Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 100-400mm Is Lens Filter Help  
User currently offlineDavejwatts From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 42 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5716 times:

Just bought a Canon 100-400mm IS lens, and was wondering what sort of filter would be best to protect the end of the lens? As in the past I bought a cheapish lens filter which made shots not as sharp as photos taken without the filter. Any help would be greatly appreciated

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMrk25 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 225 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5708 times:

Forget the filter and spend the money on insurance instead. I wasted £50 or thereabouts on filter. There has been many a discussion on this subject and most would go with no filter.

User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5703 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just go with a B+W, expensive but the very best.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5703 times:

Yep no filter .. but always use your lens hood.


G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5695 times:

Quoting Mrk25 (Reply 1):
Forget the filter and spend the money on insurance instead. I wasted £50 or thereabouts on filter. There has been many a discussion on this subject and most would go with no filter.

I used to use them a few years ago but not anymore, though they do make very good, but expensive coasters Big grin If you really must have one then either B&W, never used them so can't comment on the quality, or the Sigma ones and they are OK. The only one I use now is the Sigma EX Circular Polarizer.

Insurance is vital. It amazies me that some photographers can lug around such high value equipment and not one bit of it is insured against theft or accidental damage.

Take care

Fergul  sun 



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can't really comment on quality difference but all my shots on a.net are taken with filters on the lenses, no problems with sharpness or anything.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineOpso1 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 527 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5683 times:

I use a skylight filter on mine- what are the problems that the rest of you have found?

OPSO1


User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5667 times:

Quoting Opso1 (Reply 6):
what are the problems that the rest of you have found

Better quality photos! But that is just my opinion!

Fergul  sun 



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineCarlos From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 225 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5659 times:

I use a HOYA UV (0) Filter and I don't have any problems with it. I'm sure, you'll not see any differences in sharpness with or without the filter.

Greetings
Klaus


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5656 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 5):
I can't really comment on quality difference but all my shots on a.net are taken with filters on the lenses, no problems with sharpness or anything.

I wouldn't say images with a filter are 'soft', but when using a 70-200 F4 with a 30 Euro Hoya filter, I did notice a difference at the long end, especially with an extender. Pushing the limits of the optics (as an extender does) removing what is basically another layer of glass from the the front did help the quality on the long shots versus those with the filter attached.

Next Time I'm out I'll take some comparison shots and hopefully you can see what I mean.

James

[Edited 2007-07-04 17:15:45]


It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5652 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't have a comparison but this was shot with a 100-400 +1.4x and a 70 euro B+W filter. Stretching optics to the max I think it came out very well and probably would not have looked better without a filter. Not trying to start an endless debate here, just saying that if there's a quality difference at all it's probably too small to really affect image quality.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim de Groot - AirTeamImages



Tim

[Edited 2007-07-04 17:22:01]


Alderman Exit
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5625 times:

Don't waste your money on a filter, use your lens hood.

User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5558 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 10):

Most Dutch spotters using filters? At least all of the ones I've met are using them and have no problems with image quality.  Silly

I use the B+W MRC 010 and haven't seen a tiny bit of a quality degradation.

Jeff - sometimes I just cannot be lugging the hoods around so IMO I need a protection for my front element, which the best filters should be able to do without noticeable quality degradation.


As always said, it's a matter of opinion, but my advice is: If you want/need a protective filter, get the B+W MRC 010.


User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5525 times:

Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 4):
Insurance is vital. It amazes me that some photographers can lug around such high value equipment and not one bit of it is insured against theft or accidental damage.

Unfortunately AFAIK nobody will insure photographic equipment here in Spain  Sad

I have filters (B+W or Hoya) in all my lenses; once I dropped my 100-400 inside a bag with the filter on and no hood; the filter shattered as it took the impact but the lens was not damaged. Anyway when I have the hood on I sometimes take the filter off the lens, though I haven't noticed that much a difference in image quality.

Insurance probably is the best way to go, but if you can't/don't insure your equipment I think it is a good idea to use good quality filters, even if you sometimes do not use them  Smile

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5513 times:

Quoting Javibi (Reply 13):
Unfortunately AFAIK nobody will insure photographic equipment here in Spain

I'm sorry to hear that Javibi. I have my equipment under 'All risks' which is under my house insurance. It covers my equipment for up to 6 months outside the house against the usual Theft and Accidental Damage.

