Random question: I've got a summicron 50mm, and it's in great condition, so I want to get a filter for it to cover the front. B&H sells some filters online: Hoya 55mm for $20, Zeiss for $60 and Leica for $100. Recommendations? Should I even bother with a filter for front element protection? Thanks!
By the way: great community here! Once I start shooting with my setup, I'll be sure to share
Roni1948 wrote:
Random question: I've got a summicron 50mm, and it's in great condition, so I want to get a filter for it to cover the front. B&H sells some filters online: Hoya 55mm for $20, Zeiss for $60 and Leica for $100. Recommendations? Should I even bother with a filter for front element protection? Thanks!
By the way: great community here! Once I start shooting with my setup, I'll be sure to share
Roni1948 wrote:
Random question: I've got a summicron 50mm, and it's in great condition, so I want to get a filter for it to cover the front. B&H sells some filters online: Hoya 55mm for $20, Zeiss for $60 and Leica for $100. Recommendations? Should I even bother with a filter for front element protection? Thanks!
The question of whether or not to use protection filters has been the subject of endless heated forum debates; there's no one "accepted" answer that everyone agrees to. A lot comes down to personal use habits with lenses: do you often shoot in blowing sand or saltwater spray? Do you dangle your lens un-capped while scrambling through dense brush? If the filters or front elements on all your other lenses are still pristine and unblemished, then you probably don't need the protection anyway. If your other lenses regularly get grime-encrusted and battered, then a bit of extra protection might be useful. Adding a protective filter doesn't help image quality; in most cases, it does no harm either, but in the wrong circumstances can add extra flare/haze. The "protective insurance" value of filters isn't worthwhile if you aren't bashing up lenses fast enough to save one $500 lens for every ten $50 filters.
I have a 180/3.4 that has an extremely stiff, damped, feeling when extending the hood, and the hood feels rock solid when extended. I just got a 180/2 which feels a fair bit looser when extending the hood, and whose hood can rock back and forth a bit (not nearly as much as some Nikkors, but a bit) when extended. Is this normal?
Mine rocks if you push it, but stays put if you don't touch it...
rico wrote:
Agree with Michael. The lens has a long throw, and I can detect variation in friction based on position and direction, but only at the anal level.
That must be a fairly painful test method. Do all of your test photos look like colonoscopies?
carstenw wrote:
Mine rocks if you push it, but stays put if you don't touch it...
Yeah, same here. Sounds like it's fine. It's a lot more stable than my Nikkor AI-s 105/1.8, 135/2, and 180/2.8, but my 180/3.4 doesn't have even a smidge of play so I just wanted to make sure this was normal.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Yeah, same here. Sounds like it's fine. It's a lot more stable than my Nikkor AI-s 105/1.8, 135/2, and 180/2.8, but my 180/3.4 doesn't have even a smidge of play so I just wanted to make sure this was normal.
Thanks
So, have you done any shots with this lens yet? Apparently it was designed for portraits, which is one reason it has such a short MFD.
carstenw wrote:
So, have you done any shots with this lens yet? Apparently it was designed for portraits, which is one reason it has such a short MFD.
Tragically not, it arrived the day after I sent my camera off to Nikon for some minor repairs and CLA. I couldn't wait though: I've rented a D800E for the weekend. I'll have some good stuff for you next week
Lee Saxon wrote:
Yeah, same here. Sounds like it's fine. It's a lot more stable than my Nikkor AI-s 105/1.8, 135/2, and 180/2.8, but my 180/3.4 doesn't have even a smidge of play so I just wanted to make sure this was normal.
Thanks
Well, mine is as solid as the 70-180 APO which also has plastic hood. I hardly use this lens and so did the previous owner. (I guess) Don't you think it's too shallow for useful portraits? The only thing I could think of it is stage photography.
phuang3 wrote:
Well, mine is as solid as the 70-180 APO which also has plastic hood. I hardly use this lens and so did the previous owner. (I guess) Don't you think it's too shallow for useful portraits? The only thing I could think of it is stage photography.
Wouldn't that depend on the portrait? Yeah, you're probably not going to get much in focus on a frame-filling headshot wide open, but give yourself a little more room and you can get full sharpness of a subject surround by beautiful OOF area. The focal length and speed can come in handy for large-stage shots, but for black box or club stage shooting, I'd go with something closer to a 135 on a FF DSLR. The 180 would be handy for weddings and indoor sporting events where you've got some room to move.
Well, I've now got a 35/2 on the way! I went around in circles a lot between this and a few other lenses (for use on the Nex, with the Speedbooster), and this one won out. I'll probably be selling my Distagon 24/2 ZA if the Cron works out well. (and later buying a ZF.2 25/2, but that's another story. . .)
The 80 Lux was attractive but just not a lens I'd picture using much. The 50 lux (v. 1, which I like better from what I've seen) lost out because I've already got the Nokton 35/1.2 and the SB/50Lux combo wouldn't be smaller, lighter or cheaper, and I'm not sure the different rendering is enough for me right now.
