Don't forget the 62mm on the 35-80/2.8 and, gasp, the 52mm on the 70-210
(OK, Cosina made).
Tom
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:28:03 -0500
> "Tom Albright" <n5ksk3@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > >I then bought a used
> > > vivitar 135/2.8, which was somewhat better, and took a 55mm
> > > filter rather than the odd 52mm of the CPC.
> >
> > Since when is 52mm odd? That's what I am currently sizing at, via
> > two 52mm lenses, and one 49mm with a step-up adapter.
> >
>
> Well, since the Zuiko series appeared :) In general, Zuiko lenses
> fall in two "series", a "49mm" and a "55mm" filter thread. Pretty
> consistantly from (I think) 21 to 200mm (the 180mm's excluded), most
> focal length comes in both a 49mm filter thread and a 55mm filter
> thread. E.g. 24/2.8 vs. 24/2, 35/2.8 vs. 35/2 and so on (there are
> exceptions: 90/2, 85/2, 55/1.2, for example...)
>
> The serious zuikoholic will therefore have at least two kits: one
> with a full set of lenses with 49mm filter threads, another with a
> full set of lenses with 55mm filter threads. :)
>
> For all I know, there was never made a Zuiko lens that took 52mm
> filters. Hence, among Zuikoholics, 52mm is indeed an odd filter size
> :)
>
> Interrestingly enough, it seems that 49mm and 55mm are indeed very
> popular sizes, also among other brands.
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|