sblitz Posted March 16, 2011 Share #1 Posted March 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) have read a number of threads regarding the quality of the lens and questions regarding the m9 (rangefinders in general) and polarizing filters. photo below is meant to answer both questions -- it is a wonderful lens and the filter works fine. photo is not meant to be anything more than a personal vacation memory. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/146478-zeiss-biogon-21mm-f28-polarizing-filter/?do=findComment&comment=1617397'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Hi sblitz, Take a look here zeiss biogon 21mm f2.8 + polarizing filter. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted March 20, 2011 Share #2 Posted March 20, 2011 I agree. One caution: Because of the wide field of view of a 21mm lens, the polarising effect (being angle-dependent) will vary across the field. This would have been visible in the picture – different tone of sky blue in different parts of the picture – if you had used the landscape format. Now it's negligible. So normally, I don't use a polariser on a lens much shorter than 35mm. But if it's OK with you, it's OK. The old man from the Kodachrome Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted March 21, 2011 good point lars, thanks for noting. i am actually very happy with this lens considering how little i use it vs my 35 and 50 and so with that the zeiss is a bargain against the cost of leica. to take a page from your book -- i am the old man from the days of kodachrome ii -- asa 25 for those too young to know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted March 21, 2011 Share #4 Posted March 21, 2011 As you have certainly noted, the blue sky at high elevations is usually of a far deeper blue than closer to the horizon. So even with a 24/25mm lens, which I use as my regular wide angle lens (to me, the 35 is really a "short standard lens") the summer sky is plenty blue, even without a polarizer. If on the other hand with a really wide lens, you use a polarizer to reduce reflections on a water or glasss surface e.g. that stretches across the field of view, you can often get some quite weird effects ... As you see in the picture you showed us, the sky is paler close to the horizon than close to zenith. Low elevation light is more dispersed (by dry or wet haze) than zenital light, because it has a longer path through the atmosphere. In addition, this dispersion reduces polarization, so that a pola filter get less "traction" and shows less effect. The old man from the Kodachrome (period, c. 1936) Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 21, 2011 Share #5 Posted March 21, 2011 The image has a bit of a color cast - magenta? If you balance correctly (the sand would be a good guideline), the sky color will be even more pleasing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted March 21, 2011 Share #6 Posted March 21, 2011 But if it's OK with you, it's OK. The old man from the Kodachrome Age Hi Lars I seem to recall that the fash in '60-65 was heavily polarised wide angle shots, must get a pola for my 15 and 12mms... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share #7 Posted March 21, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) thanks for hint on the white balance. sometimes these photos in their full array look better in capture one than when they become sRGB jpegs, but i will give it a shot. also, i kept the photo untouched except for cropping out my toe so people could see a raw cut of what the lens and filter can do without the processing. but like i wrote, thanks for the hint and i will give it a shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pes084k1 Posted March 23, 2011 Share #8 Posted March 23, 2011 As you have certainly noted, the blue sky at high elevations is usually of a far deeper blue than closer to the horizon. So even with a 24/25mm lens, which I use as my regular wide angle lens (to me, the 35 is really a "short standard lens") the summer sky is plenty blue, even without a polarizer. If on the other hand with a really wide lens, you use a polarizer to reduce reflections on a water or glasss surface e.g. that stretches across the field of view, you can often get some quite weird effects ... As you see in the picture you showed us, the sky is paler close to the horizon than close to zenith. Low elevation light is more dispersed (by dry or wet haze) than zenital light, because it has a longer path through the atmosphere. In addition, this dispersion reduces polarization, so that a pola filter get less "traction" and shows less effect. The old man from the Kodachrome (period, c. 1936) Age Just a few hours after sunrise, these effects can be dreadful (or amazing) with a well-saturated Velvia film. Elio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.