 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2007SLR Newbie - Step-up rings / lens cap questions
I'm a new DSLR user, and I'm trying to build my kit. I've got a new D80 with standard 18-135 kit lens. In October, I'm planning on getting the Nikon 50mm F/1.8 D AF Lens, and 77mm Hoya Pro 1 Digital Circular polarizer with front threads, I'll need both a 52mm-to-77mm step-up and 67mm-to-77mm step-up filter rings. What are good and bad brands of step-up rings? I don't what to go crazy on buying the "best and most costly" for such a simple item. I'm also planning on using the $10 white balance lens caps that can be found on e-Bay. Can I use a 77mm white balance lens cap over the 77mm polarizer filter? What about a lens hood? How is one used when using a filter and step-up ring? And, what size to use?  SignatureBRENT - The Usenet typo king. :) > What are good and bad brands of step-up rings? I don't what to go > crazy on buying the "best and most costly" for such a simple item. The cheapest (very cheap) ones at Adorama can get stuck but as long as you don't scrape the bottom of the barrel you should be OK... I got some other ones from them that cost a little more & they were fine. Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in news:pTVKi.1037$4V6.786 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.net: >> What are good and bad brands of step-up rings? I don't what to go >> crazy on buying the "best and most costly" for such a simple item. > > The cheapest (very cheap) ones at Adorama can get stuck but as long as > you don't scrape the bottom of the barrel you should be OK... I got some > other ones from them that cost a little more & they were fine. As a veteran of a number of stuck rings, my solution has always been to exert pressure on the front of the lens to twist the rings (this works with stuck filters, too). I've been able to release things this way even when the wrench couldn't budge the ring. I place the camera lens down on the wooden floor, lean over it and gently turn as I add weight until the ring or filter comes loose. That said, a lens hood is almost always a good thing to use and I would avoid any step-up rings that interfere with the use of the correct lens hood. If you had to choose between a lens-specific polarizing filter and a lens hood, you might want to make the lens hood your first purchase. ~Ray > I'm a new DSLR user, and I'm trying to build my kit. I've got a new > D80 with standard 18-135 kit lens. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > What about a lens hood? How is one used when using a filter and > step-up ring? And, what size to use? I would recommend the 50mm f/1.4 which is a little better. I have both. Always try to go as low on the f stop as possible when buying a lens. I would also recommend a filter wrench set which is pretty inexpensive. The less expensive filters and rings are not made of steel and can get stuck by flexing when you try to remove them. Good luck. > I would recommend the 50mm f/1.4 which is a little better. I have both. Better in what way, exactly? It has only an extra two thirds of a stop, which the average shooter will use how often? It has no other redeeming features. Optically, they are both pin sharp across the frame at f/8, but they both have hideously harsh bokeh wide open. The f/1.8 has much better sharpness wide open than the f/1.4 used at f/1.8, so what is the point? Unless you absolutely need that extra two thirds of a stop, the f/1.8 is a much better buy. Smaller, lighter, sharper, and very much cheaper. One of the sharpest 50mm lenses ever made. >Always try to go as low on the f stop as possible when buying a lens. Nonsense. Buy the lens that offers the most in the areas that matter. >> I would recommend the 50mm f/1.4 which is a little better. I have >> both. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Nonsense. Buy the lens that offers the most in the areas that matter. I suppose you think the 50mm f/1.2 that cost $1300 is no way as good as your cheap f/8 at $60.00...Wahahahahah........... >>> I would recommend the 50mm f/1.4 which is a little better. I have >>> both. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I suppose you think the 50mm f/1.2 that cost $1300 is no way as good as >your cheap f/8 at $60.00...Wahahahahah........... It appears that you have lost the ability to think, if you ever had it, that is! >>>> I would recommend the 50mm f/1.4 which is a little better. I have >>>> both. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It appears that you have lost the ability to think, if you ever had it, > that is! I tied quite a few AF zooms and primes on the way to assembling my present SLR kit of six (or is it seven?) lenses I can't live without =') I suggest renting the expensive ones for trial, rather than depending too heavily on the recommendations of experts. I even wrote a little essay about reviews vs. trial & error: http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iWeb/Site/experimenting.html I own an inexpensive 50 mm f/1.8 and it gets a lot of use. On my D80 it's a great portrait lens, and I've never felt the need for anything faster. Choosing tools is a very subjective affair. Many of the lenses I picked wouldn't even be in the top ten for other people, but here they are: 12-24 24-85 50 100 manual (E) with PK-11 105 Micro AF-D 70-300 VR ...and a draft pick to be named later... SignatureCease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address yourselves instead to the safety of the republic >I tied quite a few AF zooms and primes on the way to assembling my >present SLR kit of six (or is it seven?) lenses I can't live without [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >12-24 24-85 50 100 manual (E) with PK-11 105 Micro AF-D 70-300 VR >...and a draft pick to be named later... Some nice lenses there. In my Nikon days, I was particularly fond of the 100mm f/2.8 Nikon Series E you mentioned. Possibly my favourite Nikon lens was the 75-150mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E, which was an optical gem. The optical design of the current 50mm f/1.8 AF-D Nikkor started out in the 50mm f/1.8 Nikon Series E. With the addition of improved multi-coating it became the 50mm f/1.8 AIS Nikkor, then the AF, AF-N and finally the AF-D. : I tried quite a few AF zooms and primes on the way to assembling my : present SLR kit of six (or is it seven?) lenses I can't live without [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] : 12-24 24-85 50 100 manual (E) with PK-11 105 Micro AF-D 70-300 VR : ...and a draft pick to be named later... That is an eclectic mix. What jumps out at me is that you don't have anything resembling an 18-50 f/2.8, which is my most heavily used lens by far. What do you consider your "normal" zoom? The 24-85? Your list would be easier to grasp if you specified the speed of each lens. You Nikonians may recognize them and know how fast they are, but those of us in the Canon world don't. ;^) What's the "draft pick"? An offer you've got running on E-Bay? Bob > : I tried quite a few AF zooms and primes on the way to assembling my : > present SLR kit of six (or is it seven?) lenses I can't live without : [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > resembling an 18-50 f/2.8, which is my most heavily used lens by far. What do > you consider your "normal" zoom? The 24-85? Yes. I came very close to buying a 17-35 f/2.8. I even rented one for a weekend, and it was a wonderful lens. In the end, I bought the 12-24 and the 24-85 for less money. My choices are those of a hobbyist, as I don't do any photography for pay these days. I'm well-satisfied with all the lenses I have now, but I'm pretty fickle. I rarely keep a lens until it's worn out, but there are several I've sold that I wish I still had, like the 18-55 that I used for the opening rosebud (link above). > Your list would be easier to grasp if you specified the speed of each lens. > You Nikonians may recognize them and know how fast they are, but those of us > in the Canon world don't. ;^) The 12-24 is an f/4. the 24-85 varies from 3.5-4.5, the 105* is a Micro-Nikkor f/2.8D (not the newer version with VR), the 100 mm f/2.8 is an older manual focus version that works with extension tubes (no CPU contacts), and the VR 70-300 varies from f/4.5-5.6. > What's the "draft pick"? An offer you've got running on E-Bay? Well, I'm tracking several items on eBay, but I'm having a hard time deciding which I need more: a fast wide-angle or a fast short tele. > Bob *I don't know what it is about that focal length, but over the years I've had several 105 Nikkors. Even though the DSLR makes them look like a 157 mm, I still like 'em. SignatureCease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address yourselves instead to the safety of the republic >>>> I would recommend the 50mm f/1.4 which is a little better. I have >>>> both. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > It appears that you have lost the ability to think, > if you ever had it, that is! Wahahaha.............Brilliant come back. Saying nothing goes a long way to confirming your ignorance doesn't it? > Wahahaha.............Brilliant come back. Saying nothing goes a long way >to confirming your ignorance doesn't it? It certainly seems to work for you. Plonk! Bye! : >>>> I would recommend the 50mm f/1.4 which is a little better. I have : >>>> both. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] : Wahahaha.............Brilliant come back. Saying nothing goes a long way : to confirming your ignorance doesn't it? If the shoe fits, wear it, Jack. >>>I would recommend the 50mm f/1.4 which is a little better. I have >>>both. