S3 52mm or 58mm

Just purchased the Canon S3. I am interested in a lens adaptor and filter to protect the camera lens. I see that the lens adaptors come in 52mm and 58mm. Which would be the best to purchase? I will probably be purchasing wide angle and tele converter lens in the future. When you get into these additional lens is one size (52mm or 58mm) have an advantage over the other?

Tedd

tbr701 wrote in post #2707926
Just purchased the Canon S3. I am interested in a lens adaptor and filter to protect the camera lens. I see that the lens adaptors come in 52mm and 58mm. Which would be the best to purchase? I will probably be purchasing wide angle and tele converter lens in the future. When you get into these additional lens is one size (52mm or 58mm) have an advantage over the other?

Tedd

I bought the smaller size 52mm I think for my S2.

I also bought the raynox WA and Tele from Lensmate as well.

Doing this convinced me that a camera with this range doesn't need the tele. I used the WA more but still not that much.

I eventually sold all of it and bought a Canon XTi and I'm thrilled with it. The S2/S3 is nice but has many limitations compared to the XTi. For the price of a S3 and additional lenses and adapters you could have the Rebel XTi w/ kit lens with money left over for say a 50mm 1.8 lens which is fantastic for portraits and low light without a flash.

Just Be wrote in post #2707991
I eventually sold all of it and bought a Canon XTi and I'm thrilled with it. The S2/S3 is nice but has many limitations compared to the XTi. For the price of a S3 and additional lenses and adapters you could have the Rebel XTi w/ kit lens with money left over for say a 50mm 1.8 lens which is fantastic for portraits and low light without a flash.

hmmm, now I'm thinking.

Just Be wrote in post #2707991
I eventually sold all of it and bought a Canon XTi and I'm thrilled with it. The S2/S3 is nice but has many limitations compared to the XTi. For the price of a S3 and additional lenses and adapters you could have the Rebel XTi w/ kit lens with money left over for say a 50mm 1.8 lens which is fantastic for portraits and low light without a flash.

But that too has limitations! You are carrying (relatively speaking) a brick. You need to spend at least another £100 on a 75-300 to get the range of the S3, total to date £600; the S3 can be had for £250. In half decent light the s3 will produce just as good images printed 10 x 8 . You can also guarantee that you will spot that rare bird at 50 paces when you have the 18-55 kit junk fitted and by the time you have changed lenses to the 75-300, the little buggar has flown off. Never mind, you take a couple of shots of other things with the 75-300, but they come out blurred because the cheap £100 telephoto for your dslr doesn't have IS. All the images you take for the rest of the day have little spots on them, all in the same place - yup, you got crud on the sensor changing lenses in the field............... (Just playing devil's advocate - I have an S3IS, a 400D and a bag of lenses!)

You have a brand new S3. It's a great camera, and don't believe a word about getting into an DSLR with the same zoom range for as little as the S3 costs. Heed every word Saudidave says! I spent many years lugging those 50 pound bags of SLRs and lenses around with me. I love my S2IS's light weight and powerfu zoom . I'm not saying that you may not want to go the SLR route someday, but I can't believe you wouldn't give your S3 a chance before you leap. It just may be all you need or want. As for your question about 52 or 58. The 52 mm setup is cheaper, as are the filters. But if you DO decide to go the SLR route, the the 58 MM filters would probably be of more use to you for your new gear. I bought the 58 adapter, because I already had 58 MM filters on hand.

Didn't mean to cause a problem...The S2 is a fine camera as it is without the WA and Tele adapters.

Just to be clear...
In my OP I never said that you could buy an XTi with a tele at the S3's range for the same price.

I too was one who said "I'm not going to be carrying around all that heavy SLR gear." The same Tamrac TEK 100 backpack that held all of my S2 gear and weighs 5 pounds which I thought was so cool...

Is the same backpack that holds my XTi,Canon 70-300 IS lens, Sigma 17-70 lens, 50mm 1.8 lens, 430EX flash plus batteries and filters for a whopping.....
6.14 pounds. I just weighed it.

Granted, the cost factor is more now that I've added gear, but that wasn't my original point. The on camera tele length on the S3 is nice, but adding the WA and tele adapter doesn't give you as much as you think it would in real world useage.

You may be perfectly happy with the 10MP XTi w/kit lens at $800. The Raynox lenses aren't cheap at $300 for the pair, plus lensmate adapters.

I just know from experience. I bought three adapters along witht the WA and Tele (Raynox) and ended up unhappy with the images. Raynox lacks so much compared to any WA or tele from Canon, Sigma or Tamron.

If you are used to the S2 or S3 just go to a camera store and hold the XTi. It very light for what you get. And if you want your photography skills to grow past a P&S level these are things that should be considered. Soon after buying my S2 I found it's limitations. I took a hit on my relatively new S2 and gear when I sold it last year.

You cause no problem. It just all depends on what you want to do with your camera. For me, after so many years of working way too many hours per week with SLR cameras, it is quite a treat for me to just shoot for fun, with a small light and self contained camera, and still be able to get great quality photos without working so dang hard! I'm tired, dog-gone it! Not to mention, OLD!

JustShootin wrote in post #2708954
=JustShootin';2708954]​You cause no problem. It just all depends on what you want to do with your camera. For me, after so many years of working way too many hours per week with SLR cameras, it is quite a treat for me to just shoot for fun, with a small light and self contained camera, and still be able to get great quality photos without working so dang hard! I'm tired, dog-gone it! Not to mention, OLD!

