]

Liz,

I find polarizers very valuable for all camera types I've ever used. However, if you aren't sure for yourself I think it means that you haven't experimented enough for yourself. Might I suggest that you use your digital and take photos with and without filter so that you become much more familiar with when the filter is useful. It's not all about blue skies you know!

Cheers,
Trevor

[Liz]

Thanks everyone - I appreciate the info. I just adjusted the contrast slightly here.

Our trip to NY today - including Rick, Penny & Gene, Joe Mags, Megan and me. I had no polarizer and forgot to bring the hood! Here are 2 pics shot mid-afternoon from the ferry.


Liz

Liz,

I find polarizers very valuable for all camera types I've ever used. However, if you aren't sure for yourself I think it means that you haven't experimented enough for yourself. Might I suggest that you use your digital and take photos with and without filter so that you become much more familiar with when the filter is useful. It's not all about blue skies you know!

Cheers,
Trevor