Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: 58mm and 72 mm filter

  1. #1

    58mm and 72 mm filter

    which one is better? or they are just the same.. i mean the diameter makes no difference between them?
    if the diameter makes no change why there are so many filters with different diameter..
    help me out please!

  2. #2
    Andrew76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,300
    Real Name
    Andrew

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but do you realize that the diameter of the threading to receive a filter varies from lens to lens, so you have to choose a filter that will actually fit your lens. Besides that, there are polarizing, UV, etc. etc. Not sure if that will help you.....
    Last edited by Andrew76; 30th September 2011 at 05:00 PM. Reason: Grammar

  3. #3
    shreds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,301
    Real Name
    Ian

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    Agreed.

    Take a look at the front of your lens and it should tell you the filter size. You should note that this is different to the focal length of the lens such as a 50mm or 135mm lens or even a 35-70mm zoom lens.

    So it is quite feasible for a 28mm lens to require a 62mm filter for instance.

    Gosh dont we make things difficult for ourselves and newcomers!

    HTH.

  4. #4

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    thanks guys.
    at first, i know that the filter must fit the lens.. but then i searched on google and..somes use 58mm filter for 50mm canon, somes instead use 72mm.. it made me confused...

  5. #5

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    it's 52mm actually !

  6. #6
    Glenn NK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    Canon makes several versions of the 50 mm lens (f/1.2, f/1.4 and f/1.8).

    The f/1.2 takes 72 mm filters;

    The f/1.4 takes 58 mm filters;

    The f/1.8 takes 52 mm filters.

    Faster lenses have larger diameter glass and thus the filter sizes will be larger.

    http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview#canon_ff

    Glenn

  7. #7
    ddp4me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Southern New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    118
    Real Name
    Darlene

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    The other point with filters that can be confusing when you are just starting is that some people use a larger filter on a lens that takes a smaller one by adding a step down ring, so they do not have to buy two polarizing, UV, etc. etc. to fit each lens.

    That may be what you are talking about?

  8. #8
    William W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sraylya
    Posts
    3,843
    Real Name
    William (call me Bill)

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    Some added info on the Canon 50mm lenses:
    Canon also make a 50/2.5, it has a 52mm filter thread.

    And in the current EF range of lenses there are two discontinued 50mm lenses:
    EF50F/1.0L and it has a 72mm thread.
    EF50F/1.8 and it has a 52mm thread: (the presently available EF50F/1.8, is actually the MkII version).

    WW

  9. #9

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    come back here after such a long time, realizing such a noob i was ) and how polite you guys were to reply me.
    Thank again guys!
    ps. i'm no noob now ( i hope ^^)

  10. #10
    Moderator Donald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Glenfarg, Scotland
    Posts
    19,723
    Real Name
    Just add 'MacKenzie'

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    Quote Originally Posted by phiduypdn View Post
    come back here after such a long time, realizing such a noob i was ) and how polite you guys were to reply me.
    Thank again guys!
    ps. i'm no noob now ( i hope ^^)
    Welcome home!!

    It would still be great to know your name, because most us use that on here. You can go to Edit Profile (under 'Forum Actions' on the Menu Bar), or you can just press on 'Settings' on the menu bar right up at the top right of the window. Once there you can enter the name by which you wish to be addressed under 'Real Name'. Then it will appear underneath your Username in all your posts. You can also enter your location so that it does the same, just as in my details alongside this message. Then we all know where everyone is in the world.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Dunedin New Zealand
    Posts
    2,697
    Real Name
    J stands for John

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    Another thing I have noticed is that as lenses get more clever and incorporate stabilisation they tend to get bigger in diameter which means that the 55mm filter I used on an earlier camera/lens needs a step down ring to mount on the later lens .... and contrary to accepted wisdom that you do not use step-down rings for fear of vignetting etc it makes no difference. The filter thread is way outside the actual lens.

    If more lens needed 72 and/or 77mm filters would they be cheaper through increased production?

  12. #12

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    17,935

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    Quote Originally Posted by phiduypdn View Post
    i'm no noob now
    Terribly wrong strategy! Keep up the facade of being a noob as long as possible so you have a good excuse.

    By the way, the size of filters indicates their circumference, not their diameter. Those of us who live in the three countries not using the metric system wouldn't necessarily know that, as we don't have any idea about the size of 72mm or 58mm and the like. EDIT: And to prove my point about that, the size is actually the diameter, not the circumference.
    Last edited by Mike Buckley; 21st November 2014 at 09:01 PM.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Dunedin New Zealand
    Posts
    2,697
    Real Name
    J stands for John

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    It amazes me that a country which in its early stages had such a strong French influence stuck with the Imperial system for measurements while rejecting it in politics

    In my childhood UK period I used the mm as a convienient small distance on my school ruler in preference to the Imperial markings ...

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Grafton, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,340
    Real Name
    Allan Short

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    John in case you did not know the French settled more in what is now known as Canada, large settlements were in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec. The English and then the Dutch settled in lands that were south of the French areas along the coast.

    Cheers: Allan

  15. #15
    Black Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whitburn, Sunderland
    Posts
    2,211
    Real Name
    Robin

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    By the way, the size of filters indicates their circumference, not their diameter. Those of us who live in the three countries not using the metric system wouldn't necessarily know that, as we don't have any idea about the size of 72mm or 58mm and the like.
    Eh?

    The size IS the diameter NOT the circumference.

    Think about it - if the filters circumference was 52mm (just over 2 inches) it would have a diameter of around 16mm or a little over half an inch and I'm pretty sure the front of my Nikon lenses aren't that small.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    17,935

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Pearl View Post
    The size IS the diameter NOT the circumference.
    Thanks for the correction, Robin. I have corrected my previous post.

  17. #17
    William W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sraylya
    Posts
    3,843
    Real Name
    William (call me Bill)

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    What seems to me an anomaly - the USA uses (mostly) imperial weights and measures but was very quick to make their currency: METRIC . . .

    WW

  18. #18

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    17,935

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    Quote Originally Posted by William W View Post
    What seems to me an anomaly - the USA uses (mostly) imperial weights and measures but was very quick to make their currency: METRIC . . .
    How do you explain the nickel and the quarter?

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Dunedin New Zealand
    Posts
    2,697
    Real Name
    J stands for John

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Buckley View Post
    How do you explain the nickel and the quarter?
    They are just colloqual or slang for the five and 25 cent pieces? .... Other countries also had 2, 3, 20, and 50 's Here in NZ these days we have nothing smaller than 10 though of course cheques and credit card go to the exact cent, Cash sales use the Swedish system of five high.

  20. #20
    William W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sraylya
    Posts
    3,843
    Real Name
    William (call me Bill)

    Re: 58mm and 72 mm filter

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Buckley View Post
    How do you explain the nickel and the quarter?
    I like that rebuttal question.
    I think that I should have written:
    What seems to me an anomaly - the USA uses (mostly) imperial weights and measures but was very quick to make their Monetary System: METRIC . . .
    No so much in the case of the ‘nickel’; but certainly in the case of the ‘quarter’ I think that there could have been a clinging to something imperial?

    I think that when the DENOMINATIONS of Currency are determined, there is often some logic to the coins and notes made in denominations so that various totals are summed in the simplest method possible.

    1; 2; 5; 10; 20; and 50 seem to be a common set of denomination used in many countries that employ a Decimal Monetary System.

    I note that these are the denominations of USA Bank Notes in circulation today.

    Down here, we don’t print $1 and $2 notes anymore, though each is still Legal Tender, we have replaced them with $1 and $2 coins: we have 5; 10; 20; 50 and 100 bank Notes in current circulation and printing.

    We have done away with 1 and 2 cent coins, leaving only 5; 10; 20 and 50 (and obviously the aforementioned 100c and 200c coins – being the $1 and the $2 notes, respectively).

    ***

    Re the USA ‘quarter’:

    A denomination of ‘25’ doesn’t, at first glance seem to fit that above described ‘logic’ of making up every combination in the simplest manner/ fewest number of coins.

    Obviously it is easy if there is a 25c piece to make 25c with only one coin, but having a 25c piece seems superfluous on fist glance and 20c piece seems to be a better fit – and anyway why is there no US$25 Bank Note?

    So I guess that there was another reason for making a ‘quarter’ when the coin denominations were cast?

    But – on pause I am not so sure: and I have just begun investigating the mathematics of it.

    ***

    On another tangent - I wait in hope (here) for the High Court challenge concerning those entities which will NOT receive cash for goods or services – a typical example here, the Rental Car companies who will not lease a Car without a credit card transaction as the deposit: whilst Bank Notes are still the ‘Legal Tender’ of a Country, I do understand that any business MUST accept same as payment of the customer so chooses. . .

    Well that’s all a long way from ɸ 58mm Filters.

    WW

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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