Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: 52mm or 58mm?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15

    Question 52mm or 58mm?

    I have an s3, canon, an i was wondering if i should get a 52mm lens adaptor and use a ring to step up if i need to, or get the 58mm and use a ring to step down to a 52 if i need to. I have filters in both 52 and 58, so i wont be using either one more. But i was wondering if one way was better, than the other. I dont want to buy two lens adaptor, but if thats the way that wont cause any damage to my picture, then it will have to be done. So, which way 52mm-ring-58mm, 58mm-ring-52mm, or just buy two adaptors?
    Thanks Alot!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Talking I do...

    own BOTH sized adapters, but after examining their value, I do believe the 58mm adapter appears to be the better way to go and here's why:

    While I can use my EF 50mm f/1.8 II dSLR lens filters on the 52mm adapter, there is no other particular value to it other than that.

    The 58mm adapter, on the other hand, supports not only 58mm filters (EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 "kit" & EF 50mm f/1.4 USM dSLR lens filters), but also is the base adapter for BOTH the WIDE-angle and the telephoto lenses for the S2/S3. So it really has possibilities.

    I certainly hope this helps in your decision making.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 07-31-2006 at 04:20 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15
    Yes it does. Thank you very much!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Talking Please...

    tip the "hat-check" girl on your way out... LOL
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,610
    DonSchap,

    what would you recommend if this is the first extra equipment im buying.. i dont have any lens or filters and such...

    so basically my first step is a 52mm or 58mm.. then get a UV filter, then either a wide angle lens or a CP (depends on the pricing for the good ones)

    I might eventually get a telephoto in a few months but I think id rather get macro lens on the tele end (12x zoom is more than enough for me)

    what do you think I should get?
    ...................
    Nikon D80 + TAmROn 17-50mm f/2.8
    - Sandisk 2GB Extreme III SD Card
    - Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Home

    - had Canon PowerShot S3 IS

    For some of my shots:http://flickr.com/photos/truflip/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Talking To begin with...

    I'm just a little perplexed as to why anyone would really need or use the 52mm Adapter. It has limited application, compared to the 58mm.

    The 58mm will handle filters, the Canon add-on lenses and even the Cokin Filter system.

    Are you aware of any reason, OTHER THAN filters, that you would require the 52mm Adapter? I even have one... and it just seems like a waste of money, space and time.

    Sorry... in my experience, so far, with the S3... the 58mm adapter appears to me... to be all you should ever need.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    3,650
    52mm filters are cheaper... Raynox makes a 52mm wide angle and tele... then again you can always purchase one of each.
    I thought about who I am... and realized I was an
    unformed, unreconciled imagery, without "GOD"


    NikonD?
    and some other Nikon stuff

    0.0%

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15
    Im getting the 52mm, my filters that i though i had are trashed (from moving). And the 52mm is cheaper, and the filters are cheaper. Evenually, im getting the 58mm for other adapters other than filters. Till then I'm using the 52mm.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,610
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap
    Are you aware of any reason, OTHER THAN filters, that you would require the 52mm Adapter?
    would I ask you if i knew?
    ...................
    Nikon D80 + TAmROn 17-50mm f/2.8
    - Sandisk 2GB Extreme III SD Card
    - Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Home

    - had Canon PowerShot S3 IS

    For some of my shots:http://flickr.com/photos/truflip/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Exclamation Price differences between 52mm and 58mm filters

    Folks,

    Are we talking a significant amount of money, here?

    For example:

    Circular Polarizer (good ones) - respectively priced @ B&H
    Item --- B&W, Hoya, Tiffen
    52mm - $79.85, $32.95, $35.35
    58mm - $94.95, $37.50, $37.10

    Give me a break! You are going to carry two adapters to save, at the most $15 on a Circular Polarizer?

    Man, what part of cheap are we talkin', here? The price "gulf" between these is not even worth mentioning. Heck, you pay more in shipping! Besides, each adapter itself is $24.95!

    Honestly, if there were the big difference like there exists between larger-sized filters:
    Item --- B&W, Hoya, Tiffen
    62mm - $114.95, $53.95, $50.75
    82mm - $194.95, $99.95, $116.73

    then, the tone and merit of this discussion would be significantly different, but this 52mm vs 58mm price difference is borderline "silly" and hardly worth even the time to discuss it.

    Look, I suggest that you just get the 58mm adapter and leave it at that, unless you are planning on buying a 52mm lens of some type. If you have a carload of 52mm filters, you may have an argument... but, if you have squat in the filter department... you are saving practically nothing.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 08-04-2006 at 08:06 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •