Prev: American Third Position Political Party
Next: |GG| Re: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains
From: Paul Ciszek on 16 Jan 2010 16:13
I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix
FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger
than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is
still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my
options?

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
From: Peter on 16 Jan 2010 17:02
"Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hita6n$phj$2(a)reader1.panix.com...
>I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix
> FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger
> than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is
> still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my
> options?
>
> --
> Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
> pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
> Autoreply is disabled |


Try a square polarizer. Of course, you will need an adaptor. Decent ones are
manufactured by Cokin and Tiffen. there may be other brands, but I have
never used them. And no, they are not cheap.

--
Peter

From: Better Info on 16 Jan 2010 17:20
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:13:59 +0000 (UTC), nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
wrote:

>I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix
>FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger
>than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is
>still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my
>options?

Get a good quality 55mm polarizer with a strong filter-ring mount. You
mount the polarizer between teleconverter and camera. Be sure to get a
polarizer that can hold up to the weight of the lens hanging off of it and
that it won't pull the polarizer apart from the stress. A rotating-ring
filter mount is not as sturdy as a solid one-piece construction
filter-ring. Or just be very astute to always support the lens properly
when you are using a polarizer in this manner.

There's a reason that teleconverters for P&S cameras are made so large in
aperture. At the widest aperture setting of the camera it will not diminish
the camera's own f/ratio one bit no matter what zoom setting you use. The
same cannot be said of teleconverters which go between lens and dSLR
cameras, which halve the effective aperture. Making them all but useless
except on a sturdy tripod.



From: SMS on 16 Jan 2010 19:29
Paul Ciszek wrote:
> I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix
> FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger
> than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is
> still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my
> options?

You should get the Nikon TC-E15ED and the appropriate adapter instead.
This is what many Panasonic owners do. The Nikon adapter is threaded for
filters. It's only 1.5x rather than the LT55 which is 1.7x. There's also
a Nikon TC-E17ED but these are very expensive (used).

You do realize of course that you're spending all this money on
teleconverters and adapters, essentially trying to duplicate the
functionality of a D-SLR. Been there, done that. You'll never achieve
anywhere close to the quality of a D-SLR with these converters and
adapters, and by the time you're done you'll be carrying around just as
much weight. Time to cut your losses and get a D-SLR.








From: Paul Ciszek on 16 Jan 2010 19:47

In article <4b5259c1$0$1618$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>> I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix
>> FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger
>> than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is
>> still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my
>> options?
>
>You should get the Nikon TC-E15ED and the appropriate adapter instead.

Is this sort of stuff documented somewhere? For example, even with
the Panasonic teleconverter, the adapter needed depends on the model
of the camera, and the FZ35 isn't listed in a lot of places because
it's new. The Panasonic manual tells me which Panasonic converter
and adapter works with the FZ35; it sure ain't gonna tell me which
Nikon parts to use. Or is the Nikon converter made to match the
Panasonic camera?

>This is what many Panasonic owners do. The Nikon adapter is threaded for
>filters. It's only 1.5x rather than the LT55 which is 1.7x. There's also
>a Nikon TC-E17ED but these are very expensive (used).
>
>You do realize of course that you're spending all this money on
>teleconverters and adapters, essentially trying to duplicate the
>functionality of a D-SLR. Been there, done that. You'll never achieve
>anywhere close to the quality of a D-SLR with these converters and
>adapters, and by the time you're done you'll be carrying around just as
>much weight. Time to cut your losses and get a D-SLR.

I may have misunderstood this, but I thought that in order to acheive
a telephoto capability comparable to my 18x zoom plus the teleconverter
on an SLR, I would have to get a lens the size of a fireplace log,
costing thousands of dollars. Is that not the case?

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: American Third Position Political Party
Next: |GG| Re: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains