17-55/2.8 = no need for a circular polarized filter...

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Candidcameraman, Jul 26, 2007.

  1. I was thinking I would need to get a circular polarized filter for the 17-55 however this picture made me think, well maybe I don't need one after all, look at that beautiful blue sky :smile:

    I know I'll eventually get one for the 85/1.4 as far as the 17-55 is concerned I don't think it will be neccessary.

    17-55c.
     
  2. I agree - the contrast on the 17-55/2.8 is awesome! Personally I've never been a fan of 'polarized' skies but I'm probably in the minority there.
     
  3. jeremyInMT

    jeremyInMT Guest

    A blue sky is an easy thing to do in post-processing. The circular polarizer's main task is to reduce glare.
     
  4. Cope

    Cope

    Apr 5, 2007
    Houston, Texas
    If you were taking a picture through a glass window, or on the water, you would need a CP, and no amount of PP will replace it for that purpose. Nice shot BTW.
     
  5. Jonathan P.

    Jonathan P.

    177
    Jul 10, 2007
    Appalachia
    I love my 17-55mm f/2.8, but I still consider a CP to be mandatory most of the time.
     
  6. SP77

    SP77

    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    It all depends on the scene and conditions of course. Replace the building with a tree line and a ton of incidentiary (sp?) light shooting off of the leaves in every which direction and you might have had drastically different results.

    18-55 without CP:
    [​IMG]


    18-55 with CP:
    [​IMG]
     
  7. I couldn't live without my polarizer. It's the only accessory that's always with me.
     
  8. chrisnck

    chrisnck

    27
    Jul 19, 2007
    mass
    I wouldn't shoot with out one
     
Loading...