Diameter filter thread, again three more different ones ?

[Terapixel]

Does someone know the filter diameter of the new to come 16 f/1.4, 35 f/2 and 90 f/2 lenses ?

Thanks.

 

[Stacey_K]

Does someone know the filter diameter of the new to come 16 f/1.4, 35 f/2 and 90 f/2 lenses ?

Thanks.

I really don't get why they do this. When I shot film with my OM1-2n ALL my lenses shared a 49mm filter thread except the 300mm f4.5 Why do they make one with a 58 and another with a 62 etc. Especially the 2 "kits zooms", they should share a filter thread.

 

[ryan2007]

Does someone know the filter diameter of the new to come 16 f/1.4, 35 f/2 and 90 f/2 lenses ?

Thanks.

We can guess but I bet they will not all be the same.

I think the 16 mm will be 62 mm or 67 mm

I think the 90 mm will be 67 mm or 72 mm

I think the 35 mm will be 55 mm or 58 mm

 

[georgehudetz]

Does someone know the filter diameter of the new to come 16 f/1.4, 35 f/2 and 90 f/2 lenses ?

Thanks.

I really don't get why they do this. When I shot film with my OM1-2n ALL my lenses shared a 49mm filter thread except the 300mm f4.5 Why do they make one with a 58 and another with a 62 etc. Especially the 2 "kits zooms", they should share a filter thread.

--
Stacey

It would be interesting to talk to a lens designer about this. While I am not a lens designer, I do have background in mechanical design, and I can tell you that every design is a result of a set of (hopefully) carefully chosen priorities. Change the priorities and the final design changes. It would seem that Fuji has put a rather low priority on minimizing the number of different filter diameters. The question is - to what end? Presumably it frees them up to optimize each lens for it's intent - be it small and light, big & fast, or in-between.

Personally, I like the fact that I can pick up any Fuji lens and get at least very good results from it, with a similar color signature, etc. To me, this is a much more important "shared value", as far as a family of lenses is concerned, than keeping the number of filter sizes to a minimum.

Again, I can't say for sure there is a cause & effect there, but I'll take Fuji's lineup of ASP-C lenses over any other manufacturer. And if that means having a few more ND filters, and/or some step-down rings, then so be it.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

 

[AdHoc007]

Does someone know the filter diameter of the new to come 16 f/1.4, 35 f/2 and 90 f/2 lenses ?

Thanks.

I really don't get why they do this. When I shot film with my OM1-2n ALL my lenses shared a 49mm filter thread except the 300mm f4.5 Why do they make one with a 58 and another with a 62 etc. Especially the 2 "kits zooms", they should share a filter thread.

 

[Rod McD]

Does someone know the filter diameter of the new to come 16 f/1.4, 35 f/2 and 90 f/2 lenses ?

Thanks.

Hi,

The latest (CP+) prototypes of the three lenses had the following filter threads.....

• 16mm - 67mm
• 35/2 - 43mm
• 90/2 - 62mm (NB the earlier prototype shown at Photokina had a 72mm filter).

It remains to be seen what size the final versions will have. I've found that step up and down rings solve the problem of different filter sizes. Just buy them to limit the filter sizes you need to one or two sensible choices.

FYI, the fact that Fuji uses a nomenclature ring around the front element (ie on the face of the lens rather than around the outside) makes many of their filter thread sizes redundantly large. The 23, 56 and 55-200 all have a 62mm thread but can all use 58mm filters with a step down ring without vignetting. That's even with multiple filters. (I'm not generally into multiple filters, but could see myself using a close up lens and a polariser for example.) It makes them compatible with the 58mm filter size of the 14mm and 18-55mm. It may also apply to some of the other lenses but I haven't checked.

Cheers, Rod

 

[justin_time]

3 different sizes yes, but only for 3 new and very different lenses.

we should have 23mm, 56mm & 90mm lenses with 62mm filter thread.

I suppose the 16mm f1.4 at 67mm is out of step.

But I can understand 35mm f2 being 43mm as they wanted to keep it as small as possible to avoid obscuring optical viewfinder of x-pro cameras

 

[Terapixel]

Thanks all for your insights, much appreciated ! I've to invest in different sized filters, maybe minimising the amount by using step-down rings.

 

[nixda]

Thanks all for your insights, much appreciated ! I've to invest in different sized filters, maybe minimising the amount by using step-down rings.

That is the way to go. Depending on how many lenses you have, or plan on getting, you could standardize on one or two sizes. I personally have standardized on 77mm, which is sufficient to stack up to three filters on the lenses I have. In addition, I have a set of filters specifically for my 27mm lens. The purpose here is to have a small, but capable walk-around setup, so step-up rings and larger filters were not acceptable here for me.

 

[km25]

Filters are being used less with digital then film. So makers are more worried about lens design. Nikon years bragged about most of there lens having that Nikon 52mm trend design. Buy big and use rings.

 

[AdHoc007]

Thanks all for your insights, much appreciated ! I've to invest in different sized filters, maybe minimising the amount by using step-down ring

If you want to save some money, you could purchase a linear polarizer rather than a circular. The circular polarizers were meant for DSLR cameras.

 

[BurpeesAreHard]

Thanks all for your insights, much appreciated ! I've to invest in different sized filters, maybe minimising the amount by using step-down ring

If you want to save some money, you could purchase a linear polarizer rather than a circular. The circular polarizers were meant for DSLR cameras.

Indeed. I bought a cheap linear polarizer and it seems to have a more pronounced affect than my old circular polarizer that I bought when I was still shooting film. I don't know why that would be, since a circular polarizer is just a linear polarizer cemented to a quarter wave plate.