What's with the 67 filter craze?

The following short zooms have appeared recently, all with =F867 filter
thread. However very few long lenses are available for matching filters.
Canon offers the 70-200/4 but it lacks IS and bokeh isn't wonderful.
I'm not aware of anything in the Nikon line (but =F872 was once common).
Pentax has two choices, but it's a long ways between 90 and 200mm.

What explains the popularity of this new filter size?


Canon 17-85/4-5.6 USM EFS 475g 92mm $500 35cm =F867
Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX 390g 76mm $350 38cm =F867
Nikon 24-85/3.5-4.5 AFS G 415g 73mm $325 38cm =F867
Pentax 16-45/4 AL ED DA 365g 92mm $ 28cm =F867
Pentax 18-35/4-5.6 AL J 190g 69mm $ 28cm =F867
Pentax 24-90mm f3.5-4.5 355g 75mm $400 50cm =F867
Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di 510g 88mm $330 33cm =F867

Canon 70-200/4.0 L USM 705g 172mm $900 120cm =F867
Pentax 200mm f4 FA 1:1 macro ?g ?mm $1350 cm =F867
Pentax 300mm f4.5 ED IF 935g 160mm $780 200cm =F867
Vivitar 100-400/4.5-6.7 ser1 733g ? $250 198cm =F867

Bill Tuthill wrote:
The following short zooms have appeared recently, all with ø67 filter
thread. However very few long lenses are available for matching filters.

Longer lenses can get away with smaller filters.



What explains the popularity of this new filter size?


67mm is a good compromise IMHO. They aren't much more money then say 58mm
or 62mm but a lot cheaper then the bigger ones. They aren't that big to
carry. OTOH I've got a set of 67mm filters so it appeals to me.

Nick

Bill Tuthill wrote:
The following short zooms have appeared recently, all with ø67 filter
thread. However very few long lenses are available for matching filters.

Longer lenses can get away with smaller filters.



What explains the popularity of this new filter size?


67mm is a good compromise IMHO. They aren't much more money then say 58mm
or 62mm but a lot cheaper then the bigger ones. They aren't that big to
carry. OTOH I've got a set of 67mm filters so it appeals to me.

Nick

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...
The following short zooms have appeared recently, all with ø67 filter
thread. However very few long lenses are available for matching filters.
Canon offers the 70-200/4 but it lacks IS and bokeh isn't wonderful.
I'm not aware of anything in the Nikon line (but ø72 was once common).
Pentax has two choices, but it's a long ways between 90 and 200mm.

That 'gap' is because most of the 'mid-range' focal lengths are able to use
smaller sizes - it is only wide (24mm and less) and long/fast lenses that
really need the bigger sizes.


What explains the popularity of this new filter size?


Canon 17-85/4-5.6 USM EFS 475g 92mm $500 35cm ø67
Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX 390g 76mm $350 38cm ø67
Nikon 24-85/3.5-4.5 AFS G 415g 73mm $325 38cm ø67
Pentax 16-45/4 AL ED DA 365g 92mm $ 28cm ø67
Pentax 18-35/4-5.6 AL J 190g 69mm $ 28cm ø67
Pentax 24-90mm f3.5-4.5 355g 75mm $400 50cm ø67
Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di 510g 88mm $330 33cm ø67

Canon 70-200/4.0 L USM 705g 172mm $900 120cm ø67
Pentax 200mm f4 FA 1:1 macro ?g ?mm $1350 cm ø67
Pentax 300mm f4.5 ED IF 935g 160mm $780 200cm ø67
Vivitar 100-400/4.5-6.7 ser1 733g ? $250 198cm ø67


The size seems to me to have been around for a while, but canikon didn't use
it much (just as they didn't use 49mm). Also, Pentax never much used 62mm
(or 72mm) the only examples being lenses made for them by third parties. So
67mm for them is a good step up from 58mm, and a lot smaller than 77mm...

As well as the Pentaxes listed, the 20mm f2.8 A and FA, 24mm f2 FA*, 85mm
f1.4 A* and FA*, 28-70mm f2.8 FA*, and 35-105mm f3.5 A come to mind. I
think also a couple of the older lenses in the 80-200 range used this size -
and it is the size for my whacky (but incredibly sharp) 400-600 f8-12 K
reflex zoom.

Maybe the other manufacturers have just finally seen the light, ;-)


Peter

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...
The following short zooms have appeared recently, all with ø67 filter
thread. However very few long lenses are available for matching filters.
Canon offers the 70-200/4 but it lacks IS and bokeh isn't wonderful.
I'm not aware of anything in the Nikon line (but ø72 was once common).
Pentax has two choices, but it's a long ways between 90 and 200mm.

