[tuggie76]

I have a Pentax 50-200mm lens, it has a tiny 49mm thread size, my friends with canikons have similar lenses with 70mm threads, how does this affect the image?

Pulling out this puny little lens is like first time in the school showers! What answer do I have?

Thanks

Tuggie76

[baro-nite]

There's no winning a "mine is better/bigger/faster/longer" argument with a gear freak. Best answer is always to get images you are happy with, and share those.

Or you could stand shooting in the rain with your weather resistant lens (assuming you have a WR body) and watch your friends' reactions.

[bjake]

How do the specs of the lens compare?

[boriscleto]

It's not the size that counts....it's how you use it. :roll eyes:

Come on...you had to expect it.

The answer of course is that it doesn't matter at all. Those Canon lenses are huge because of the IS that has to be built in. Canon EF mount also has the largest throat diameter of any of the bayonet mounts, 52mm.

Just refer them to this

The Smallest Co%k in Porn - Mini-Movie! from Seth Morris, Rob Corddry, Mary Lynn Rajskub, Adam "Ghost Panther" McKay, Brian Huskey, Jason Mantzoukas, Paul Scheer, Kulap Vilaysack, John Knecht, Funny Or Die, and dshelford

[Docrwm]

You're not paying a fortune for IR in the lens, which makes the lens need to be bigger. Start shooting with old Super-Taks and tell them "Of course I have image stabilization with this 50 year old lens, you mean your camera can't do that!?!"

[eddie1960]

What matters is not filter size but optical design Some of Pentax's best lenses are pretty puny. A lot of canikon users envy some of those puny lenses (enough to butcher them for use on their own cameras occasionally)

That being said none of the companies make a kit 50-200 that is anything special. they are all functional.

the Canon EFS 55-250 is a bigger lens and needs a larger size to accommodate the IS function (which is built into your camera so any lens is IS)

the Same applies to the Nikon 55-20 built in VR requires a larger lens

They will spend more money for filters than you will as well. a 49mm filter is quite reasonably priced a 70 mm starts getting into expensive territory

[jolepp]

Having similar features in a smaller form factor is usually considered more advanced. As an illustration consider the mock Pravda headline: "The USSR has the largest pocket calculators in the world" .

---

Last edited by jolepp; 12-14-2011 at 09:23 AM.

[eddie1960]

Having similar features in a smaller form factor is usually considered more advanced. As an illustration consider the mock Pravda headline: "The USSR has the largest pocket calculators in the world" ).

[Lowell Goudge]

I have a Pentax 50-200mm lens, it has a tiny 49mm thread size, my friends with canikons have similar lenses with 70mm threads, how does this affect the image?

Pulling out this puny little lens is like first time in the school showers! What answer do I have?

Thanks

Tuggie76

size of filters is limited by only 2 things.

The first limitation comes from lens speed. your lens is an F4-5.6 lens, the F number is defined as focal length / diameter of opening. at 200mm and F5.6 the diameter of the lens opening (really the frint element only needs to be about 35mm in diameter (if you look closely you may actually see the front element and its real size) therefore a 49mm filter which is the smallest common filter is adequate.

the second limitation, is as you go to wide angle lenses (wide field of view) where the diameter of the filter is selected to be large enough to be outside the field of view for the intended format, to prevent vignetting. that is why some zooms, specifically ones that have a wide angle, and some super zooms, have such a large diameter filter and hood.

Maybe your canikin friends have faster lenses, but note also that the trend with canikon is to make things much lareger than necessary. In fact, this has become so problematic that my BIL has gone to a leica digital rangefinder just to get something he can carry easily on holidays. I keep showing him my *istD and some M series lenses to see if he will convert, but no luck. Just think of the used lens collection you could get with the digital leica and the 3 lenses he has

[JinDesu]

You guys can all say that size doesn't matter, but when I pull out my Tamron 70-200 2.8, all the girls around me perk up.

As in, they get ready to hide because my giant ass lens gives me away pretty damn easily.

[eddie1960]

As in, they get ready to hide because my giant ass lens gives me away pretty damn easily.

Meh it's tiny compared to the Canon

[RioRico]

I often put little eensy weensy lenses on my K20D, tiny pancakes and midgets and ELs on tubes, or I'll have something weird on a small bellows, whatever. I apologize to nobody. In fact, nobody bothers me about my lenses. Maybe because I'm 6'4" / 190cm tall and sometimes carry a machete. I've never had to say, "Yeah, it's a small lens. You have a problem with that, shorty?"

[wildweasel]

l... sometimes carry a machete.

You must shoot in some dodgy areas of town

I used to do tree surgery and forestry work with a conservation charity, nothing like the look on someone's face when they turn the corner on a remote path in woodland and find a few lads strolling along tooled up with chainsaws, machetes, jungle knives and billhooks - apart from the time I abseiled down in front of someone from a high tree and they made a mess in their keks. Maybe I shouldn't have given the saw a quick rev as I popped into their view but it was funny

Back on topic, I've wondered whether a larger front element might gather more light due to the larger surface area - I believe that's the case in telescopes but am prepared to be corrected.

[cats_five]

Meh it's tiny compared to the Canon

Come come, surely you know it's the size of your wallet that really counts.

[eddie1960]

You must shoot in some dodgy areas of town

I used to do tree surgery and forestry work with a conservation charity, nothing like the look on someone's face when they turn the corner on a remote path in woodland and find a few lads strolling along tooled up with chainsaws, machetes, jungle knives and billhooks - apart from the time I abseiled down in front of someone from a high tree and they made a mess in their keks. Maybe I shouldn't have given the saw a quick rev as I popped into their view but it was funny

Back on topic, I've wondered whether a larger front element might gather more light due to the larger surface area - I believe that's the case in telescopes but am prepared to be corrected.

A larger front element (as opposed to larger Filter size which would be a different thing) will allow more light. the lens will then have a faster f designation like f 2.8 (have a look at the fast 70-200 zooms on the market they all take some large filters - the OS/IS/VR ones take the biggest filters the non os (like the Tamron) are more compact but still big

the entry canikon lenses like the ones i mentioned have big filter sizes but not big front elements. they are IS built in to the lens which requires more room.

200mm 2.8 will require a front element of just under 72mm so a little over double what the 5.6 end of a variable zoom need be

the current canon tamron and sigma 70-200 2.8 all take a 77mm filter