Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 15, 2010, 10:10 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default K-7 filter size???

Hiya!

As I mentioned a previous thread, I ordered the Pentax K7. I took advantage of the extra low price and bought two kit lenses with it, viz., 18-55mm and 55-200mm.

QUESTION 1: What are the filter sizes of each of these lenses?

QUESTION 2: Would it be a good idea to purchase "stepping rings", and put one on the 18-55mm lenses, if the 18-200 filter size is larger? Thus, I could get one filter instead of two.

QUESTION 3: Which brand is the best quality for a polarizing filter`

QUESTION 4: DO YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE ON HOW TO CONTAIN MYSELF WITH ALL THIS EXCITEMENT, WAITING FOR MY CAMERA TO ARRIVE!!!???
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 15, 2010, 10:25 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Tachikoma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,086
Default

The kit lens is a 52mm thread, not sure on the other.

I wouldn't bother with stepping rings to be honest, you can get most filters pretty cheaply. I have a Pentax branded polarizer and a cheap HK one and can't see any difference between them other than the HK one is a little darker and thicker.

As for #4, I would go out scouting for places for when the camera arrives. If you have a better idea of where you want to go and what you want to shoot, it will make it more fun when you get it and start shooting.
Tachikoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2010, 10:27 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

Thanks, Tachikoma!

Are BOTH kit lenses 55mm?

Many thanks, indeed.

Ned
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2010, 10:32 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Tachikoma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,086
Default

The original 18-55 I had with my K10D and the Weather Resistant 18-55 I got with my K-7 were both 52mm.
Tachikoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2010, 10:55 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikoma View Post
The original 18-55 I had with my K10D and the Weather Resistant 18-55 I got with my K-7 were both 52mm.
Ok, thanks. However, I am ALSO getting the 55-200mm. Was wondering if it had a larger lens.
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2010, 11:51 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Goldwinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 6,515
Default

Ned, there are two different views on the use of filters on today's lenses. some swear by them and some swear at them! Rather than giving my opinion, let me just say to do lots of research on this topic before buying anything, and that really goes for any accessory you you might think you want, including lenses. I speak from experience, if I had all the cash I've wasted on stuff I don't use or need... I could own a really nice 500mm prime.
__________________
GW

Life's a breeze on a Goldwing...
Goldwinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2010, 12:08 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

Well, the two kit lenses come with the package... that is already ordered, and price I am getting them for (plus tax break) is too good to pass on. I don't fancy lots of glare in a picture, so would like to get a polarizing filter. Thing is, do I need one or are BOTH lenses of different filter size... OR would getting one for the larger lens be best, and use stepping filters for the smaller. That is what I am pondering. Many thanks.
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2010, 12:48 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eetu View Post
Ok, thanks. However, I am ALSO getting the 55-200mm. Was wondering if it had a larger lens.
Hi Ned,

The DA 50-200 also uses a 52mm filter.

Just FYI, many people don't use protective filters because adding extra glass in front of the lens has the potential to degrade the image. I generally subscribe to this, and use filters only in extreme situations where there is significant danger to the front element (blowing sand, parties or events where things might get messy -- food fights and small children who have no respect for proper photo gear and need to touch everything , etc). I do use a hood in almost all situations as this adds a physical barrier to keep things (mostly my own hands) away from the front elements, and cap a lens when I'm not actually shooting.

Pentax also has developed a protective outer coating for most, if not all of the DA series lenses. It helps protect the front element from liquids and fingerprints, and is harder than former coatings, preventing a lot of the permanent damage that improper cleaning had caused in the past. You still have to be careful when cleaning the front element, but it's not quite as fragile as before the new coatings.

I've found the most image related problem that I have with filters is added flare caused by internal reflections from filters. This lowers contrast and can cause flare artifacts and ghosting in situations where there are point light sources in the frame.These point light sources (usually reflections) are common in what I like to shoot (birds, who notoriously don't care about proper lighting and such). These effects can be minimized by using higher grade filters with multi-coating. The coatings reduce the internal reflections and reduce the flare effects, but are more expensive and harder to find. Hoya and B&W are probably the most commonly recommended brands of high quality filters, and both make professional grade filters. Also realize that with wide angle lenses, there might be additional vignetting (darkened corners and edges) with standard filters, and "thin" filters with narrower rims have been designed to keep this to a minimum.

I used to generally recommend against the use of filters for protection, but with digital, a lot of the effects of flare can be undone with Post Processing, so I think that shooters have to evaluate their own needs (and level of lens damage risk, paranoia, or comfort). Just realize that the first suspect when unexplainable optical effects occur in images is the presence of a protective filter. Bottom line, each user has to evaluate their own situation, and the level of confidence that one's gear is safe can have a significant effect on the shooter's ability to get a shot.

I'm currently shooting my new Sigma 180 Macro quite a bit without the hood, as it's big and gets in the way for macro work. I'm pricing protective filters even though the lens apparently comes with an integrated protective filter (but it would probably need factory replacement if it was damaged) The 72mm pro-grade filters are pricey, but the factory replacement would probably be considerably worse, so I'll probably end up getting something I can replace myself if some damage occurs (fingers crossed).

Sorry for sidetracking your thread to the filter/no filter thing. . .

Congrats on the K-7!!!! I can feel you're excitement and anticipation all the way over here in the US!! I think you'll be very pleased with your choice. It's a great camera -- but you know that already.

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2010, 1:21 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

Hi Scott, hey, no worries, you're not sidetracking my thread one bit... really appreciate you or anyone taking the time to write. Thanks so much for the info. I won't mess with a UV filter, but the polarizing filter, that I would like to have.

Thanks for your kind words. I am looking forward to the camera. I have to wait between 2 to 4 weeks, but I am told the camera could arrive a lot sooner. Looking forward to it.

All the best.

Ned
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2010, 5:32 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,320
Default

Ned. I use UV filters on all my lenses. I have not noticed any degradation in picture quality (and yes I am what you may call a pixel peeper, sharp freak, etc). To me it is a relatively inexpensive accessory that helps me sleep better at night. I tend to purchase mid priced filters to reduce flare and ghosting. Hoya's SMC series has been a good value for me. I think you can get a Hoya HMC 52mm UV for about US$20. Not sure what the prices are in Europe.

As for polarizers, these can get expensive especially as you move into the 70mm and above sizes with multi coatings. I therefore purchased a Cokin system which gives losts of flexibility and together with various adaptor rings, I can use it on different lenses. I also purchased a couple of Cokin graduated ND filter inserts which are a must for landscapes. For specific filter applications, the Cokin system has been much more economical vs. purchasing individual screw-on filters.

UV Protective Filter vs. No UV Protective Filter: this debate will last for ever...similar to whether the toilet paper should unroll from over or under... I think it should be from over

Jehan
Wingman 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 12:02 PM.