> Hehe... I saw that too and I was thinking exactly what you're thinking. I
> mean, these are supposed to be professionals, but very often do they not
> use the hood. It seems a little odd to me. And what's the deal with the
> *reversed* hood? I noticed he'd taken it off in another shot, but still...
I missed the episode but wonder if there was a polarizer on the lens? I
find it hard to "polarize" with a hood on.
Hm, there was some talk about polarizers. He might have been using
a polarizer on the lens when he had the hood reversed (I think it was a
70-200/2.8L he used, but I'm not sure). Other times I've seen them using
the 17-35/2.8L, also without hood and most likely without a polarizer.
Yes, I agree that using the polarizer with a hood can be difficult, if not
almost impossible, especially if the hood is very deep, as it is with the
70-200/2.8L I manage fine with the 28-105, though.
- Marius
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
