>> >btw, I assume filters could be a bit tricky with the 21/3.5. Will a
>>standard
>> >Hoya 49mm PL work or must I use ultra slim filters?
>>
>> I am using Hoya polarizers, and find there is some fall-off in the corners
>> on the 21/3.5... I
>> can email JPEGs if interested.
>
>Sure, I'd love to see a few examples...
Well, now that I've written that, I can't find any examples that don't have
a different reason for light fall-off -- a polarizer. The 21mm is so wide,
that when you use a polarizer with it, the polarizer has different effects
in different parts of the frame. I've now gone to "polarizerless" shooting
for panoramas because of this.
An example is <http://www.bytesmiths.com/photos/CoopersSpurPanorama.jpg>.
This was shot with the 21/3.5 in portrait, with 13 separate shots, scanned
in, then stitched together using PhotoVista. I adjusted the polarizer for
each shot. The 21 was set for hyperfocus. This was at about 8,000 feet
elevation, about 3,200 feet short of the summit of Mount Hood, about 2,000
feet above the timberline, about 4,000 feet above the surrounding forest.
There are other Cascade volcanoes in the distance, really, illustrating my
earlier point that the distance "goes away" in a lens this wide. Another
thing you don't realize: the peak subtends at least 70 degrees in real life
at that location, dominating the scene, but looks rather far away with the
21! You can clearly see the banding in the corners when the shots are
stitched together.
I'll continue looking for some non-polarizer shots with the 21 that show
light fall-off, but the polarizer might be responsible for my entire bias
at this point!
: Jan Steinman <mailto:jans@xxxxxxxxxxx>
: 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068-1331 USA
: +1.503.635.3229
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|
