Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Canon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 20, 2006, 8:13 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2
Default

I recently got myslef a S2IS and am in process of selecting filters and lenses to suit it. Basically i do a lot of waterfall photography so a ND would be nice to get those frozen water pictures and a UV would be nice to keep flying water and debris from getting to my actual lens!

What i cannot work out though is what size to go wiht. The 52mm Lenses and filters all seem slightly cheaper and there seems to be a greater range. however Canon's own adaptor is a 58mm. Does this mean the camera works better with a 58mm lens?

Thanks in advance.
aloysius is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 20, 2006, 11:26 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

You'd be better off with the 58mm since most converter lens for the S2 are 58mm. If you use the 58mm adapter with a 52mm filter, you need a step down ring. Lensmate does make a 52mm adapter tube for the S2 (as well as 58mm), so you can buy the their adapter instead. Just keep in mind that when it's time to buy a tele or wide angleconverter, you might need a converter ring. Also, going from 52 to 58 or vice-versa may cause some vignetting on your pictures.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 11:52 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2
Default

thanks for your help tullio, Im aware that the canon branded tele's and WA's etc are all 58... on the lensemate site the best proforming tele is the raynox dcr1540pro which is a 52mm lens. The best proforming WA is the raynox dcr720....which is also a 52mm jobbie. So there is no real worries about getting good quality lenses.

What i was more interested in was whether there was any noticable difference between using a 52 compared to using a 58. whether the 52 was more prone to vigneting etc.

The availability of lenses and filters is just about even between 58 and 52mm but the 52's seem a smidgen cheaper.

aloysius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2006, 12:15 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

My understanding is that as long as you don't stack up too many filters/lens, you will not notice any difference between the 52mm and 58mm. From what I've read, the 52mm tends to vignetting more but on the positive side, the lens/filter selection and much greater and prices are lower.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2006, 7:24 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Default

I went with all 52mm stuff, simply because everything is priced a little lower...
SMP_Homer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2006, 10:47 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

I'd appreciate if you could keep us informed of your findings and experiences with the 52mm. I had the same doubts myself. Thanks.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2006, 3:33 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
vwmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 589
Default

I went with the 52 after posting this question a while ago.. I heard there were people experiences shadowing with the 58. My 52 seems to be great.
vwmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2006, 3:40 PM   #8
Member
 
ecx350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
I went with the 52 after posting this question a while ago.. I heard there were people experiences shadowing with the 58. My 52 seems to be great.
Glad to hear that. I just ordered my lens adapter and UV filter yesterday from lensmate and I went with a 52mm. I emailed the sales person their and they also said that 52mm was the way to go.

Cindi
ecx350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2006, 5:20 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 119
Default

I use the 52mm one, just because Lensmate recommends the 52mm as causing less trouble. I use it with a Raynox 0.7 adapter and an Olympus 1.5x adapter and it workls great, only the Olympus adapter causes some vigneting in low zoom ranges, but that's perfectly normal on this kind of adapters.
schmiedel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2006, 6:40 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Well, Ibought the 58mm Sakar adapter ($12 from Beachcamera). It's aluminum and assmall as theLensmate but for less than half of the cost. I have the Sony HD1758 1.7x tele adapter and I took some pretty awesome pictures with no vignetting at all. I also bought a step down ring (58mm to 49mm) since I found lots of 49mm filters and macro lensesfrommy old film SLR days. I though for sure the macro with such a large step down would producesome vignetting but it did not.And last butnot least, Ifound a linear polarizer filter and it worked just fine. Can any one explain why most sites recommendcircular polarizers instead? Thanks.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:07 AM.