Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Update To My 'Another 'Canon 100-400mm Problem''  
User currently offlineKelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7206 times:

First off, I am sorry for posting another topic on the same subject - and hence for wasting bandwidth etc.

I wanted to post in my old topic but saw that it was archived and hence unavailable for me to do so.

I just wanted to update those of you that very kindly helped and advised me regarding my lens and the possible problem(s) I was having.

I received it back today and am pleased to say that it is a lot better in regards to quality and sharpness. It seems like it was £154 well spent.

Perhaps the most singular evidence I have of the 'improvement' arises from the uv filter versus no uv filter aspect.
Before I sent the lens off for repair, I could see no difference, at all, in terms of image quality or sharpness when using a uv filter or not.

Now, the difference is clear. The quality and sharpness are greatly improved when not using a uv filter. (Even at the 100mm end).

Unfortunately I have not taken it spotting yet but am pleased with my initial findings.

I just wanted to let you all know of my outcome, in case any one else finds themselves in a similar predicament.

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinekelvincj From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7171 times:

I managed to upload two test examples - with a uv filter and without a uv filter. Before I sent the lens off for repair, all my examples appeared like the uv filter crop example - it seemed to be missing that sharpness kick.

UV Filter
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7272/7705565020_228a8a6ac7_b.jpg

UV Filter Crop
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7135/7705575418_671f0fed6f_b.jpg

No UV Filter
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7121/7705574484_605bf967b8_b.jpg

No UV Filter Crop
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8156/7705566028_222d6fc457_b.jpg

I am pleased with the service centre for fixing my apparent issue, and hope that if any one else finds themselves in a similar situation they either return the lens straight away to get a replacement - or, if out of return time / warranty, consider a repair at the service centre.


User currently offlinedlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 544 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7148 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

I was a lurker on the last thread, but it gave me a good heads up. I sent both of my lenses in for overhaul and it was well worth it. In particular, the overhaul got all of the dust out of my Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 and cleaned up a sharpness drift in my Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. Looking at images, I've been able to identify that the drift in sharpness happened in a fairly short time period this spring, but I have no idea what caused it.

User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7139 times:

Quoting KelvinCJ (Thread starter):
Perhaps the most singular evidence I have of the 'improvement' arises from the uv filter versus no uv filter aspect.

Which tells it's own story, don't use a UV filter as it's not needed! UV filters make no difference with digital sensors, only film as digital sensors aren't sensitive to UV. while I see the argument of having a filter on to protect the end element, I've never had the need as the lens hood offers sufficient protection as long as you're careful with your equipment. After all, why pay over £1,000 for a high quality lens than attach a relatively cheap piece of glass on the end? As you've seen, filters effect image quality so personally, I'd leave it in the box.

Glad to hear you're pleased with the results now though.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinestevemchey From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7139 times:

Just out of curiosity, which filter (brand and price) did you use?

I know there is a lot of debate about the usefulness of a UV filter (or the lack thereof). I am often using a filter for protection (especially during wedding shoots, shoots along the beach and sporting events) and can only conclude: If you decide to use a filter, you need to go with the high end ones. A $20 filter only makes your images worse. A $100 UV filter might not improve your images, but at least it doesn't do (much) harm.


User currently offlineKelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7123 times:

Quoting stevemchey (Reply 4):
Just out of curiosity, which filter (brand and price) did you use?

For the shot above I just used the cheap (and nasty!) generic filter that was bundled with the lens. I believe it is this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Zeikos-ZE-UV...nics&ie=UTF8&qid=1344026793&sr=1-1

So, in answer to your question Stefan: Zeikos ZE-UV77 and around £10 or $15 - exactly as you say - onlymakes images worse. Interestingly enough - after I saw the difference I went straight online and decided to order a Hoya HD 77mm UV Filter - not necessarily for the 'quality' but with the idea of comparing the two - to see just what a difference the 'quality' and 'price' actually makes first hand.

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 3):
why pay over £1,000 for a high quality lens than attach a relatively cheap piece of glass on the end?

A very good point - and I must agree with you there. I think paranoia is the major component of my desire for a filter however. I would much rather clean the surface of a uv filter to remove dust etc. than the surface of the lens - incase of a scratch or mark.

Thank you for your replies, and I am glad you found it a worth while experience David.


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7102 times:

I'm not a fan of filters, but will use one in adverse conditions - note that Canon states that its L lenses require a filter to acheive full weather proofing. Of course a cheap filter is not a good idea - if you need one, expect to pay big money for a quality multi coated filter from, for example B+W

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinecomairguycvg From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 337 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6976 times:

I had a filter on my 100-400 L lens and removed it. Images were soft looking because with a filter, it's just another layer of glass the lens has to look through. More layers = more softness. I think mine was a Promaster.

User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10101 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6947 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't have a 100-400, but typically leave a UV filter on my 70-200 F4. Just for kicks, I shot the other day without the UV filter. I didn't notice any difference.

I use Hoya filters.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
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
Update To "Tips On Buying A 100-400L" posted Sat Jan 28 2012 22:13:21 by atomother
Canon 100-400mm Mk II? posted Tue Sep 20 2011 05:10:50 by NZ107
Strange Canon 100-400L Problem posted Sat Apr 16 2011 07:37:28 by JohnJ
What Lens To Buy? 50-500mm / 100-400mm Etc posted Mon Aug 30 2010 06:06:00 by markevans
Canon 100-400mm Grain Problems posted Sun Jul 4 2010 09:26:28 by SAA738
Advice With My New EF 100-400mm posted Fri May 14 2010 07:24:22 by NPeterman
Canon 100-400mm Problems posted Tue Apr 20 2010 06:50:09 by SAA738
Canon 100-400mm Dusk Specks posted Thu Dec 17 2009 09:30:31 by EMA747
Canon 100-400mm L Is USM Lens With 1.4 Times Conve posted Thu Aug 27 2009 04:11:21 by Snecma