That 'gap' is because most of the 'mid-range' focal lengths are able to use
smaller sizes - it is only wide (24mm and less) and long/fast lenses that
really need the bigger sizes.


What explains the popularity of this new filter size?


Canon 17-85/4-5.6 USM EFS 475g 92mm $500 35cm ø67
Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX 390g 76mm $350 38cm ø67
Nikon 24-85/3.5-4.5 AFS G 415g 73mm $325 38cm ø67
Pentax 16-45/4 AL ED DA 365g 92mm $ 28cm ø67
Pentax 18-35/4-5.6 AL J 190g 69mm $ 28cm ø67
Pentax 24-90mm f3.5-4.5 355g 75mm $400 50cm ø67
Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di 510g 88mm $330 33cm ø67

Canon 70-200/4.0 L USM 705g 172mm $900 120cm ø67
Pentax 200mm f4 FA 1:1 macro ?g ?mm $1350 cm ø67
Pentax 300mm f4.5 ED IF 935g 160mm $780 200cm ø67
Vivitar 100-400/4.5-6.7 ser1 733g ? $250 198cm ø67


The size seems to me to have been around for a while, but canikon didn't use
it much (just as they didn't use 49mm). Also, Pentax never much used 62mm
(or 72mm) the only examples being lenses made for them by third parties. So
67mm for them is a good step up from 58mm, and a lot smaller than 77mm...

As well as the Pentaxes listed, the 20mm f2.8 A and FA, 24mm f2 FA*, 85mm
f1.4 A* and FA*, 28-70mm f2.8 FA*, and 35-105mm f3.5 A come to mind. I
think also a couple of the older lenses in the 80-200 range used this size -
and it is the size for my whacky (but incredibly sharp) 400-600 f8-12 K
reflex zoom.

Maybe the other manufacturers have just finally seen the light, ;-)


Peter

In article ,
Bill Tuthill writes:
What explains the popularity of this new filter size?

Perhaps they are trying to standardise on a popular size. I just hope
that makes them cheaper. My 67mm polariser cost more than I paid for
some of my lenses second-hand.

Pete

--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

In article ,
Bill Tuthill writes:
What explains the popularity of this new filter size?

Perhaps they are trying to standardise on a popular size. I just hope
that makes them cheaper. My 67mm polariser cost more than I paid for
some of my lenses second-hand.

Pete

--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...
The following short zooms have appeared recently, all with ø67 filter
thread. However very few long lenses are available for matching filters.
Canon offers the 70-200/4 but it lacks IS and bokeh isn't wonderful.
I'm not aware of anything in the Nikon line (but ø72 was once common).
Pentax has two choices, but it's a long ways between 90 and 200mm.

What explains the popularity of this new filter size?

Well, for one thing, it happens to fit all the lenses listed below:


Canon 17-85/4-5.6 USM EFS 475g 92mm $500 35cm ø67
Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX 390g 76mm $350 38cm ø67
Nikon 24-85/3.5-4.5 AFS G 415g 73mm $325 38cm ø67
Pentax 16-45/4 AL ED DA 365g 92mm $ 28cm ø67
Pentax 18-35/4-5.6 AL J 190g 69mm $ 28cm ø67
Pentax 24-90mm f3.5-4.5 355g 75mm $400 50cm ø67
Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di 510g 88mm $330 33cm ø67

Canon 70-200/4.0 L USM 705g 172mm $900 120cm ø67
Pentax 200mm f4 FA 1:1 macro ?g ?mm $1350 cm ø67
Pentax 300mm f4.5 ED IF 935g 160mm $780 200cm ø67
Vivitar 100-400/4.5-6.7 ser1 733g ? $250 198cm ø67

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...
The following short zooms have appeared recently, all with ø67 filter
thread. However very few long lenses are available for matching filters.
Canon offers the 70-200/4 but it lacks IS and bokeh isn't wonderful.
I'm not aware of anything in the Nikon line (but ø72 was once common).
Pentax has two choices, but it's a long ways between 90 and 200mm.

What explains the popularity of this new filter size?



It's scarcely a new filter size, my FD mount Vivitar Series 1 70-200 f3.5
used that size, IIRC, or maybe it was my Kiron 70-200...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...
The following short zooms have appeared recently, all with ø67 filter
thread. However very few long lenses are available for matching filters.
Canon offers the 70-200/4 but it lacks IS and bokeh isn't wonderful.
I'm not aware of anything in the Nikon line (but ø72 was once common).
Pentax has two choices, but it's a long ways between 90 and 200mm.

What explains the popularity of this new filter size?



It's scarcely a new filter size, my FD mount Vivitar Series 1 70-200 f3.5
used that size, IIRC, or maybe it was my Kiron 70-200...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com