Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Olympus dSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/)
-   -   oly 35mm 3.5 macro (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/oly-35mm-3-5-macro-166752/)

shoturtle Feb 25, 2010 6:42 PM

oly 35mm 3.5 macro
 
Hello,

Just want to see if any one know if any one makes a hood for the 35mm 3.5 macro lens? Thanks.

fldspringer Feb 25, 2010 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoturtle (Post 1057776)
Hello,

Just want to see if any one know if any one makes a hood for the 35mm 3.5 macro lens? Thanks.

No.

The outermost lens is set far enough in that it really doesn't need one in my opinion.

Greg

shoturtle Feb 25, 2010 7:02 PM

Thank you Greg for the info.

I just order one for my soon to purchase epl1. And I am so uses to using lens hoods. That it would seem strange not needing one. But since it does not need it, that is couple of bucks saved. :)

shoturtle Feb 25, 2010 8:27 PM

Any suggestion on how to protect the lens a bit. Do not think it is sensible to put a 120 dollar clear BW multi coated filter to protect a 180 dollar lens.

pbjunkiee Feb 25, 2010 8:29 PM

just put a 52mm filter on there o.O

Hards80 Feb 25, 2010 8:31 PM

or just be careful and not worry bout it :P

shoturtle Feb 25, 2010 8:31 PM

I am concern about flares and ghosting, I have haze 1 tiffen filter in that size, but I use them as a warming filters. And I always remove them, but always have a hood for the added protection. It feels strange not to have a hood.

shoturtle Feb 25, 2010 8:34 PM

Hards,

I just feel naked not having a hood. It is bring me out of my comfort zone. But I think I will just put the haze 1 on for the flights and rides to the hotel. And take just be a bit more careful when planing the cap back on. Making sure it seats correctly. Thanks

pbjunkiee Feb 25, 2010 8:34 PM

then pick up a 52mm hood o.O

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...tialSearch=yes

shoturtle Feb 25, 2010 8:37 PM

PB,

They do not make a oly market or after hood for this lens, and I not a fan of the rubber ones. I always had issues with keeping them in place.

pbjunkiee Feb 25, 2010 8:43 PM

well if they inside is threaded, and its 52mm, can you not just screw in a 52mm metal hood?

shoturtle Feb 25, 2010 8:45 PM

I will have to look into that, I have a ef 50mm 1.8 that has a screw in adapter for 52mm thread, and if the hood does not botter the shot, I think it will be a good 4 dollar ebay solution.

Thanks PB

pbjunkiee Feb 25, 2010 8:47 PM

well that link i posted, you could get a metal 52mm hood for like 6 bucks...

shoturtle Feb 25, 2010 8:50 PM

PB

The canon knock off of the ef 50mm hood, has a screw on buoyant mount. And the hood can be place via quick connect. So it would be faster the threading it on and off. Thanks for the idea.

cshanaberger Feb 26, 2010 5:44 AM

shoturtle, i have the 35mm macro and can tell you that the front element is very deeply recessed inside the lens, you would literally need to be intentionally trying to damage it to get anything up inside there. as far as ghosting this can be a problem in bright lights when filters are attached to this lens from my experience. i have successfully used a polarizer on it though just being careful to shade incoming sun with my hand.
charles

shoturtle Feb 26, 2010 8:24 AM

Thanks for the info Charles. Especially about the filter issue. I will see how the canon hood and filter work with this lens. See if it helps or not.

Tullio Feb 27, 2010 1:52 AM

I really don't think you need a hood to protect this lens. I use UV filters on every single lens I have to protect them from the environment (dust, water, send). I usually buy middle-of-the-road filters (Hoya and Sigma primarily). However, since I've been buying so many MF lenses lately for my EP1/G1 cameras, protecting them with $30+ filters was going to become expensive. Searching Amazon I came across the Zeikos UV MC filter and decided to buy one to check it out since it was only $6. It turns out that the filter is well built, the glass is nicely coated and I have not noticed any ghosting or degradation in IQ. So I bought a few more and for $30 now all my MF lenses are protected. It just comes to show that not all cheap things are bad.

tkurkowski Feb 27, 2010 9:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tullio (Post 1058393)
However, since I've been buying so many MF lenses lately for my EP1/G1 cameras, protecting them with $30+ filters was going to become expensive. Searching Amazon I came across the Zeikos UV MC filter and decided to buy one to check it out since it was only $6. It turns out that the filter is well built, the glass is nicely coated and I have not noticed any ghosting or degradation in IQ. So I bought a few more and for $30 now all my MF lenses are protected. It just comes to show that not all cheap things are bad.

Funny you should mention that - I've been puzzling over a filter at the opposite end of the price spectrum. I was looking for a circular polarizer for one of my lenses, and came across a "Tiffen Digital HT (High Transmission) Circular Polarizing Multi-Coated Glass Filter" at B&H. The 72mm size is $200 (I'm not making this up). I can't imagine it's more than twice as good as anyone else's. It made me realize that as far as I know, no one actually publishes tests of filters.

Ted

Tullio Feb 27, 2010 10:35 AM

In the photography world, there is this concept that if it's cheap, it's bad. Period. It applies to lenses, filters, camera bags, you name it. Even though in many cases this is indeed true, one should never generalize. I recently bought a couple of Chinon MF lenses (they adopted the Pentax mount) for $10/ea on eBay. They are a 50mm f1.7 and and a 35-70mm macro. Both lenses are excellent, better than many other more well known brand and expensive lenses I have. I would never ever pay more than $45 for a filter (that's what I paid for a B+W 72mm circular polarizer a few years ago). I don't care what people say or how good the filter performs, it's simply not worth it. As I mentioned, I have many many filters (UV, skylight, polarize, C. polarize, ND, etc.) and I have found that the more expensive ones do not out perform the cheapos. As long as they are MC, they'll do the job just fine. Another disagreement I have is with regards to the overrated circular polarize vs. linear pol. filters. When I switched from film to digital, I stripped my camera gear from anything I could possibly use with my new digital camera and filters were among the items. I had 3 linear polarize filters and started using them on my new digital lenses with great results. Then I read somewhere that for digital one should use circular polarize filters instead because of blah blah blah (some great technical explanations there...LOL). So, off I went. Replaced a couple of my linear pol. with c. pol. (of course they are significantly more expensive). Then...surprise surprise...they did not perform any different than my old linear pol. filters. In fact, I had at that time a Canon S2 (12x zoom), whose AF was not too fast and one thing I noticed was that the AF system improved significantly with the linear pol mounted on the lens. That proved to me that the idea around a c. pol. being specifically designed for digital imaging, thus offering better performance may be true on paper but not in reality IMO.

So, to wrap this up I say do yourself a favor, save some money by buying less expensive UV/pol/ND filters. As long as the UV is MC, you should be fine.

tkurkowski Feb 27, 2010 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tullio (Post 1058500)
As long as they are MC, they'll do the job just fine. Another disagreement I have is with regards to the overrated circular polarize vs. linear pol. filters.

I agree with you about the cost of filters. But you are incorrect that all DSLRs are OK with linear polarizers - many are just not. Many folks have had a different experience than you have. Here's an example:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/ol...y-e-520-a.html

Ted

Tullio Feb 27, 2010 11:34 AM

Not so fast. We don't know what filter the OP was using. Some polarize filters are real bad, whether linear or circular. I had a Kenko c. pol (gave it to the guy who bought one of my cameras at the time), which produced purple casts depending on the polarization. I do have both types and use them on my DSLR lenses. I never experienced such bad results with my linear pol filters otherwise I would not make the statement I made. I think the filter the OP used was bad (or of a very poor quality). If I have some time, I'll take a few shots with my G1 using both, a c. pol and l. pol. and will post the results.

tkurkowski Feb 27, 2010 11:41 AM

OK but your results for a 43 camera are not relevant to this discussion - they do not use a mirror. I would expect a linear polarizer to work fine on your G1.

Ted

Tullio Feb 28, 2010 12:47 AM

If that's the case, people would not recommend c. pol for all P&S as weel as DSLRs. The justification for recommending a c. pol vs. l. pol has nothing to do with the mirror but with the digital technology (as opposed to film). People claim that c. pol is for digital (not necessarily DSLRs). The other thing about the post you referred to is that you'd be surprised how many people don't realize that the front element of a pol filter turns. Many think that all they have to do is attach the filter to the lens just like an UV filter. The image will deteriorate depending on the polarization.

cshanaberger Feb 28, 2010 5:57 AM

tullio, i respectively have to disagree with you on cheap filters, as i have used cheap filters in the past and have since switched to tiffen HT, & singh ray filters, and there is indeed a significant difference in "my images", there is visible softness,color shifts,and muted contrast when using cheaper filters, now the color shift and contrast problems could be fixed in post but the softness is unrepairable. the theory of putting cheap filters on cheap lenses "imho" is wrong because you are already starting with less than optimum glass in the lens, and cheap filters only degrades images further. again this is what i see in my images and is not scientific, others may have different results. i am however convinced there is no equal to the singh ray filters that i use, the clarity & colors of the circular polarizers & nd filters is stunning.
charles

tkurkowski Feb 28, 2010 6:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cshanaberger (Post 1058930)
i am however convinced there is no equal to the singh ray filters that i use, the clarity & colors of the circular polarizers & nd filters is stunning.
charles

Jeeezo-flip, I thought the Tiffen HT filters were expensive until I looked at the Singh-Rays.

Ted

cshanaberger Feb 28, 2010 7:06 AM

ted, yes they are very expensive, i was lucky enough to have a job where i could afford them, but at present, like a lot of people have been laid-off so they are way out of my range right now. but for me the singh ray filters was the biggest leap forward in the quality of my images. i have won or placed very high on several state park photo competitions and out of all my submissions only the images with the singh ray filters have won, even though i felt the composition & mood in other images(without signh ray filters) was better than the ones that placed higher.

tkurkowski Feb 28, 2010 7:46 AM

Charles, that's quite an endorsement. The images in their brochure are impressive. But they are out of my price range and I still have a job.

I hope you get a job soon.

Ted

PS: It surprised me that they said they don't believe multi-coating is a good idea.

fldspringer Feb 28, 2010 9:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkurkowski (Post 1058953)
PS: It surprised me that they said they don't believe multi-coating is a good idea.

I can see that multicoating a polarizer has the possibility of causing problems. Is it just that instance? I know of no one that believes that multicoating is the best way to increase light transmission.

Greg

shoturtle Feb 28, 2010 10:39 AM

I would only use C-pl and a Haze 1 as a warming filter.

tkurkowski Feb 28, 2010 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fldspringer (Post 1058981)
I can see that multicoating a polarizer has the possibility of causing problems. Is it just that instance? I know of no one that believes that multicoating is the best way to increase light transmission.

Greg

They don't MC any of their filters.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:51 PM.