Excellent 'result' Roger - I paid more than that for the hood and polariser
alone. It's a good lesson in searching out spelling errors. Did I tell you
about my $100 24/3.5 ZiUko Shift? (I am still diligently keeping an eye out
for it!)
Yes, several have said that using a polariser on a super wide is not ideal,
because it only polarises a band of the sky, and the coverage of a super
wide extends beyond the band, and you can see the difference. The theory
sounds valid to me - BUT I have never seen the effect on my 17/2.5 *perhaps*
because it is a circular polariser with which the polarising effect is less
marked.
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Roger D. Key
Sent: 07 April 2004 11:39
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Tamron SP 17mm f3.5
I have just won one of these on UK eBay for 75GBP (138USD). It turned out to
be the later model (151B9) without inbuilt filters, but came with the
expensive hood, and an 82mm polarising filter. In great condition too. The
eBay ad was without a photo, rather poorly described in the title, and
seller with a feedback of 1!
I already have the earlier model (51B); has anyone done a comparison of the
two versions? I do not expect to keep both, but I will try a somewhat
unscientific comparison of my own. The polarising filter sounds useful, but
I seem to remember that someone said that you get funny effects with
super-wideangle lenses.
Any comments welcome.
Roger Key
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe:
mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|