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/)

pbjunkiee Feb 25, 2010 9:43 PM

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

shoturtle Feb 25, 2010 9:45 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 9:47 PM

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

shoturtle Feb 25, 2010 9:50 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 6:44 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 9:24 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 2:52 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 10:40 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 11:35 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 12:19 PM

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:32 AM.