Simon Evans schrieb:
>
> 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?).
That's the reason why I use the Olympus polarizer.
But I _feel_ better with an very good coated filter, they are visualy
more transparent (even if I have dificulties to see the diference on
the slides).
> 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.
B+W, Heliopan and Hoya have comparable slim polarizers, _but_without_
the front thread.
> >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,
Ordinary Olympus filter seems to be more common.
> the polariser was about £12, both from a
> dealer (MXV) and appeared like new.
Your lucky, I looked for more than a year in camera shows and at
camera shops and had no luck.
A fellow list member was so nice to provide me with a set of 49mm and
55mm.
> Others push the price up because of the
> brand
Olympus filter seems to have no special reputation in Germany, even
the special properties of the polarizer are not well regarded.
> B+W are sometimes overpriced too,
Depends were you shop, I've the impression photo shops make the most
profit with accessory like filters.
Hoya has now started to market their Filters in Germany under their
own brand, they are priced like the ones of Heliopan or B+W, no reason
to think the German Brands are relativly overpriced.
My impression is that Japanese OEM filters are sometimes much more
expensive than the most expensive B+W or Heliopan filter. For example,
one pays for an N*k*n polarizer in 72mm diameter aproximatly 450DM,
225EUR ~ 230US$, and those Nikon filters are neither coated nor of the
flattness "Käsemann" type filters provide.
> with the
> "cut from flat blanks of Schott glass" hype.
That's crap, the B+W catalog shows how cyinders are drilled out of the
Schott glass and the cylinder are cut into thin discs, polished and
coated by B+W.
Interesting is that the Hoya cataloge shows how the liquid glass for
the filters is pressed into round forms.
> Also, brands are no guarantee of optical performance.
But I would hesitate to screw in an no name filter. B+W and Heliopan
claim to check the flattness of their filters with interferiometers.
> Gary Reese may comment
> here - he has tested different brands before and IIRC found that no one name
> had a distinct advantage.
Used filters can be damaged in a way one wont notice. If the glass is
set under pressure, maybe the frame is bent after impact, the glass
can be bent and wraped in a very slight way not noticeable for the
unaided eye but affecting the lens performance.
Happy new year
Richard
< 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 >
|