alan_wilder1 Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 <p>Having 62mm accessory filters like the Nikon circular polarizer and 6T close up lens, I gave each a try on the new 70-200 f/4 VR with a 67-62 stepdown ring. I was pleasantly surprised that either worked without vignetting on my D800 in FX mode wide open and all the way down to f/32 regarless of focal length. Not only that but I also had a 67mm UV filter attached for all tests.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 <p>Even though there is no "vignetting," those 62mm filters may still be obstructing the optical path and therefore are degrading image quality.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 <p>For what it is worth: the (old) AF-D 70-210mm Nikkor had 62mm filters. Progress makes 67mm filters the norm on some new(er) lenses.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georges_pelpel Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 <p>Doesn't using a smaller diameter filter reduce the effective f/stop especially wide open?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 <p>Well, i guess turn off Vignette Control, take 2 identical shots @70mm, one with and one without and <strong><em>critically</em></strong> examine the corners. If there's absolutely no difference carry on.</p> <p>It's all cones rather than cylinders and 'most' front elements don't reach to the edge of the lens barrel by some margin, some by well over 2cm each side, especially the wide angles (to prevent vignetting!) ie the 18-35mm 3.5/4.5.</p> <p>Longer lenses have a much narrower cone, so can tolerate <strong><em>minor</em> </strong>filter diameter reductions....I'd guess a 58mm would be in trouble!</p> <p>_______</p> <p>Curious, if there's no vignetting, ie corner difference can't be detected on the sensor/image, what kind of optical-path obstruction leading to image degradation can there be? I do have a very vague memory of school experiments with a ripple tank and the waves kinda bend after going past an obstruction and that's the cause of erosion on harbor bottoms around the end of breakwaters.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nico_morris Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 <p>I've had a 62mm f4, a 58mm f4 and a 58mm f3.8 ... I'd love to know what the designers do with those extra millimetres.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harveysteeves Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 <p>when those 2 element Nikon close-up filters came out, it was common usage to put them on lenses one common filter size up if the lens was telephoto. I even remember people putting the 62s' on 72mm lenses. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_wilder1 Posted December 30, 2012 Author Share Posted December 30, 2012 <p>Testing for corner falloff at 70mm and vignetting control off using either a 62 Polar or 6T achromat close-up lens revealed no additional falloff compared to what naturally occurs when no filter is attached.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now