Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 1, 2005, 8:33 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
mtritt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 257
Default

I've seen lots of talk here about 62mm and 72mm filters. I've been looking at a Raynox kit that includes a 52mm adaptor plus a protector and a polarizer. Are there any benefits or drawbacks to using 52mm over 62mm filters, or vice versa? Is it purely a matter of preference and availability of lenses?

Thanks!


mtritt is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 1, 2005, 10:24 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

mtritt wrote:
Quote:
Is it purely a matter of preference and availability of lenses?
Welcome to the forum. Those people who already have certain size (52, 55, 58, 62mm) lens will want to get the adapter that fits those lens. If you dont have any add-ons yet and no particular lens of a particular size in mind, then I would go for the raynox rt5264p adapter either alone or combined with the polarizer and mc ( MultiCoated uv?) filters in the set. Some other affordable 52mm add-ons you might consider are the nikon 4t macro lens which will greatly enhance the macro capability of the camera (see http://www.ishots.net/fz1-2faq/fz1macros.htm) - $37 at B&H Photo - and the olympus c210 1.9x teleconverter - $40 at olympus emporium special products.

-Fred
fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2005, 2:37 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

the only consideration when using a 52mm adapter/filter might be vignetting at the wide-angle end of the lens's focal range. if you can shoot using a 52mm adapter and filters with no vignetting, then there's no reason not to use that size.
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2005, 6:51 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
playlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 237
Default

mtritt wrote:
Quote:
I've seen lots of talk here about 62mm and 72mm filters. I've been looking at a Raynox kit that includes a 52mm adaptor plus a protector and a polarizer. Are there any benefits or drawbacks to using 52mm over 62mm filters, or vice versa? Is it purely a matter of preference and availability of lenses?

Thanks!

The 52mm adapter is only good for Raynox TC products. The use of step-up rings to add different mm mounts although working mechanically will not give you the best quality with the product because you are moving the TC away from the front element of the Leica. The closer you can mount a TC to the FZ the better. There are vignetting problems using a 55mm mount wide angle with a step up ring on the Raynox adapter. Raynox filter prices are ok but you do not need multicoated filters unless they are priced under $20.00. The Hoya series B dual coated filters are excellent. I have seen many pictures taken with Raynox TC products and I am not that impressed. Some people like them. It is your decision.


The adapter pictured above is the only one in the world that can convert to 52mm, 55mm, 58mm and 62mm without changing the distance between the Leica front element and the rear of the TC. Now that would solve everyone's problem. It should be available by the end of March 2005.
playlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2005, 8:43 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

playlong wrote:
Quote:
The 52mm adapter is only good for Raynox TC products.
That's somewhat misleading. The raynox 52mm adapter is good forANY 52mm add-onsince it puts that lens as close to the camera lens as possible. Your adapter does look intriguingin thatit can handle a variety of sizes without theneed fora conventional step ring which would place the converter/filter further from the camera lens. The raynox is $16 and yours will be ~$60(?). That's a significant difference.
fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2005, 10:48 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
mtritt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 257
Default

Okay, all good info, but I'm still a little confused. Which is better, 52 or 62? Is it just a matter of preference? If 52 will cause vignetting, then I would prefer to get a 62. If it won't then I guess it really doesn't matter just so long as the filter is as close as possible to the lens. Am I missing anything here?


mtritt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2005, 11:24 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
playlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 237
Default

mtritt wrote:
Quote:
Okay, all good info, but I'm still a little confused. Which is better, 52 or 62? Is it just a matter of preference? If 52 will cause vignetting, then I would prefer to get a 62. If it won't then I guess it really doesn't matter just so long as the filter is as close as possible to the lens. Am I missing anything here?

If you want 52mm do it. My gut tells me 55mm or 62mm.

This may help/

http://www.pemaraal.com/compare7.html


playlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2005, 11:41 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
playlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 237
Default

fmoore wrote:
Quote:
playlong wrote:
Quote:
The 52mm adapter is only good for Raynox TC products.
Quote:
That's somewhat misleading. The raynox 52mm adapter is good forANY 52mm add-onsince it puts that lens as close to the camera lens as possible. Your adapter does look intriguingin thatit can handle a variety of sizes without theneed fora conventional step ring which would place the converter/filter further from the camera lens. The raynox is $16 and yours will be ~$60(?). That's a significant difference.
http://www.pemaraal.com/compare7.html

My adpter is offering capabilities that are not found in others, BTW it has a Pat. Pend.

Deciding on the pricing in more difficult then the design. My current thought is to sell the base 62mm unit for $38.00 and 1 conversion ring and key for $18.00. Addition rings would be $12.00 each. I may even have a special price if you but everything at once.
playlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2005, 8:11 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

mtritt wrote:
Quote:
Which is better, 52 or 62? Is it just a matter of preference? If 52 will cause vignetting, then I would prefer to get a 62. If it won't then I guess it really doesn't matter just so long as the filter is as close as possible to the lens.
The fz10/15/20 lens diameter is ~49mm. A 52mm adapter will not cause vignetting assuming it is designed to be as close to the lens as possible. The rt5264p adapter was originally designed for the fz10. Many fz10 owners have used it. Some have used other adapters as well and have felt that the raynox adapter is the best of the lot. The fz15 and fz20 have exactly the same lens as the fz10. There is no inherent advantage to getting a larger than 52mm diameter adapter for the fz10/15/20.
fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2005, 1:30 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

I thought you weren't supposed to sell stuff in this forum.:arrow:
nooner 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 6:00 PM.