-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
To add a filter or not? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Epsomsalt
- Start date
tdodd
Just call me Tim
The 100-400 has a reputation for not getting on well with filters. I've had mine for 2.5 years and, despite owning a Hoya Pro 1 UV to fit the lens, prefer to go filterless. In my own back to back tests I noticed a visible decrease in contrast with the filter fitted. I always use the hood for physical protection against knocks and flare protection against stray light.
RyanEustace
Ecology Student
I dont use a filter either just use the lens hood , although it could be costly mistake
if the glass gets cracked chipped etc.
if the glass gets cracked chipped etc.
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
I am sure most people will say it's not a good idea but I have used a B+W Clear Protection Filter on my lens from new. I can't see any difference in the quality of images with it in place or removed. The B+W filter is made from very high quality glass with just a clear hard coating on it. I feel more comfortable removing dust and debris from the filter than the lens surface.
Ron
Ron
Stephen Fletcher
Yes, i did take the photo of the Eagle
I have tried top grade filters, and every time they degrade the image. It certainly shows a big difference on top quality glass for sure, in my opinion anyway. I have never scratched, chipped, shattered, abraded or any other adjective you may be able to think of, any lens i have ever owned, and all are filterless, and always will be, the lens hood is ample protection for any lens. The casing may be scratched, chipped etc etc, but the glass is all perfect. And one further point, the front element to any lens, is not a lens at all, it is toughened protective optically ground clear glass, and is easily replaced if you are extremely clumsy, or even unlucky.
tdodd
Just call me Tim
If you take a look at the following document from Canon's Lens Museum....
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200308/report.html
and scroll almost to the bottom you will note that the "supertelephoto" lenses are supplied with a protective front element already in place and it is purposely curved in order to minimise internal reflections bouncing back and forth between sensor and front element of the lens. Now, it might be argued that the 100-400 is not one of Canon's "super-telephoto" lenses, but a long lens it surely is, and it wouldn't surprise me if adding a flat filter to the front is the source of the problems of reduced contrast that people such as myself have witnessed.
In some discussion threads I have seen on other forums the problem far exceeds a mere reduction in contrast. Some of the resulting images are abominations and have caused extreme frustration for many individuals. This has led people to send the lens to Canon, having first removed the filter, to have it looked at. Canon declares the lens "perfect" and sends it back. The consumer then refits the filter and proceeds to cuss the living daylights out of Canon for their appaling service.
Here is an example thread turned up by a quick Google. I have participated in similar threads on other forums in the past....
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36273
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200308/report.html
and scroll almost to the bottom you will note that the "supertelephoto" lenses are supplied with a protective front element already in place and it is purposely curved in order to minimise internal reflections bouncing back and forth between sensor and front element of the lens. Now, it might be argued that the 100-400 is not one of Canon's "super-telephoto" lenses, but a long lens it surely is, and it wouldn't surprise me if adding a flat filter to the front is the source of the problems of reduced contrast that people such as myself have witnessed.
In some discussion threads I have seen on other forums the problem far exceeds a mere reduction in contrast. Some of the resulting images are abominations and have caused extreme frustration for many individuals. This has led people to send the lens to Canon, having first removed the filter, to have it looked at. Canon declares the lens "perfect" and sends it back. The consumer then refits the filter and proceeds to cuss the living daylights out of Canon for their appaling service.
Here is an example thread turned up by a quick Google. I have participated in similar threads on other forums in the past....
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36273
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
I don't think a filter is going to protect the lens against dropping. In fact, some people think that shards of broken filter glass could make the matter worse. However, I spend most of my time on the east coast of Norfolk and Suffolk where there is often a combination of wind, sand and sea spray. I feel much more comfortable cleaning this off a filter rather than the lens itself, even if it does have a front element with a specially hardened surface. I don't think any slight degradation of the image is going to be of much significance given the lowly technical standard of my photos.
Ron
Ron
tdodd
Just call me Tim
I quite agree. A properly fitted hood is far greater protection in terms of absorbing shocks and not, itself, adding to the damage. Mind you, you need to be wary of hoods that screw onto the filter threads as they can transmit forces to the delicate internal workings of the lens rather than the more robust outer barrel. Use the proper hood, or a good copy, not one of those iffy generic hoods that might cost you dear.
Agreed. A filter makes sense in harsh environments which could cause harm to your front objective. It only needs the tiniest bit of grit, wiped away carelessly, to start the damage. Mind you, a deep hood on a telephoto lens will take care of many types of problem and in general shooting there is seldom anything harmful whizzing through the atmosphere. Shooting in a sandstorm, at a muddy run or rally, or at the beach, are situations where I would also use a filter for protection. Since those are exceptionally rare occasions for me, the filter stays off.
There is a "Filter FAQ! over on POTN. It might make useful reading - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=807555
edenwatcher
Well-known member
A cautionary tale:
I used a 100-400 on a 20D for 4+ years with a top-of-the-range filter, but was becoming concerned about a loss of sharpness in part of the image. I recently upgraded to a 7D and decided to take the filter off and use the hood all the time ... et voila - no loss of sharpness.
Rob
I used a 100-400 on a 20D for 4+ years with a top-of-the-range filter, but was becoming concerned about a loss of sharpness in part of the image. I recently upgraded to a 7D and decided to take the filter off and use the hood all the time ... et voila - no loss of sharpness.
Rob
Epsomsalt
Well-known member
A very interesting article thanks, I have sent away for a Hoya PRO-1 SUPER HMC UV(0) Filter which performed well on the test. I can always take it off if I am not happy with the images!
Thanks to all for your help.
Chris
tdodd
Just call me Tim
Try this as well - http://photo.net/nature-photography-forum/004PQn
I can testify to the truth of that!. Some years ago the strap gave way on a faulty case & my Leice APO 77 spotting scope fell to the ground causing the protective filter to shatter & scar the objective lens—which was o/w unharmed—so badly that it had to be replaced. [Leica, by the way, restored the scope to good as new condition at no charge, even though both the filter & the faulty case were non-Leica-branded.]
