Zeiss Distagon 18 3.5 ZE

I know I like to use a polarizer for waterfall photography, even that wide.....

jdizzle wrote in post #9204095
I was kidding of course. The 17 ts-e is a stellar lens but, I don't need it atm. The downside to this lens is that I can't use filters on it(17 ts-e).

tsdevine wrote in post #9204708
I know I like to use a polarizer for waterfall photography, even that wide.....

A little tilt and/or shift go a long way to getting around not being able to use a polarizer, something many people do not realize ....

Other filters you can use handheld, if need be, provided they are large enough. I still need to experiment a little, been to busy with work to do that yet. In two weeks time I have a little more time on my hands ...

Kind regards, Wim

rdenney wrote in post #9204177
What filters would you need? This lens is too wide to make much use of a polarizer, and any other filtration effects can be applied in post-processing.

Rick "who wishes Wim would STOP talking about that 17 TS-E already!" Denney

Ah, Rick, you don't know yet what you are missing ....

Kind regards, Wim

rdenney wrote in post #9204177
What filters would you need? This lens is too wide to make much use of a polarizer, and any other filtration effects can be applied in post-processing.

Rick "who wishes Wim would STOP talking about that 17 TS-E already!" Denney

You can't mimic the polarisation effect in PP.

argyle wrote in post #9204397
Well, knowing Julian, he has all those cool little toys from Singh-Ray that he'd like to keep using on occasion.

Exactly! It would be a sin to not use all my Singh Ray filters.

wimg wrote in post #9206540


A little tilt and/or shift go a long way to getting around not being able to use a polarizer, something many people do not realize ....

Other filters you can use handheld, if need be, provided they are large enough. I still need to experiment a little, been to busy with work to do that yet. In two weeks time I have a little more time on my hands ...

Kind regards, Wim

To be honest, you can't mimic polarisation in post. So, how would you reduce glare on shiny objects like rocks/foliage? I would love to see some samples with shots from a waterfall/coastal landscapes on the 17 ts-e. Please post a sample if this is possible. Thanks!

jdizzle wrote in post #9206873
Exactly! It would be a sin to not use all my Singh Ray filters.

you got hands....don't you ?

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #9206902
you got hands....don't you ?

ed rader

I do. But, there are times when I don't feel like handholding a filter.

jdizzle wrote in post #9206892
To be honest, you can't mimic polarisation in post. So, how would you reduce glare on shiny objects like rocks/foliage? I would love to see some samples with shots from a waterfall/coastal landscapes on the 17 ts-e. Please post a sample if this is possible. Thanks!

You can get rid of some of the glare by using shift .

Not all, no, that's true. I wonder whether that is really possible with a CPL on a UWA, anyway.

Kind regards, Wim

Well, I do a lot of waterfall photography and you can see the impact of the polarizer even through the VF. I don't notice the unevenness that you would see in a shot with blue sky for example. Is it there??? I guess I can't prove it isn't there, but if you can't really notice it, then I would say it's not that big of an issue. It would be like saying using graduated NDs is bad because it causes uneven exposure. I agree for shots with a blue sky, you have to be carefull. In general I have to shoot portrait orientation on the wide end if I want to try to use a polarizer with a UWA.

Here are a couple of waterfall shots taken at 16-18mm range (with a 16-35 II), and ND6 and a Singh-Ray LB Polarizer.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

You either need t/s or you dont simple as that. Saying that t/s will substitute the use of a polarizer is like saying to a interior photographer to use a pol filter when he wants to t/s...

One has nothing to do with the other.

MR do little wrote in post #9208042
You either need t/s or you dont simple as that. Saying that t/s will substitute the use of a polarizer is like saying to a interior photographer to use a pol filter when he wants to t/s...

One has nothing to with the other.

Just in case you are replying to me, which is unclear:

Of course it doesn't.

However, by using shift you can avoid some reflections and/or glare. That's all.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #9207686
You can get rid of some of the glare by using shift .

Not all, no, that's true. I wonder whether that is really possible with a CPL on a UWA, anyway.

Kind regards, Wim

LOL! I'd like to believe that but, you can't reduce glare without a CPL.
We all know what CPL filters do and I'm not gonna give an explanation how that works but, you just can't mimic this effect in PP.

I don't want to stray from the topic of the Zeiss but, here's a sample of a filter stack I used during my trip to Cambria, Cali. I used the Canon 16-35 II, Singh Ray Color Combo and handheld a Singh Ray 3 stop Reverse GND. You can see that it reduced glare in the water and the rocks. You can't do this in PP. Filters are a mainstay in my landscape photography and there has to be a way where I can at least use a filter holder(to hold a 4x4 Lee CPL) on the 17 ts-e. I don't have a problem with holding a GND in front since I'm pretty good at it. It's just how I work.

tsdevine wrote in post #9208017
Well, I do a lot of waterfall photography and you can see the impact of the polarizer even through the VF. I don't notice the unevenness that you would see in a shot with blue sky for example. Is it there??? I guess I can't prove it isn't there, but if you can't really notice it, then I would say it's not that big of an issue. It would be like saying using graduated NDs is bad because it causes uneven exposure. I agree for shots with a blue sky, you have to be carefull. In general I have to shoot portrait orientation on the wide end if I want to try to use a polarizer with a UWA.

Here are a couple of waterfall shots taken at 16-18mm range (with a 16-35 II), and ND6 and a Singh-Ray LB Polarizer.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

I realize there are tradeoffs, obviously I can't to tilt and shift.....so it comes down to what's important for the type of photography you do.

-Tim

Agreed with your points Tim. You can see the reduction of glare in the water.

wimg wrote in post #9208727
Just in case you are replying to me, which is unclear:

Of course it doesn't.

However, by using shift you can avoid some reflections and/or glare. That's all.

Kind regards, Wim

If you get the chance, I'd like to see a sample. Otherwise, I'm not convinced.