@Karl090 wrote:
@hsbn wrote:
Does anyone find the Canon pricing practice with the filter is strange?
The adapter and filter are $300. But the filter by itself is $280.
It doesn't come with a clear filter, so you'd have to use the polarizer all the time or pay $130 for the option of not using the filter.
Does anyone have any alternative? Thank you.
One of the biggest frustrations when shooting landscapes has to do with lack of color. Due to the fact that sunlight gets bounced all over the atmosphere and objects present in a landscape, eventually making its way into your camera at specific angles, many photographs end up looking bland and lifeless. A quick way to reduce such reflections is to use a polarizing filter. Once attached to the front of a lens and rotated to a particular angle, it is capable of cutting out most of the reflected light in a scene, instantly enhancing resulting photographs by increasing color saturation and contrast.
Yes, but ...
A polarizing filter is far from a panacea. How much of the unwanted sunlight can be filtered out depends on the angle at which the sunlight meets the lens (angle of incidence), and in shooting landscapes you rarely get much of a choice over that angle. (You can wait for the sun to move, but the feasibility of that tactic is limited.) Moreover, if the lens has any wide-angle capability, different parts of the sky will have different angles of incidence, which means that they will be affected differently by the filter. A polarizing filter is a useful tool; but like most tools, you have to know when and where to use it.
Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA
