Current thinking at my department is to perhaps invest in the new
Zeiss manual focus 21mm Nikon mount wide angle. This is reputed to be
one of the better pieces of glass around, and I believe it will meet
my wider-than-24 needs well. The other lens in contention is the Nikon
14-24, which, like the similar Zuiko, has one of those incredible bowl
front elements that defy filters. The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be a
true wonder, especially in the distortion department, but then so is
the Zeiss 21, which touts architectural shots as one of its strong
points. (Yes, I know there's an 18 from Zeiss, but it's a 3.5 and the
21 is a true 2.8. Besides, 18 seems a little extreme for my stuff, but
then never having tried it . . .)
Which brings me closer to the question. I have a circular polarizer
for the 24-70, and I'm not afraid to use it. But I've also noticed
that the wider the shot, the more likely the polarizer is to fade out,
leaving a part of the sky a rich blue, and the rest of it, well, not
so much. (Unless you're dead-on 90 degrees from the sun.)
Example: http://www.bwp33.com/page5/files/page5-1000-full.jpg
Seems like it would be even worse on a 21. The Zeiss 21 will take a
polarizer, but I'm wondering if it would be worth buying. I know some
of you folks have much wider lenses than I do, and so it seemed the
logical place to bring up questions of value when it comes to
polarizers and extreme wide angle lenses.
Thanx! (And sorry for actually talking about photography. I promise
not to do it again for a while.)
--Bob "Lots of Wide, Very Few Angles" Whitmire
www.bwp33.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