Great!
Sorry. I can't contain my excitement for my XTi. The XTi is the best thing that's ever happened to my photography.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on the XTi as much as I am trying to warn against buying the sub standard WA and Tele lenses that you will probably not really use. Actually if you just buy one adapter from Lensmate so you could put on a polariser that would be more beneficial. That's what I ended up using more than the other lenses.

Just Be wrote in post #2708818
Is the same backpack that holds my XTi,Canon 70-300 IS lens, Sigma 17-70 lens, 50mm 1.8 lens, 430EX flash plus batteries and filters for a whopping.....
6.14 pounds. I just weighed it.

Granted, the cost factor is more now that I've added gear, but that wasn't my original point. The on camera tele length on the S3 is nice, but adding the WA and tele adapter doesn't give you as much as you think it would in real world useage..

Without trying to be awkward, can I point out that an S3IS with .7 & a 1.7 converters will have a 35mm equiv range of 25-735. With your 17-70 & 75-300, the range will be27-480 which gives you considerably less than you think! For a lot more money too - Something like double the cost and then some. In addition the payload is less than 2lbs versus the 6lbs you have now. 6 lbs doesn't seem much when you pick it up but it is when you carry it all day. I don't know how much a bag of sugar weighs stateside, but in the UK, the standard retail size is 2lbs and I for one don't fancy carrying 3 bags of sugar or their equivalent around all day! It doesn't bear thinking about. I am praying that the S3IS upgrade will be 28mm at the wide end, then I can give serious thought to toting one around regularly and leaving the dslr gathering dust. I'm eagerly awaiting the pro reviews of the Olympus SP550, because Lawrence Ripshers review suggests that the laws of physics have been amended and the IQ is pretty good. From the few shots he has done it would appear that the barrel distortion at 28 mm is less than m 17-85IS has at an equivalent FL!

It may weigh 2 pounds without a bag and accessories. I was quite proud of the weight of my backpack at 5 pounds with my S2 and lenses etc.

At only 1.16 pounds more I'll take my new set up over that any day. Packing a small back pack is no big deal, if it's a high quality bag. I carried mine all over San Diego Zoo and Sea World last summer and I had no problems with it.

Yes, the focal range is longer with tele adapter on the S3.
If you only care about tele range and not image quality, go for it.
I found that at full zoom on the S2 with the tele adapter it really drops it's low light capability.

Just Be wrote in post #2709022
Great!
I'm not trying to sell anyone on the XTi as much as I am trying to warn against buying the sub standard WA and Tele lenses that you will probably not really use.

Can't speak for the WA, but I have a 1.5 Canon Teleconverter for my S2, and while it's not something I need very often, I find it works very well when I do use it.

Just Be wrote in post #2709218
It may weigh 2 pounds without a bag and accessories. I was quite proud of the weight of my backpack at 5 pounds with my S2 and lenses etc.

At only 1.16 pounds more I'll take my new set up over that any day. Packing a small back pack is no big deal, if it's a high quality bag. I carried mine all over San Diego Zoo and Sea World last summer and I had no problems with it.

Yes, the focal range is longer with tele adapter on the S3.
If you only care about tele range and not image quality, go for it.
I found that at full zoom on the S2 with the tele adapter it really drops it's low light capability.

Your maths are a bit iffy to say the least!. The S3IS weighs 1lb 3 ozs. My 400D + 17-85 weighs 3lbs alone. A 70-300IS weighs another 1lb 7ozs, giving a total of 4lb 7ozs or 3lb 4ozs more. Where in heavens name does 1.16lbs more come from? Weight aside, the last thing I want to do on a hot humid day is carry a backpack. Yes, Ill get better IQ from a dslr, thats why I own one, not to mention several lenses, but the prospect of a very light all rounder thats 95% as good is very tempting for all but the geekiest of pixel peepers.

Saudidave wrote in post #2709553
but the prospect of a very light all rounder thats 95% as good is very tempting for all but the geekiest of pixel peepers.

Dang, sure wish I would have thought of that!

Saudidave wrote in post #2709553
Your maths are a bit iffy to say the least!. The S3IS weighs 1lb 3 ozs. My 400D + 17-85 weighs 3lbs alone. A 70-300IS weighs another 1lb 7ozs, giving a total of 4lb 7ozs or 3lb 4ozs more. Where in heavens name does 1.16lbs more come from? Weight aside, the last thing I want to do on a hot humid day is carry a backpack. Yes, Ill get better IQ from a dslr, thats why I own one, not to mention several lenses, but the prospect of a very light all rounder thats 95% as good is very tempting for all but the geekiest of pixel peepers.

All I know is that my bag weighed 5lbs with the S2, WA converter, Tele converter, three adapters, batteries and filters.

My new set up in the exact same back pack weighs 6.16. That's how I arrived at 1.6 more.

The 17-85 lens weighs 2 lbs, not 3, but then that's not a "kit" lens. My Sigma 17-70 only wieghs half that. My 70-300 IS weighs less than 2 lbs.

The XTi comes with the 18-50 lens as the kit lens which weighs 1 lb.

The total weight of the XTi with a kit lens is only 2lbs according to Amazon.com.

The S2 weighs 14.6 oz. Add an adapter an either tele or WA converter and your very near the 2lb weight of the XTi with a kit lens.

Yes, carrying a bag can give you a sweaty back, if you don't take it off once in awhile. But again, these issues don't bother me as much as the quality of the images and capability of the camera.

...and just think, all Ted wanted was some advice as to what size filter adapter to purchase for his new S3!