That is a lovely shot, Bob. You're bound to lose polarisation, surely
as the point of view in the scene moves off the 90deg to the sun. In
a narrower angle of view there is less space (fewer angles) for this
to happen.
But that sky looks great.
Chris
On 11 Apr 2009, at 17:23, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>
> 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.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
