Search results for 'uv filter' - page 138
Thoughts on replacing Tamron 17-50 f2.8 with 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro
This should work very well indeed with your 70-200 but not with your other lenses. Sigma 70-200mm has a 77mm filter. Works well with tubes though.
Posted by Mike-P on 12/01/2012 - 19:19
Thoughts on replacing Tamron 17-50 f2.8 with 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro
This should work very well indeed with your 70-200 but not with your other lenses. Sigma 70-200mm has a 77mm filter. Works well with tubes though. Oh bu#$ger ! Didn't realise that - should have of course.
Posted by Frogfish on 12/01/2012 - 19:31
Tamron 85-210mm F4 Macro
Took a gentle stroll through town today, was going to spam the shops with CVs, but instead strolled past Cash Converters and something caught my eye. It was a k20D, but I wondered if they had any lenses in store, and it turns out they did! Found this little thing in store.. Mint condition, everythi...
Posted by amama on 17/01/2012 - 17:52
Leica R on K5 compared to FA Ltds?
I've got here by search.. I am sure the question was asked around 2012 so the question is not relevant any longer. However, I adapt Leica, Contax and Pentax on my Sony Nex, A7 cameras.. they are super wonderful. It's hard to tell them apart IMHO. Only way I can find out what lens I am shootin...
Posted by Photodesignch on 17/05/2014 - 11:22
Samyang 14mm f2.8 experience
Hi Bjorn, I had this lens for while to play and it is really very very good UWA lens. But I didn't keep it, because I use polarizer and ND filters most of the time with natural shots and due to front element of samyang and fixed hood there's no way to put the filter on. Other problems is that it has...
Posted by kingfisher on 03/02/2012 - 07:44
500mm lense for a K20D
Hi Mike Thanks for such a quick reply. I have a Vivitar MC tele converter, 2X PK-A/R-PK and I use it with a Sigme 70-300mm 1:4-5.6. I have a UV filter on the Sigma, Do I need different settings on the camera that I would have to set manually or should it all work in auto like I have been trying/hop...
Posted by bigsturgeon on 07/02/2012 - 13:18
Advice on wideangle?
Firstly - in my view - either version - good choice. My Sigma 10-20 is my most used lens and delivers stunning IQ. I have the 4-5.6 version. In reality - and every day use - I doubt you would notice a great deal of difference between the 2 versions. In theory - the 3.5 version should be slight...
Posted by fritzthedog on 07/02/2012 - 22:37
Reverse lens for macro photography
Would suggest you type "reversing ring" into google for a mass of detailed information (far more than you're likely to get in a relatively short thread). The basis is that you need a ring which has two male threads which fit into the filter threads of the two lenses you opt to use, so you will ne...
Posted by Frogherder on 20/02/2012 - 09:27
Reverse lens for macro photography
Regarding the reverse lens options, at this moment I simply want to reverse the 55mm lens onto the mount and not onto another lens. So looks like I need a 49mm/52mm converter I'm not so sure about that. To reverse the lens to fit directly to the camera you will need a K mount on one side and your f...
Posted by Frogherder on 20/02/2012 - 11:53
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Have tried all three of the Pentax zooms :) The DA17-70 is an excellent lens. Sometimes it hunts because the zoom ring has almost no inertia. Gently holding a finger on the ring is enough to dampen it. But, it's almost impossible to video with this lens. In the end I plumped for the DA*16-50. ...
Posted by MattMatic on 20/02/2012 - 10:38
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
[b]PLEASE HELP... I just ordered my 16-50 Pentax DA* lens and hopefully will receive it tomorrow,should I put a UV or Protective Filter on it or not, will a filter have any effect on the performance of K-5, and soon to have my new K-01. any advice will be very much appreciated.
Posted by es on 29/02/2012 - 21:49
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Put a UV filter on it. The effect on performance is virtually nil, assuming the filter is good quality and you would not thank yourself if you scratch or damage the front element. Regards David
Posted by davidstorm on 29/02/2012 - 21:56
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Put a UV filter on it. The effect on performance is virtually nil, assuming the filter is good quality and you would not thank yourself if you scratch or damage the front element. Regards David Thanks David, do you have any recommendations for a filter brand? it takes a 77mm size. Regards E...
Posted by es on 29/02/2012 - 22:01
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Yup, Spend the best part of £600 on a decent lens and then stick another layer of glass in front of it. :roll: By all means buy a filter and use it when near salty water or if there is danger of the front element being damaged but otherwise leave it off. I have a big pile of Hoya professional ...
Posted by Mike-P on 29/02/2012 - 22:02
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Yup, Spend the best part of £600 on a decent lens and then stick another layer of glass in front of it. :roll: By all means buy a filter and use it when near salty water or if there is danger of the front element being damaged but otherwise leave it off. I have a big pile of Hoya professional ...
Posted by jules on 29/02/2012 - 22:15
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Yup, Spend the best part of £600 on a decent lens and then stick another layer of glass in front of it. :roll: By all means buy a filter and use it when near salty water or if there is danger of the front element being damaged but otherwise leave it off. I have a big pile of Hoya professional ...
Posted by es on 29/02/2012 - 22:21
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Thank you All very much for your valuable comments, I think I will get a filter and use it when at the seaside or desert.. Will let you all know what I think of it once I have used it a few times.... Regards Edward
Posted by es on 29/02/2012 - 22:26
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I can't see why a UV filter would affect the focus of a lens - it does not affect mine. Circular polariser yes - these do not work well on some lenses but a decent UV filter should not alter the focal length of a lens unless the filter is doing something it's not designed to do. Regards David
Posted by davidstorm on 29/02/2012 - 22:38
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I bought a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 off ebay years ago and when it arrived the lens was absolute rubbish .. the focus wouldn't lock half the time and when it did the picture was always lacking detail. I was all ready to send the seller a snotty email asking for my money back but then thought I would take...
Posted by Mike-P on 29/02/2012 - 22:47
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I have had real problems with some polarisers that look clear / sharp when you look through them, but render focus impossible on the lens, but never with a UV and I've had a lot of these filters on a lot of lenses. I can understand that any filter, even a good UV one will have some effect on image ...
Posted by davidstorm on 29/02/2012 - 22:52
