question about camera lenses....

[Nanotech9]

i've got a olympus c700... I just foudn out it'll take certain lenses...

now, heres my options and the question:

If i plan on using a wide-angle lense (the type that screws onto my current lense), should a polarizing or UV filter be between the two lenses, or on the front of the wide angle lense?

the reason this is important, is because on the front of my built-in lense there is a 52mm threaded ring

the front of the wide-angle lense, or the 2x multiplier lense, is a 58mm ring... I dont want to buy 2 sets of filters.

so, can i just get the 52mm filters, and attach the 2x or wide-angle lense to the front of the filters?

Thanks!

[spigidygak]

It probably will be better to get a new one to put in front of the lens. Depending on how wide the lens is, you may get some real bad vignetting.

[Burzhui]

front of the lens man

[Burzhui]

UV should always be on top because it doesn't just remove haze but it also protects the lens surface

[CornMonkey]

you always have a polarizer in front of the lens. and if you DO use a polarizer, there is no need to use a UV filter. you CAN use both but it'll cause more distortion and/or vignetting.

and when you are not using a wide angle/polarizer, UV filters can be left on as a permanent mount on your camera. as burzhui said, it also acts as a lens shield.

[Leon]

More than likely, it's a circular polarizer, so you NEED it to be in the front so you can turn it.

[Nanotech9]

ok... yeah - i went browsing ebay... noticed a few different types of lenses etc...

i think what i'll do is get a few different (cheap) lenses in teh 52mm size, and play with them... I can only imagine using the extra zoom for auto-x stuff where the cars are at the other end of the track or something, and wouldnt really need a filter...

what I'm REALLY interested in is the ND filter... i like to do moving shots where the subject is focused and "paralyzed" and the background is out of focus and blurred or sweeping past....

my biggest problem was that if i slowed the shutter speed, i had to close the apateure, and i still couldnt slow the shutter speed enough to get the desired blurring w/o it being over-exposed...

so an ND filter is definitely on my list...

THANKS!

[Burzhui]

cheap lenses are not a good idea, get one good one instead of 3 bad ones.

As a wise man once said, we're not that rich, as to buy cheap things

[Burzhui]

as for nd filters get 2 a .3 and a .6 that way you have most control.
I don't think you will need a .9, but if you do just combine the .6 and .3 ;)

[spigidygak]

Yep filters aren't filters. You get what you pay for. You'll want to invest in a high quality filter otherwise you'll get weird reflections from the filter and lens and what not.

[Nanotech9]

well, were talking $5 filters... i just wanna play around with the stuff.. if it does something i like, but its got problems because of the cheapness, then i'll invest in something nicer... but untill i've played with them, sinc i have no clue how its gonna work, or if its gonna work, then i wanna stay cheap as possible.

something like this HOYA cross screen filter for 4-pointed stars...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1387388648&rd=1

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by Leon
More than likely, it's a circular polarizer, so you NEED it to be in the front so you can turn it.

I though that you only had to turn LINEAR polarizers??

[Leon]

Both linear and circular polarizers are turnable.

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by Leon
Both linear and circular polarizers are turnable.

Please help me out on this one... (I just got one and haven't even played with it yet)

I thought that with circular it didn't matter what orientation the filter was... isn't it irrelevant because the lines are circular from the center out, rather than darkening from top to bottom??

[Leon]

Linear and circular polarizers are pretty much the same in terms of their use. The only difference relates to compatibility with the
internal beam-splitters that is usually found inside SLR cameras. A circular polarizer is just a linear polarizer followed
by a plate that removes the linear polarization.

Technical stuff:

Circular polarizers (CPs) are 2-layer affairs—a linear polarizer (LP) backed with a special birefringent optical layer known as a quarter-wave plate (QWP). The QWP is bonded to the LP with its fast optical axis oriented 45° to the LP's passing axis. In this configuration, the QWP transforms the linearly polarized light emerging from the outer LP layer into circularly polarized light, which to the polarization-sensitive metering and auto-focus components found in many modern SLR cameras is indistinguishable from unpolarized light.

http://www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw/polarizer.htm#circular




So what does it all mean? I know the basic concept, but the science of it all kinda bores me so I don't know the details. But I have a circular polarizer for my Canon setup, and you do need to turn it. just screw it onto the lense and look through the viewfinder at the sky. Turn the filter and you will see the blue sky get bluer until you reach the optimal level before it loses saturation.

[spigidygak]

Well actually it does matter the orientation. . . so have fun playing around with it :D. Circular polarized filters are the ones that turn and linear polarized filters are stationary. . . as far as I know and as of right now I'm using a circular polarized filter.

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by Leon
What Leon said

Thanks! That does clear it up...

:thumbup: