On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:30:40 GMT, "Bill Farnsworth" wrote:

> I wouldn't say that it would be a problem using two step down rings
>between then lens and the filter to save the cost of buying another filter.
>It's really not much different than using a square or rectangular filter in
>a matte box.
>So I gotta agree with David, as far as that's concerned.
>
> But, as Jeff points out, that just as in using large filters in a matte
>box, the potential for flare or double imaging is increased when the large
>filter is attached to the smaller lens barrel. This is especially true if
>the lens has a very short focal length, (wide angle), the quality of the
>filter is less than superior and a light source is spilling onto the filter.
>Professional matte boxes have accommodations for eyebrows and siders (flags)
>for this very reason. So I would think that James would only have to be
>aware that the potential for flare is there, and just be prepared to use a
>French flag on his camera when he has both rings attached.
>And you really should own a french flag anyway.

I originally took the original post to be a question
about whether a 52mm filter should be mounted with
one stepping ring, or would two rings be OK (increasing
the spacing between the filter and the lens...).
Upon rereading it, I realize I read it wrong when I
answered it - it was a question more about if the
larger size of the filter would be a problem...;-)
My experience with doing just this (using 52mm
filters on 30mm-threaded camcorder lenses) shows
me that this has little effect on flare, ghosting, or
other potential problems so long as the filter quality
is good and gross reflection problems are not present.
Using a good shade (in whatever form) is always a good
idea, but under most conditions the result of not
using one are often the same as using one - and when
there is a problem noted, a well-placed hand can serve
as a "flag", keeping the compact camera compact and
easy to pack...;-)