Very interesting wide shot but my wife would love a fisheye for that job,
people look slimmer at the edges with fisheye :-)
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hudson"
> the 7-14 digital zoom does nicely without a polarizer.
>
> It also does very well capturing one's spouse, one's shoes and the scenery
> up ahead on Prince Edward Island!
>
> See here:
>
> http://www.johnhudsonphoto.com/957.html
>
> jh
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Lazzari"
>> >
>>> I'm of the opinion that using polarizers for the typical darkening of
>>> skies
>>> with lenses wider than about 35mm is a fools errand, as the effect is
>>> uneven. If that's your goal, get graduated ND filters.
>>>
>> I agree. I've ruined more than a few by cranking up the polarizer effect
>> too much. It's an addiction. However I think one can go down to 24mm
>> with a polarizer if you are careful. Beyond 24mm it depends upon the
>> lens. The Zuiko 18mm for example doesn't need a polarizer as it has
>> plenty of contrast as does the 16mm. The 21 less which is why I tend to
>> skip over it in favor of the 18mm when going from the 24mm. I'm not
>> saying the 21mm is bad however. Also for me it would seem
>> counterintuitive to stick a big piece of flat glass in front of a highly
>> curved surface. I have no proof but it's gotta be asking for trouble.
>>
>> Second comment: If you plan on shooting architectural interiors go with
>> 18mm. Don't worry about a small sacrifice in brightness. A tripod takes
>> care of that.
>>
>> Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|