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I suppose you think the 50mm f/1.2 that cost $1300 is no way as good as > your cheap f/8 at $60.00...Wahahahahah........... Well I only paid about $300 for my 50mm f/1.2 but it's not as sharp as a 50mm f/1.8 for $100 just faster so interesting for special uses. They have to make compromises to get a lens that fast. But yes as a general rule faster more expensive lenses are better than cheap slow lenses. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com : >>>I would recommend the 50mm f/1.4 which is a little better. I have : >>>both. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] : have to make compromises to get a lens that fast. But yes as a general : rule faster more expensive lenses are better than cheap slow lenses. Not to lecture Paul, since he obviously knows this, but lenses of equal quality but different speeds are usually designed to have different points of maximum sharpness. Back in the film days, my wife and I had two 50mm lenses for our Nikons: an f/1.4 and an f/2. Both were excellent lenses; but IIRC, the point of maximum sharpness of the f/1.4 was f/4, while that of the f/2 was around f/5.6. So while the extra stop of the f/1.4 was nice indoors, the f/2 was a better outdoor lens. Today I have a 30mm f/1.4 for my XTi, but I use it strictly as a low-light lens. I figure my 18-50mm f/2.8 is a better bet outdoors. Bob >: >>>I would recommend the 50mm f/1.4 which is a little better. I have >: >>>both. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >around f/5.6. So while the extra stop of the f/1.4 was nice indoors, the f/2 >was a better outdoor lens. The ~50mm Nikkors were also optimised for different focusing distances. Most were optically at their best at infinity. Obviously the 55mm Micro Nikkor was optimised for macro work, but it was still exceptionally sharp at infinity. The 50mm f/1.2 AIS Nikkor differed in being optimised for a focusing distance around 3 to 6 metres (10 to 20 feet). It was aimed squarely at the photojournalist market, and that range of distances was thought to be most often used. At wider apertures, it was noticeably less sharp at infinity than at 6 metres. Stopped down to f/8, it was adequately sharp at all focusing distances between about 2 metres (6 feet) and infinity, but it made a poor lens for close-up work. In Japan, the 50mm f/1.2 is very much a cult lens. It is a quirky optic, and it takes skill to get the very best out of it. Of course it lives in the shadow of the superlative 58mm f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor, whose characteristics are very different. The Noct-Nikkor is a beautiful lens, one which carries a very high price tag. Good used examples even exceeded the price of used Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux-M lenses until Leica significantly increased the price of that lens earlier in 2007. The rare Elcan-made glass used for one element of the Noctilux is no longer manufactured. Therefore, it would appear that Leica has decided to cash in on the remaining stock, after which the Noctilux may not be replaced in the Leica range. > What are good and bad brands of step-up rings? I don't what to go > crazy on buying the "best and most costly" for such a simple item. Practically irrelevant. As long as you don't get something from like "Bob's Bait, Tackle, & Filter Step-Up Rings" you should be fine. Note that it'll be a lot less fiddling to avoid step-up rings though. > I'm also planning on using the $10 white balance lens caps that can be > found on e-Bay. Can I use a 77mm white balance lens cap over the 77mm > polarizer filter? Probably. I don't see much point in those things though. Just another "gadget" to waste your time with. > What about a lens hood? How is one used when using a filter and > step-up ring? And, what size to use? The hood would go on the end of anything else you've got "stacked" up. Thus, on top of the filter. So, the hood will need to be threaded for 77mm if that's the size of your filter. Honestly, you're going to be annoyed. Just get a 52mm polarizer for the smaller lens, and a hood threaded for that size. You'll want the longest hood you can get away with. Sadly, hoods are pretty generic; a "telephoto lens hood" threaded for 52mm will be fine. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com | http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/ : > What are good and bad brands of step-up rings? I don't what to go : > crazy on buying the "best and most costly" for such a simple item. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] : longest hood you can get away with. Sadly, hoods are pretty generic; : a "telephoto lens hood" threaded for 52mm will be fine. A step-up ring forces you to use a hood that's larger than the lens requires, which makes the hood less effective in reducing flare. And a screw-in hood (the only kind you can use with a step-up ring) is more likely to cause vignetting than a bayonet hood designed for the lens. I'm with Jeremy: forget the step-up rings and just get the filters and hoods you need for the lenses you have. Bob |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.