Take care

Fergul  sun 

PS Any sunshine over at your place that you can spare for us here in IRL, I think we have had enough rain to last us the reat of the year,  banghead 



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

Quoting Mrk25 (Reply 1):
Forget the filter and spend the money on insurance instead. I wasted £50 or thereabouts on filter. There has been many a discussion on this subject and most would go with no filter.



Quoting Jid (Reply 3):
Yep no filter .. but always use your lens hood.

I used to use Hoya filters. Now I just use them for protection when the lens is not in use.


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5497 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 12):
sometimes I just cannot be lugging the hoods around...

?? you do know they mount on inverted on the lens right????


User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5477 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 16):
?? you do know they mount on inverted on the lens right????

Yes, always knew since I started using lens hoods!
The hoods take quite some space (inverted and not inverted on the lens), and it takes some time to make them "ready for use" (let's say fast switching between the 17-40L and the 100-400L).

So, I choose tiny degradation over hood mess.

I use the hoods when I can use them, and I act like there's no filter on. It works, not noticable on the pictures.


User currently offlineDM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5475 times:

I usually have my hoods already attached to my lenses, so all i do is pull out the lense, attach to camera, and shoot. No need to screw with filters and screwing on hoods...

DM


User currently offlineGabep From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 5444 times:

The 100-400 L IS USM is my primary weapon of choice and I us a B+W UV filter and/or a Optical Flat. I have never had any image problems with it as a result, and I continue to ensure the front element is dust and scratch free by using them.

Gabe


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5424 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 17):
The hoods take quite some space (inverted and not inverted on the lens), and it takes some time to make them "ready for use" (let's say fast switching between the 17-40L and the 100-400L).

???? some time??? it doesn't take any longer then any other lens. I usually know in advance I want to switch, so I don't consider switching lenses an issue. A second body helps too.


User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5397 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 20):
A second body helps too.

Money helps there too, which I'm planning to spend for vehicle things in the coming months.  Smile


User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5396 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 17):
So, I choose tiny degradation over hood mess.

You're choosing alot more degradation without a hood. Theyre not mainly for protection but to reduce stray light entering the lens from the side... using the hoods increase contrast and overall image quality. To summarize: Hoods > Filters



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5363 times:

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 22):
You're choosing alot more degradation without a hood. Theyre not mainly for protection but to reduce stray light entering the lens from the side... using the hoods increase contrast and overall image quality. To summarize: Hoods > Filters

I'm not going to start an arguement - I know that it's been tested that hoods do this, but for me it doesn't change - I cannot see if my photo was taken with a hood or without. But as said, I try to use the hoods when I can, but when I cannot, I want to have protection.

Just to make it easier to understand.


User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5342 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 23):
Just to make it easier to understand.

If you can't see it, it's because you dont know what to look for. It does make a difference. That's why they come with even the cheapest of lenses.



what seems to be the officer, problem?
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...
Canon 100-400mm Is Autofocus Problem posted Mon Oct 23 2006 17:33:10 by Singel09
Yay! Just Got My Canon 100-400L Is Lens posted Thu Jul 28 2005 23:23:51 by Fly747
Canon 100-400mm Is At Airshows posted Wed Jun 29 2005 18:40:19 by Soren-a
Canon 100-400mm L Is Users - I Have A Question. posted Sat Mar 20 2004 20:14:25 by Maiznblu_757
Canon 100-400mm L Is USM For Airshow Photography posted Thu Mar 4 2004 03:43:53 by Maiznblu_757
Im Getting The Canon 100-400mm Is! posted Fri Jan 30 2004 00:47:25 by Maiznblu_757
Lens To Compliment Canon 100-400L Is? posted Fri Jul 16 2004 06:41:24 by Bronko
Canon 100-400mm Serial # Help... posted Wed Feb 18 2004 21:59:55 by Maiznblu_757
Canon 100-400 L Is? posted Fri Jun 22 2007 00:20:08 by Wolverine
Sigma 50-500 Or Canon 100-400L Is posted Mon Jul 10 2006 07:52:38 by Franzloew