Moose wrote:
> Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
>> ... The hood went rather cheap and seems it will stay in England.
>> I tend to convince myself that I don't need one, because it would make
>> me difficult to use my polarizer when the hood is clamped on.
> Sorry that excuse isn't good enough. :-) The 21/3.5 hood is shallow
> enough that it is easy to adjust a polarizer with the hood mounted.
> also, as a slip-on hood that clamps to the front of the lens itself, it
> doesn't move the filter forward, which would certainly cause vignetting.
ouch ... ouch ... ouch ... :(
>
> Mounting both polarizer and hood could be difficult,
yes I know about this, it makes mounting my Tamron linear pol. almost
impossible after the 135/4.5 hood has been already put into place.
my 49mm linear pol. in a thin Olympus original, and lets the 50 - 35/2.8
hood clamp into place with no difficulties.
no vignetting of course.
>
>
> I do think, however, that post processing is a generally better way to
> control sky color with super wide lenses than a polarizer, which
> generally has an uneven effect.
I'm very familiar with your point of view on polarizers, Moose, but I
sometimes find that the uneven effect on sky color is just what I was
looking for.
will upload an example, 'though I should be studying for a small
conference on 'resilience' - I am now convinced that Bill's idea to help
Walt has serious supporting evidence, both empirical and theoretical.
<http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=606464930&size=o>
>
> Moose
Fernando.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|