Richard Schaetzl wrote:
>Disadvantage: Olympus polarizer are IMHO not coated,
This is not as serious as with some other filters, since you are likely to
be at 90degrees to the light source when using it (and all good Zuiks use
lens hoods... don't you?). I have the OM polariser in 49mm and it's great.
It's thinner than a normal Hoya filter, and a little over half the thickness
of the B+W polariser. Gorgeous. Both appear to be similarly coated, and the
B+W is a little more opaque to the untrained eye.
>Olympus filters are sometimes difficult to obtain and if available on
>occasion ridiculously high priced.
It depends where you shop. I've bought secondhand coloured (81-series, b&w)
Olympus filters for around £5, the polariser was about £12, both from a
dealer (MXV) and appeared like new. Others push the price up because of the
brand - I've seen secondhand Oly 49mm filters for £20-25. New ones from Jaap
Korten cost me less than that. B+W are sometimes overpriced too, with the
"cut from flat blanks of Schott glass" hype.
Also, brands are no guarantee of optical performance. Gary Reese may comment
here - he has tested different brands before and IIRC found that no one name
had a distinct advantage.
Simon E.
< 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 >
|