Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Problems With Soft Lenses - A Lesson For All?  
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11360 posts, RR: 50
Posted (7 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4745 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There was recently a thread about "soft" lenses
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...tion_photography/read.main/190603/

I posted some comments about my Nikkor 80-400VR being a bit soft (Royal said same thing), and having spent a few hours at AMS and had some cracking images effectively rendered useless because they're too soft, I decided to investigate the issue. Having run off dozens of test shots with identical camera settings, I have reached the following earth-shattering conclusion.

GET THE BEST FILTERS MONEY CAN BUY!  dollarsign 

I know it seems obvious, and it's totally in line with my general belief (you get what you pay for), but sometimes the temptation to save a few £s when you've just shelled out £1K for a lens is just too great. This is especially true when the filters are large, and not inexpensive.

The full story - I traded in my Sigma 170-500 for the Nikkor 80-400VR at Jessops (no problem and they gave me a reasonable deal). The Sigma had a Hoya UV(0) on which didn't fit any of my other lenses, so the salesman agreed he'd 'give' me a UV filter for my new Nikkor if I left the Hoya on the Sigma. He said they didn't have a Hoya in the required size, but gave me a Jessops one, promising me they were actually sourced from Hoya.

Having shot at lots of places, and finding the images generally soft, I was becoming totally fed up with this lens. Compared with my Nikkor 70-200VR (same price range), it was a pile of poo. However, in a moment of clarity, I considered that a £1K lens really shouldn't be as bad as this one seemed to be. Hence the testing.

The testing results were simply stunning!  banghead  I'll share three small crops from full images with you (all from about 25m at 400mm with VR on):

No filter:


Jessops filter:


Hoya filter from 70-200 (coincidently same size):


So there you have it! My one piece of advice to anyone investing substantial £s in a new lens is simply - buy the best filter you can get. There's no point in spending your hard-earned dosh on a decent lens and fitting a crap filter. For all the good that Jessops filter has done, I might as well have smeared Vaseline on the front of the lens.

I'm off down the shops to buy an expensive 77mm filter, and I'm looking forward to some sharp shots the next time I go shooting. Suggestions as to a suitable fate for the crappy Jessops filter are welcome!  tombstone 


Four more years!
8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4731 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Thread starter):
Suggestions as to a suitable fate for the crappy Jessops filter are welcome!

They make good coasters, or conversation pieces.

On a serious note, that's an interesting observation, and there is a clear, clear difference in the examples.

Now all I need is a filter that actually makes my 18-55 sharper  Smile

Cheers


James


more like polishmig29s.net am I rite
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4719 times:

Steve,

Your images really do highlight that if you are going to use a filter then make sure it is a quality one! Glad you got to the bottom of the issue with soft images.

Just hope you didn't park there for more than an hour or you could have got a photo of your ticket from Surrey county council Big grin

Cheers

Ben Pritchard

User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11360 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LGW (Reply 2):
Your images really do highlight that if you are going to use a filter then make sure it is a quality one!

For me, this episode is forcing me to rethink the whole "always have a filter on" question. Even with the expensive Hoya filter, there is a small loss of image quality.

I've always followed the school of thought that says it's better to damage a £50 filter than a £1K lens. But if the protection is screwing up your images? I'm not so sure.


Four more years!
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4714 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I dont have a filter on my 80-400, so sadly that is not the issue with my example.

I always use B+W filters.

User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 4695 times:

Jeez why did this thread not come up earlier. I wonder if this was the problem with my 300 L. The test images above look very familier !!!!

Im amazed at the difference between the non filter and even the hoya !!!

When i get me new 400 L (which is now on order) im sure going to check the results with and without the filter...

Cheers for the heads up  Smile


Simon C


Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineLHRsunriser From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 399 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 4692 times:

Lol I can't believe you are in the same position as me.

Since christmas I have been shooting with some shocking filter from TFS and I was getting tonnes of rejections.

Thanks to Simon Nicholls, I am reborn and so is my 75-300 lol. Still rubbish but  Smile

Cheers Si


Getting back into it
User currently offlinePhotopilot From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2439 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 4666 times:

From my experience, nothing beats a genuine Nikon L37C UV filter for each of my lenses. Yes they cost more, but there's simply no substitute for quality and sharpness as has just been demonstrated above.

User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1044 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4575 times:

I had that exact issue with a polarizer which also was 77mm.
On the 100-400 it was ok out to 200mm but anything beyond it just became softer and softer.
No good at all and had to be swapped.
What was amazing was the amount of convincingthe guys in the shop need to wake up to the problem.
Darren


2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
For Those Who Had Problems With Delius Producing posted Wed Feb 15 2006 22:49:13 by Kaddyuk
Need Help With Canon Lenses For 300D posted Fri Jan 2 2004 10:29:29 by Spotterboy
For All You Pentax Users New K10D! posted Thu Sep 14 2006 00:53:47 by RomeoKC10FE
Nikon D70S RAW (NEF) Problems With CS2? posted Thu Aug 31 2006 00:15:19 by Ghost77
New Monitor Causes Problems With Sharpening posted Fri Aug 4 2006 02:19:18 by 777MechSys
Could Anybody Help Me With A Soft Rejection? posted Mon Jul 31 2006 20:22:55 by Aero145
Problems With Nikon 70-200VR posted Mon Jun 12 2006 09:55:48 by Beechcraft
Any Problems With This Upload? Motive? posted Mon Apr 17 2006 02:24:59 by TUNisia
Experience With Canon Lenses posted Sat Mar 25 2006 18:52:31 by TACAA320
I Fear Too Many Problems With This Photo... posted Fri Nov 4 2005 03:09:24 by Silver1SWA