Filter for Olympus 25 mm f2.8 Pancake

[haziz]

What filter size does the Olympus 25 mm f2.8 pancake lens take? Any issues with

the filter touching the front element?

 

Thanks.

 

Sincerely,

 

Hany.

[michael j hoffman]

43mm. Don't know; B&H is still out of stock.

 

Michael J Hoffman

[godfrey]

<center>

<img

src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/panasonicL1_olympus25/content/bin/image

s/large/080510_mixed_5104048.jpg"><br><br>

<img

src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/panasonicL1_olympus25/content/bin/image

s/large/080510_mixed_5104050.jpg"><br>

</center><br>

I have had the 25/2.8 for two/three weeks now.

<br><br>

The standard filter size is 43mm. I can't see any possibility of a filter posing an

interference problem with the front element of the lens. I use a generic 43mm snap-

on lens cap and it shows no interference either.

<br><br>

But I have 49mm filters of the types I use (ND and circ polarizer) as well as an

excellent B+W screw in metal lens hood (for normal lenses' FoV), so I bought a 43-

>49mm step-up ring. They fit and work perfectly, as you can see in the photos

above.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

[icuneko]

I believe Oly does make a dedicated lens hood for the 25mm f2.8 which seems to have a smaller opening than the one shown above. Companies produce dedicated lens hoods whose openings are designed to optimized for that particular optical path, which varies according to each lens focal length and maxium aperture. Generic lens hoods may or may not fit this bill. Just like Nikon makes a deciated hood for it's 45mm f2.8 "pancake" lens, which I have.

[godfrey]

The Olympus hood (LH-43) is a compact inverted cone type hood with a smaller

opening. They are typically not as efficient as a standard type hood, as above, and

can potentially cause vignetting problems when used with filters. Such hoods are

designed to be compact, the principal design brief for these kinds of lenses, but I

prefer flare control efficiency and lens protection over compactness.

 

I have the compact inverted-cone hood delivered with the Pentax DA21 Limited lens

that they designed for it. I've tested it against a more standard type hood for flare

resistance and found the standard type hood I use on that lens to be superior.

 

While the compact hoods are certainly better than no hood at all, I use the standard

type hoods.

 

A side note is that, as yet, there is no source from which to buy the LH-43 in the US

... so if you're like me and insist upon a lens hood, there are few choices other than

a third-party lens hood at present.

 

Godfrey

[patrick j dempsey]

Seems like 43>49mm step-up ring is the way to go... spend a few bucks on the adapter and save yourself lots of trouble finding filters, hoods etc. camera-filters.com has step-ups for very cheap. Once you get the step-up you should be able to use any standard view angle hood you can find in 49mm.

[john_robison3]

Ah yes, everything old is new again. My three original Olympus Pen F lenses, a 20mm, 38mm, and 100mm all take 43mm filter and hood size. I've found most of my stuff for this size on the 'bay. There is a seller there by the name Heavystar who offers a wide range of really well made metal hoods for reasonable prices. For filters, well they are where you find them. The few I use were all second hand.

[icuneko]

"...inverted cone type hood with a smaller opening. They are typically not as efficient as a standard type hood..." I beg to differ but I do think optical engineers think through and test the design parameters--opening size, etc.--very well when they design dedicated lens hoods. A small opening should not or does not cause vignetting just because it's small. The size of the opening and distance from the front lens element should all be optimized in dedicated hoods.

[godfrey]

All designs have some element of compromise in them, S. Linke.

 

The principle priority in the design of lens hoods for a compact lens is that the hood be

reasonably efficient while remaining compact, which is what the inverted cone type hood

achieves. It's not AS efficient as a more traditional circular hood design, nor is that as

efficient as the even tighter rectangular shaped hoods that truly match the field of view

correctly, nor are those as efficient as the bellows type hoods that can be adjusted to

compensate for FoV changes at different focus distances. Each of these designs represent a

set of different trade-offs in size, weight, efficiency, practicality, ease of use and cost.

 

So while the lens designers are indeed very smart and design good stuff, I don't agree that the

compact inverted cone hoods are the most efficient for flare control: they know it too but it is

not the priority of their design. My testing proves this conclusively, for me. Since I value flare

control more than compactness, I use hoods that do the job to my satisfaction.

 

Godfrey

[icuneko]

"All designs have some element of compromise in them, S. Linke."

 

OK, I compromise too: Some lens hood designs are good; some are better. But I won't compromise on this--all pancakes need good syrup or fruit sauce. ;)