^^ Can't simulate a UV or IR cut filter either.

^True that.

So sticking with a UV and Circular Polarizer (as most people will have one or the other or both), when is the ideal time to use them? I've always taken off any filters I've had when shooting into something bright like the sun or a light source. Polarizers I've used when shooting landscapes with lots of sky or water to get the nice deep blue of the sky and remove reflections off water.

Any other rules of thumb or recommendations on when to use these various filters?

^ i would also liketo know that
i got myself on a hand of couple filters from my friend

6pt star, polarized, UV, fluorescent

sweet i just got the 55-250mm IS and 50mm f1.8 lens for $440 brand new

Any advice on the following?

Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
Tamron 17-50 F2.8
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC AF

will be used on a 350D

So I'm getting a D300 body for sure...
Not sure if I want to spend the extra money for the 24-70 or go with the cheaper solution of 17-55mm.

I probably should add more info... I do a lot of event coverage and managed to get away with a 24-70 on my XTi for about a year. I have since sold that combo and I'm trying to figure out if it's worth spending the extra $400 to get the extra reach, but lose the wide angle.

Not sure if the 17-55 will make my life easier, but that's why I'm asking for your tips =P

The 24-70 is a bit of a waste on a crop body, IMHO as you're wasting the wide part of the lens. The 17-55 is better if you want the wide. They're both really sharp lenses though. If you're happy with what you were achieving with the 24-70 on the XTi, then get the 24-70 by all means. You can use it on any future FF bodies too.

Anybody know where i can get my hands on a Nikon 35mm F1.8G in vancouver? Please PM me if you do! thanx :)

Went by London Drugs and they said only Langley and Maple Ridge had stock. Kerrisdale Cameras was completely sold out.

sweet, thank you! :)

Since I got used to the 24-70 on my XTi, I decided to go with it for my D300...

SuperSlowSS, did you end up finding the 35mm?

Yeap went to london drugs in langley and got it. :p They have a lot of cool lens that are hard to get in vancouver.

Now the question... keep the 50mm f1.4g or not. haha

Haha.
How much did you get the 50mm for?
If it wasn't long ago, just return it.

How many did they have in stock? My laziness has prevented me from driving all the way out there but I can't seem to find the lens anywhere nearby.

I got it at regular price. Trying to decide if I really want 50mm focal length on DX format. And if F1.4 is really worth it.. hahah

oh zero now. :p Local camera stores will be getting more very soon. Just that I need to test this lens out before going on a trip.

So, I'm looking for a budget zoom/macro lens to try out, and I've heard the Canon 70-300mm sucks, as does the 55-200/55-250 that Canon offers in the entry level.

Any thoughts/experience with the Sigma APO DG 70-300mm?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._6_APO_DG.html

They suck in comparison to the L lenses, yeah, but they're better than the Sigma... spec for spec, Canon OEM lenses will always beat Sigmas in IQ.

The 70-300IS is actually quite good for the price, and the focal length + IS make it quite versatile outdoors. The AF isn't bad, either. IQ is pretty good, actually. Better than the 55-250, which is OK.

The 70-200 F4L actually isn't all that expensive on the used market. If you can cough up $600-650 that's the telephoto lens I would buy.

EDIT: Do some comparison searches online between the Sigma and the Canon lenses.

To be fair, I said entry level, not L lens. I'm hoping to cheap out a bit, and get something to see how zoom fairs, first, before stepping up to an f2.8L/f4L Canon 70-200mm. The comparable lenses I was referring to would be your $200-300 Canon lenses in the same price range.

The research I've done online seems to indicate that this particular Sigma lens outperforms what Canon offers in this price range. Hopefully someone's had some experience with said lenses to be able to give an accurate or first hand account on their use of said glass.

i got the 55-250mm IS canon lens
to me it shoots pretty nice pictures but for about 300 bucks its a nice cheap lens

I personally like the 55-250 IS if you're sticking with a crop body and are on a budget.

They're starting to find their way back into stock as well =)

I've got a 55-250 as well and I like it.

The 70-300IS is probably double the price of the 55-250 though. I guess it comes down to how much you want to spend.

I think you meant to type 75-300 ($300) which does suck compared to the canon 70-300 IS which is a very good lens for the price tag of $700. I own both the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 2.8L IS and I like them both but actually find that the 70-300 has a wider sweet spot, and is alot easier to use due to the huge weight difference. All the reviews I've seen on the 70-300 IS are very favorable and I have to agree.

Everyday walkaround, same general price...

Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro
or
Tamron 17-50 f2.8

Hoping to pick one up this week, possibly even later today.

Tamron, hands down