|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17
|
![]()
I'd like to purchase a filter for protection of my non-removable Kodak p880 lens. I understand that I have to buy Kodak's lens adapter so that I can use 55mm lenses, but when I took a look at what was out there... #101, 0.3 (2x); #102, 0.6 (4x); Tiffen's 0.9, (ND)... what does this all mean ? And since the filter will make some sort of difference "in apeture readings" from what i've read, will the camera process it appropriately ? what should i get ? i just want to protect my lens.
|
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
|
![]()
Something's wrong with the reply form. . .
Let me try again. J.Sato wrote: Quote:
Also, I see that the actual filter threads are 52mm, so why buy a 55mm protection filter? When using any other filter or conversion lens, you'll want to remove the filter anyway, so I'd buy the 52mm UV/skylight filter, then buy the 52->55mm step-up ring for use with your 55mm thread lenses. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 565
|
![]()
Norm in Fujino,
I am not sure where you get your information. The adaptor for the P880 is advertised as a 55mm. I have the 6490 and it is also a 55mm. I use the 55mm uv/haze filter for lens protection. Why would you buy an additional step down ring and a 52mm filter if you don't need one. Correct me if I am wrong on this. I do agree with you on using the UV filter. I have no light loss with it as a protection filter. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
|
![]()
Old Jim wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 565
|
![]()
LOL, I guess in a way we are both right. A 52mm filter will fit on the lens. If you are using the lens adaptor then it will accept a 55mm filter. I think in this case it would benefit the OP to buy the step up/down ring which would be less expensive than two sets of filters.Thanks for the link. In my case the adaptor is always on so I can protect my main lens with the UV filter.
Cheers! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
|
![]()
Old Jim wrote:
Quote:
You should consider a lens shade instead of a UV filter for protection. The shade will stop a lot of things (rain, snow, twigs, ...) getting to the lens. Not as complete protection, but pretty good without introducing flare - in fact the shade should reduce flare. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 565
|
![]()
Thanks BillDrew. So much to learn. I agree with you. In my case there is so much blow sand here in the desert that I am willing to make a compromise and chance the consequences. I hope the OP has benefited from our discussion.
P.S. I forgot to add that I do use a shade along with the filter. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17
|
![]()
kodak customer support informed me that i must use their adapter be for using any other lens accessory. i'm being told that the threads on the acutal lens are not standard therefore needing to buy they're adapter ring. I'd prefer not to due to the vignetting effect. BUT there appears to be different "grades" (cost differences) btwn the skylight filters... the ND... and UV's. should I go with the most expensive, less distortion ???
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
|
![]()
J.Sato wrote:
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17
|
![]()
thanks for the info. uv or skylight sounds good to me... and (going back to part of the original question) i guess the numbers on an ND filter means how many f stops it drops ???
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|