Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: A good filter/lens size to adopt

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    East of SG
    Posts
    124

    Default whats a good filter/lens size to adopt?

    Hi,
    there are so many Diameter sizes of filters/lenses, I'm thinking the more common sizes will be cheaper and more widely available becos of the higher usage.

    I'm using a C-3020Z - with either 41-43mm or 41-52mm adaptors available, I guess the appropriate sizes would be 43mm, 46mm, 49mm , 52mm.

    Which would be a good size to take up?

    Appreciate all advice, Cheers!
    Last edited by steely; 17th February 2004 at 08:44 AM.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    East of SG
    Posts
    124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steely
    Hi,
    there are so many Diameter sizes of filters/lenses, I'm thinking the more common sizes will be cheaper and more widely available becos of the higher usage.

    I'm using a C-3020Z - with either 41-43mm or 41-52mm adaptors available, I guess the appropriate sizes would be 43mm, 46mm, 49mm , 52mm.

    Which would be a good size to take up?

    Appreciate all advice, Cheers!

    no advice?
    sigh.......

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    AMK, Singapore
    Posts
    527

    Default

    I would go for 52mm as my first choice as it is widely available. Do note however that the bigger the filter, the more it would block the built-in flash.

    To add on, if you're just thinking of fixing a UV or Skylight filter to protect the lens, then 43mm would do fine. But if you'd like to buy and stack filters, go for 52mm. U should also consider if you wanna buy an add-on tele or wide converter, it would be best if the thread size of these works well with you filter/adapter ring size.
    Last edited by stk; 18th February 2004 at 01:20 PM.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    East of SG
    Posts
    124

    Default

    thanks stk, will look into that thread size!

    Just hv to live with the flash-shadow i guess; the lack of a shoe on this older camera bites....won't hv the luxury of using flash for tele/macro then

    cheers!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    AMK, Singapore
    Posts
    527

    Default

    Just recalled something.. the 41-43mm adaptor is Olympus CLA-1 and the 41-52mm adaptor is third party right? I'll advise to go for the CLA-1 and then get a step-up ring to 52mm for filters. The length of the third party adaptor may not work as well with your camera. Do read the following article...

    http://dpfwiw.com/c-2000z/lens_cap/index.htm

    Btw.. the C-3020 is a very decent camera.. I used to have one for a year before switching to my current cam...

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    East of SG
    Posts
    124

    Default

    I got mine for about 2 yrs but only recently tried to wean myself off the AF mode and pick up some basic photography

    presently I got a 52mm with a UV and no lens crashes, lucky....I would have to get the CLA-1 and some rings if another thread size is more widely available... thanks for your advice again

    Now all i gotta do is do the rounds and explore some 52mm threaded tele-convs
    cheers!

    PS
    BTW, if anyone's interested , an enlightening site about filters
    http://medfmt.8k.com/bronfiltersp.html#protect

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    AMK, Singapore
    Posts
    527

    Default

    I would recommend u to consider the TCON-17 as it should work very well with the C-3020. I've tried the TCON-14b and while the quality is good, the 1.4x magnification is a bit too small for me. I've also tried the C-210 and while the magnification is good, there is some vignetting and distortion at the edges.. U may be interested to see some test shots I've done with the C-3020 and C-210...

    http://www.pbase.com/tkseah/c210_test

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    East of SG
    Posts
    124

    Default

    Stk,
    C-210 has vignetting even at full zoom? But not the TCON-17?
    the fullzoom at 190mm - looks about 20% of the image needed to cropped away.
    hmmmm....I'm thinking does peripheral imagery really matters and affects the overall construction of a zoomed shot? If it doesn't, the C-210 looks good. Of course the TCONs might have other better qualities that I don't know about and hv not considered.

    BTW, exceptionally like these pics
    http://www.pbase.com/image/14246215/medium
    http://www.pbase.com/image/14246407/medium
    http://www.pbase.com/image/14246381/medium
    http://www.pbase.com/image/9184640/medium

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    AMK, Singapore
    Posts
    527

    Default

    Thanks for liking the pics.. they were all taken with the C-3020 early last year..

    Yes, the C-210 has vignetting even at full zoom with the C-3020. I used the C-210 with the CLA-1 and a 43-52mm stepup ring so doubt u can do much about the vigenetting. I've seen my friend's TCON-17 and it has a relatively larger rear lens element so should work much better. But I've not tried it with the C-3020 bcos the cam has already been sold off at that time. Having said that, I find it a bit troublesome to attach and detach tele/wide converters so didn't use them much after the initial thrill..

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    East of SG
    Posts
    124

    Default

    Was down at CP lunchtime, tried some 3rd party 52mm 2x teleconv (looked like kenkos). The gain was not exactly 2x but probably close to it, vignette-clear from maybe 70% ( judging from the W-T indicator only ) to full zoom.
    Seems ok, not the T-CON17 but < half the price.

    PC ( diagonally opp ) quoted me another 2X 3rd party brand, at nearly 3X the price......

    Screwing the lenses on is bothersome thats true, took me some time to do comparision shots LOL!

    I hvn't bought any yet, but it seems whatever potential cost diff will be taken up by the expenses of doing the rounds. hehe, but the walkabouts are half the fun anyway
    Last edited by steely; 19th February 2004 at 04:14 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •