Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 21 Jul 2005 (Thursday) 08:44
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

STICKY: -=FAQ=- EF LENS FAQ -READ FIRST- Before asking "What Lens?"

 
this thread is locked
GCRollo
Senior Member
GCRollo's Avatar
443 posts
Joined Dec 2005
NJ, United States
Nov 13, 2006 19:50 |  #16

-=FAQ=- EF LENS FAQ -READ FIRST- Before asking "What Lens?"

How is Focal length affected by Sensor Size


The lens's focal length does not actually change... a 50mm lens, is a 50mm lens.

What changes is the field of view as altered from full frame by the smaller sensors "crop factor" as compared to the image captured on a full frame camera.

This graphics shows how much of the image falls on the various camera's sensors. It assumes that the subject is a constant distance with the same lens with the same focal length.

Lenses are assigned focal lengths based on the traditional 35mm (Full Frame) dimensions. So, a 50mm lens on a Full Frame Camera, such as the 5D, "represents" itself 1:1 or 50mm.

On the 350D the 50mm lens would capture the image field of view "As If" it was a (50x1.6=) 80mm on a "Full Frame" 35mm Sensor.

So, to reverse this scenario... Lets say you would like to take the image below with a field of view just like the Full Frame did w/ a 50mm lens. To replicate the shot on the 350D (Given your the same distance from the subject) you would have to use a lens with a focal length of (50/1.6=) 31.25mm

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Moonlight Studiosexternal link
Gallery~Studio~Design

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
CyberDyneSystems
THREAD ­ STARTER
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,544 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by CyberDyneSystems. 3 edits done in total.
May 11, 2007 15:28 |  #17

INFRA RED DIGITAL AND LENSES


Lenses Known/Rumored to be Good or Bad with Infra Red Photography
"Bad" refers to a hot spot that can occur and be very visible on some lenses.


Good

Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 22-55mm f/4-5.6 USM
Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 [2]
Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS
Canon EF 28-135mm/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 28-80mm USM
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 28mm f/2.8
Canon EF 35mm f/2
Canon EF 40mm STM Pancake Added
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKI
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKII
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS DO
Canon EF 75-300mm/4.0-5.6 IS
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
Canon EF 135mm f/2L
Canon EF 100-400mm4.0-5.6 IS L
Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L

3rd PArty:
Samyang 8mm FishEye
Samyang 14mm/2.8
SIGMA 12-24mm EX
Tokina 11-16

===============

Bad
Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8
Canon EF 24-85mm f/?
Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 28-105mm f/?
Canon EF 35-80/4.0-5.6
Canon EF 50mm/f1.4
Canon EF 50mm/f2.5 Macro
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Tamron 70-300mm f3.x-xxx Macro

Conflicting Reports: (different sources with differing opinions)
Canon EF 28-135mm/3.5-5.6 IS


My own use has been limited, I have had best results and most experience with the 17-40mm f/4L. (and now 16-35mm f/4L IS) They are near perfect. For wider on my 1.6x crop IR camera, I recently got the EF-S 10-22mm. It works very well indeed when stopped down for landscape use.
The 28mm f/1.8 USM is excellent. I've also used the 100mm macro and EF 70-300mm DO IS with good results. The SIGMA mega wide 12-24mm works fine.


And more info here;
http://photography-on-the.net ...php?p=4695808#post4​695808


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
Hampshire, UK
Aug 25, 2007 12:15 |  #18

From the Filter FAQ Thread;
http://photography-on-the.net ...php?p=3797997&postc​ount=1

Q1: Should I use a UV, Skylight or Protective filter on my lens?

A1: Photographers are divided on protective filter, some do not feel this is necessary and never or rarely fit a protective filter. Other photographers routinely fit a filter perhaps taking the filter off for some types of photography.

For digital photography a clear protective filter is all that is needed as the sensor does not have the sensitivity of film to UV and blue light that UV and Skylight filters are used for with film. If you use your lenses with film or a mixture of film and digital you may prefer to fit a UV or Skylight filter. The effectiveness of the UV rejection depends on the make and type, see http://www.bobatkins.c​om ...hy/technical/filter​s.html (external link)

Canon DSLRs do not seem to be too sensitive to UV although this seems to be more of an issue with Nikon SLRS and some digicams. Information is scarce however, it seems to be reasonable to assume UV is not a major issue (see below link). Note that if looking for effective UV blocking Bob Atkins tests above showed Hoya to provide more UV rejection than B+W for example, so makes are not equivalent. The best UV block was a Tiffin but see the link in A8.d

http://www.naturfotogr​af.com/UV_IR_rev07.htm​l (external link)
http://www.rit.edu ...ph/text-reflected-uv.html (external link)

---------------

Q2: Will a filter damage my image quality?

A2: Again photographers are divided, some feel that any extra glass in from of the lens may or will introduce a reduction of image quality, other maintain that if good quality filters have a minimal effect under normal conditions and even harsh conditions.

---------------

Q3: What makes a filter good quality?

A3: There is more consensus in this area although individual photographers will have their favourite brands they are used to, like and so recommend. In general a good filter will be made of optical glass that is well annealed and has been accurately ground flat with parallel sides.

Another factor is the quality of the filter coatings, these reduce the amount light reflection, the less light reflected the less reduction in image contrast and the less issues with ghosting (very bright areas of the image being seen in other parts of the image).

Filter coatings come in a number of types, each with differing amounts of reflection. From lowest to highest quality they are:

Coating Type ---- Typical Reflectance --------------- Comment
===============
Uncoated ------------ 9% --------------- Very Rarely seen except with square filters
Single Coat ---------- 3-5% --------------- Many Cheaper end and lower cost filters
Multi Coat ------------ 1-2% --------------- Many mid-range filter [3 layer coating]
High End ------------- 0.3-0.5% --------------- Best filters [5-8 coatings]

Because high-end filters have such low reflectance values many photographers feel that adding a protective element in front of the lens will have minimal impact. However other photographers feel that any loss of quality however small is unacceptable. See Q8 for what issues to watch out for with filters and test examples of good and bad filters.

Another point to check is that the coatings are applied to both sides of the glass and if the manufactures quoted reflectance is for one or both surfaces.

Other points that some find significant are:
a) the mount base material, some are brass whilst others are aluminium,
b) the mount finish, these are normally some form of electro plate finish which might be Black chrome or anodised depending on make,
c) easy clean top coatings
d) black painted glass edges
e) low profile mounts


Here are some tests showing the effect of different quality filters;
http://www.kenandchris​tine.com/gallery/10543​87/3 (external link)
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/uvtest1 (external link)
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/uvtest2 (external link)

---------------

Q4: So what brand of filter should I use?

A4: Three brands are most recommended by photographers: Hoya, B+W and Heliopan. Within these brands there are different grades. These tests  (external link)compare Canon UV, Hoya Pro 1 Digital and Hoya SHMC Pro 1.

a) Hoya, B+W and Heliopan standard grade filters are all single coat designs.
b) Hoya HMC are three layer multicoat, Kenko MC Pro 1 Digital and Hoya MC Pro 1 Digital are 3 layer multicoat
c) Hoya SHMC, Hoya SMC Pro 1 (discontinued), B+W MRC and Heliopan SH-PMC are all High End multicoated filters.


A simple table is here http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk ...ests/Flare/FilterDa​ta.htm (external link)

Please refer to the manufactures data:

a) Hoya: http://www.hoya-online.co.uk/Hoya.pdf (external link)
http://www.thkphoto.co​m/products/hoya/hoya-02.html (external link)
http://www.thkphoto.co​m/digital/dp-02.html (external link)
b) B+W: http://www.schneiderop​tics.com ...goryDisplay.aspx?CI​D=1161 (external link)
c) Heliopan: http://www.heliopan.de​/Heliopan-Filters.pdf (external link)
http://www.hpmarketing​corp.com/heliopan.html (external link)

---------------

Q5: So what protection does a filter offer?

A5: A filter will give protection to the front element in from the following:
a) Accidental touching
b) Touching by subjects like children and pets (with stick fingers and noses)
c) Wind blown debris, sand and low velocity flying material like stones
d) Accidentally bumping into twigs when doing macro photography
e) Corrosive liquids like salt spray.
f) Accidental damage due to the lens cap coming off in the bag
g) Some L series lenses are weather resistant and require a filter to be fitted to complete the weather sealing

However, a filter made from optical glass is not toughed, armoured or laminated (these would cause optical problems) so if hit sufficiently hard it may crack and even break. Brakeage has occurred by filters being hit by flying stones near racetracks, paintballs and by dropping the lens front element down onto a stone.

---------------

Q6: So how easy is it to damage a front element?

A6: The glass of the element is quite strong, anything that hits it hard enough to brake, crack or chip the glass is likely to cause internal damage or misalignment to the other lens components.

However, the front element coatings are very thin vacuum evaporated or spluttered materials, often metal oxides. These can be relatively soft, even a gentle touch with something hard such as metal or stone will damage it.

Although the coating will stand up to careful cleaning, many fear that repetitive cleaning will cause micro-scoring damaging the optically perfect finish and so prefer to fit a protective filter and clean that, being able to replace it at need.

---------------

Q7: So what happens if I damage the front element?

A7: A scratch or micro-scoring will not generally be visible in the image, however it will lead to light scattering, if the accumulated damage is bad it will lower the lens contrast and flare resistance. This test result  (external link)shows two extreme cases.

---------------

Q8: So what problems can I get with a filter?

A8: This is discussed below. The problems tend to only manifest in extreme situations, so many of the test cases used to investigate them tend to involve very harsh lighting conditions or extremely accurate resolution testing. These are a long way from every day photography conditions and requirements.

Problems fall into several categories:

a) Loss of sharpness: This is very difficult to test for; the tester needs to photograph the same view with and without the filter. Each shot will require refocus and due to variations of manual or autofocus each shot will not always be ideally focussed. So it is difficult to just take two shots and compare them. Statistical methods have been used and show no discernable effect on sharpness and AF accuracy with a filter made of good optical glass (see http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk ...Tests/Filter_AF/ind​ex.htm (external link) ), however some photographers will always have reservations in this area.

b) Problems with strange out of focus double images. Some photographers have reported this problem when using a cheap filter. A similar effect can be seen if shooting through domestic glass windows. This effect seems to be due to very cheap filters that do not use well finished optical glass. Good quality filter have not been shown to cause this problem.

d) Reduction of contrast in heavy backlighting. This is a very significant with cheaper single coat filters although is much less of a problem with high end filters. (see http://www.kenandchris​tine.com/gallery/10543​87 (external link) ). For everyday use it seems fair to say a high end filter is unlikely to have a discernable impact.

e) Ghosting and flare; This occurs when a very bright object or light source is against a dark background and looks rather like a double image or an area of blue or green haze. This can have various causes and occur in a lens naturally but can be exacerbated by fitting a filter, particularly a cheap filter. Typical situations can be night photography with bright light sources or day photography with the sun or a specula reflection of the sun in frame.

Lens performance with and without filters varies from lens design to lens design and is also dependent on aperture. This is relatively easy to test for using a domestic light in a darkened room (see http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk ...LensTests/Flare/ind​ex.htm (external link) ). In general in everyday photography this will not be an issue, but for sunsets and night photography it may be worth not using a filter.

Note that lenses with well recessed front elements seem to be more susceptible to ghosting possibly because of the greater distance between the filter and front element. The EF 50/1.4 falls into this category for example.
---------------

Q9: So what sort of photography should I be wary of using a filter?

A9: Situations with bright light sources in the frame:

a) night photography,
b) sun rises and sunsets although the strength of the sun is often not so strong in these conditions,
c) heavily backlight or high key situations

If high end filters are used you may well not have a problem but it is advisable to do some tests. Note that even the best lens is quite capable of producing the problems discussed in Q8, so you need to take identical shots with and without filter before concluding the filter is the issue.

---------------

Q10: Hay I can just claim off my insurance if I damage my front element!

A10: Yes you can. However, each time you claim your premium will go up as will the excess for those sorts of claims; eventually you will not be able to be insured for that risk. Insurance companies exist to make a profit and prefer clients that pay up each year and never claim.

This does not mean you should not insure your camera equipment, quite the reverse. However, you should consider insurance as some cover against major loss rather than cover repair fees for routine risks.

In the end you need to access the likelihood of damage to your front element and decide if the risk is worth it.

Many photographers point out they have never used protective filters and have had no damage in an extended period such 20 years or more. Other photographers have reported the lens cap coming off in the bag with a brand new L-series lens and the front coating being damaged.

Some photographers see even relatively expensive high-end protective filters as a form of insurance, one that can’t be withdrawn if it is used too much.

---------------

Q11: Can’t you just give me straight answer, should I use a filter or not?

A11: No this is something the individuals need to make their own mind up on. Recent polls of the POTN community showed a 50/50 split between semi-permanent use of protective filters and no use of protective filters unless in a hazardous environment.

What can be concluded is if you do want to use a filter for protection either occasionally or more or less permanently you should use a high end filter to minimise any adverse effects, however even reasonable single or multicoat filter will probably be OK under benign conditions although single coat filters are really not recommended.

It is probably best if you consider the sort of photography you do and the environment you are in.

If you rarely do the sorts of photography mentioned in Q9 or are regularly in an area or situation with hazards mentioned in Q5, you may prefer to by default fit a protective filter and only remove it for potential problem situations.

If you regularly shoot at night or in extreme against the light situations in safe environments, you may just want to have a protective filter handy in you bag for those occasions when conditions are less safe for your equipment.

---------------

Q12: Can’t I just use my lens hood for protection?

A12: You should always use a lens hood with a few exceptions such as flash photography where the hood may cast a shadow or stop you using a macro flash.

The main function of the hood is to stop stray light hitting the surface of the lens front element, which can cause a reduction in contrast and even cause flare.

Whilst a hood for a telephoto lens does provide quite good protection of the front element from accidental handling of the front element and from off axis blown debris, grit, sand and salt spray, anything arriving on axis will still be a threat.

For wide and ultra wide lenses the hood is really no protection, even standard lenses have only minimal protection.

So to conclude, yes a hood can provide some protection but it’s main function is to shade the lens.

---------------

Q13: What about other filters like CP and NG and GNG?

A13: A lot of the comments about optical glass and coating quality applies in many cases, however these filters are being used for a specific purpose rather than being fitted on a semi-permanent basis. Please see the General and Creative filter FAQ coming soon.

---------------


Q14: I want to use a protective filter on my Canon macro lens but can’t fit my Canon macro flash on if I do?

A14: Most of the Canon macro lenses have a little ridge that the two macro flash guns (MR-14EX and MT-24EX) clip on to. Adding the filter stops you mounting the flash gun as the mounting ridge is now too far back.

The work around is to add a Canon Macrolite Adaptor ring to the filter (obviously the filter must have front threads for this). The Macrolite Adaptors are little rings with a filter thread one side and the mounting ridge the other and are intended to allow non-macro Canon lenses and non-Canon lenses to be used with the macro flashes. They come in 3 filter thread sizes, 52C, 58C and 72C (example http://www.jr.com ...2053273#productTabD​etails (external link)).

The MT-24EX does have a filter thread in its mounting bracket so a protective filter could be fitted there. However this is actually intended to fit the special lens hood for the MP-E 65mm when used with the twin flash (http://www.bhphotovide​o.com ...oughType=accessory_​detail (external link) ).

---------------

Q15 If Canon thought a UV filter was need they would put one there, so why should I?

A15 As already noted some lenses are weather sealed and Canon state that a filter needs to be fitted to complete the seal. Also Canon actually recommends using protective filters in its article on lens care http://www.usa.canon.c​om ...FLenses101/lens_car​e.html (external link) but you the user must weigh up the cost, risks and benefits.

---------------

Q16 Will a protective filter may introduce a colour bias?

A16 The answer is in general yes, but very small bias, and in this test undetectable. There are measurements at http://www.kenandchris​tine.com/gallery/10543​87/3 (external link) and http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk ...F/Colour%20Bias/ind​ex.htm (external link).

These are very small and will tend to be removed by AWB or click balance of digital systems and may be lower with a Clear Protective filter rather than the UV filter tested. Differing bands and types may vary, but high end filters should be of a similar order.

Examples are shown below.
----- No Filter ----- Hoya SHMC Pro 1 UV(O) ----- B+W UV-Haze 101 MRC
-----

IMAGE: http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Filter_AF/Colour%20Bias/Test%20Filter%20WB%20No%20Filter%20010408.jpg
---------------
IMAGE: http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Filter_AF/Colour%20Bias/Test%20Filter%20WB%20Hoya%20SHMC%20Pro%201%20UV(O)%20010408.jpg
---------------
IMAGE: http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Filter_AF/Colour%20Bias/Test%20Filter%20WB%20B+W%20UV-Haze%20MRC%20101%20010408.jpg

---------------

Q17 Will a Filter Cause Vignetting?

A17 Vignetting is a reduction in image brightness in the image periphery compared to the image centre. http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Vignetting (external link)

It is possible with ultra wide angle lenses such as 10mm or below on APS-C or 16mm or below on Full-Frame or 135 Film. However in general this is not found to be a problem although some people use special thin filters on such lenses to minimise any issue. Some of these thin filters lack front threads and so do not work well with a lens cap, some come with a special lens cap for this reason.

This is one of many reasons to avoid multiple stacking of filters.

Ultra wide lenses tend to vignett somewhat anyway simply due to the physics of their design, this reduces as the lenses stops down as will any vignetting due to physical obstruction like a filter.

A test of EF-S 10-22mm at 10mm and f3.5 shows no significant vignetting with a Hoya SHMC Pro 1 UV(O) http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk ...r_AF/Vignetting/ind​ex.htm (external link)

---------------
Q18 Will UV filter get stuck if left on lens all the time?

This is probably a myth possibly exacerbated by people over-tightening the filters. I can say I have had aluminum filters (mostly Hoya HMC) on my Canon FD lenses since the early 1980s; these filters can still be removed with no difficulty.

This is in the days when the filter threads were aluminium, these days they are mostly plastic, including the L lenses, filters are anodized or black chrome depending on make so this should not be an issue even with an aluminium lens thread.

B+W and Heliopan promote the use of brass on the basis it reduces filter sticking. There does not seem to be any materials science quoted to justify this on B+W's or and Heliopan's web sites or generally within the community although many photographers seem to feel the effect is real. However is is clear that two brass filters can get stuck as is seen in this forum thread.

If you do get a filter stuck through over-tightening put a rubber band around the outside to improve the grip and don't squeeze to hard.

Separating polarizing filters from a lens or indeed another filter can be tricky but this seems to mostly be down to the mechanics due to the thin area to grip. Hoya Pro 1 filters have a knurled region to aid removal.
---------------

My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
SkipD's Avatar
20,446 posts
Joined Dec 2002
Southeastern WI, USA
Sep 28, 2007 13:00 |  #19

Here it is again....

Quality lens tissue (such as that sold by Kodak), a good lens cleaning fluid, and PROPER TECHNIQUE is the way that I have cleaned my lenses for decades. What is "proper technique"?

First - the goal is to clean the lens (or filter - I would use the very same process) without grinding any dirt/debris into the lens. To me, this absolutely dictates single-use surfaces for anything that touches the lens. That's why I use lens tissues instead of a washable cloth or - particularly - something like a lens pen.

Here are the steps that I use to clean a lens:

1. Use a squeeze-bulb blower to blow any loose dust off the lens. 90% of the time, step #1 is all that is necessary.

2. Take a lens tissue out of the pack. Fold it once, holding only what was the ends of the tissue. You want to be extremely careful to NEVER TOUCH the areas of the lens tissue that will be touching the lens. This will avoid transferring oils from your fingers to the lens.

3. Moisten the folded portion of the lens tissue with a little lens cleaner. You don't want the tissue dripping wet, but it must be damp.

CAUTION: NEVER apply lens cleaner directly to the lens (though it won’t hurt a filter, you don’t want liquid leaking into the lens’ innards).

4. Wipe LIGHTLY across the lens ONCE with the damp tissue. Then either turn it over or fold it so that you can wipe again, but with an unused surface. You can do this as often as needed, as long as you never wipe the lens twice with any surface of the tissue. This prevents scratches. Again, make sure you never touch an area of the tissue that will touch the lens.

5. Ensuring that the lens is actually clean, use a dry tissue, handled the same way as above, to wipe the lens dry. Since you have already removed the dirt, there's no risk of scratching the lens with the dry tissue.

6. Dispose of the used lens tissues in a proper trash receptacle.

That's it in a nutshell. Simple and effective. I've been cleaning my lenses this way for over 40 years, and all of them have pristine glass (and none have ever worn "protective" filters).


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
THREAD ­ STARTER
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,544 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Feb 27, 2008 16:09 |  #20

Here's my complete list of known alternative caps.

Note, some go on over the front of the lens itself, some go on over the front of the HOOD

EF 500mm f/4L IS
Corningware f-24-PC Fits EF 500mm f/4L IS Hood, ( also fits EF 200mm f/1.8L Hood, Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6EX Hood .. needs a stretch)

Corningware f-16-pc/v-16-pc fits EF 500mm f/4L IS Front.

300mm 2.8L IS =
Rubbermaid Seal'n Saver 1 qt/984 mL (4.2 cups) Model 5152
Kaiser 120mm Cap
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com ...ails&Q=&sku=125307&​is=REGexternal link

200mm f/1.8
Tup # "C"

UK 125mm sewer cap... for 200mm f1.8L

K-mart Campbell's thermal soup bowl with lid.
UPC Code is 017145600651


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
mtnbkr1
Senior Member
257 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Los Angeles
Oct 22, 2010 23:39 |  #21

-=FAQ=- EF LENS FAQ -READ FIRST- Before asking "What Lens?"

I bought a 100-400 for a VERY low price on Craigslist today, because it was dirty on the inside. Yeah, dust pump'll do that, but i figured why not give it a shot at cleaning it myself. I've seen a few people ask if its possible to clean this lens on your own before, but not attempt it. Figured what the heck, and after testing it out, I can say it took less effort than boxing it up to send to Canon. Call me crazy, but I couldnt see how it could hurt to try.

EMBED PREVENTED, HEAVYWEIGHT DOWNLOAD: 3.34 MB
http://img411.imagesha​ck.us/img411/2615/it8b​9117.jpg

EMBED PREVENTED, HEAVYWEIGHT DOWNLOAD: 4.16 MB
http://img841.imagesha​ck.us/img841/1245/it8b​9118.jpg

IMAGE: http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3270/it8b9120.jpg

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'


EMBED PREVENTED, HEAVYWEIGHT DOWNLOAD: 3.3 MB
http://img806.imagesha​ck.us/img806/2650/it8b​9123.jpg

EMBED PREVENTED, HEAVYWEIGHT DOWNLOAD: 3.51 MB
http://img716.imagesha​ck.us/img716/993/it8b9​125.jpg

IMAGE: http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1/it8b9129.jpg

IMAGE: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/1337/it8b9127.jpg

5Dc | 85L | 1200 f5.6L | Lighting

LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
THREAD ­ STARTER
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,544 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by CyberDyneSystems.
Apr 19, 2015 19:13 |  #22

msowsun wrote in post #17522726external link
Here is a complete list of the various Canon Tripod Rings and what the lenses they actually fit: (W) means white and (B) means black

A (W)
A II (W)
A (B)
B (W)
B (B)
C (W)
C (WII)
D

"A" or "A2" fits 70-200mm 4.0L , 4.0L IS, 200mm 2.8L, 300mm 4.0L, 400mm 5.6L, 80-200mm 2.8L

"B" fits 70-200mm 2.8L, 2.8L IS, 2.8L IS II, 100-400L, 300 f/4L IS., 100mm 2.8 USM Macro, 180mm 3.5 Macro, MP-E 65mm 2.8 Macro

"C (W)" fits 28-300L, 35-350L

"C (WII)" fits 70-300mm L

"D" fits 100L Macro


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
Hampshire, UK
Apr 20, 2015 09:08 as a reply to CyberDyneSystems's post |  #23

B also fits 300 f/4L IS.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
THREAD ­ STARTER
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,544 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Apr 20, 2015 12:54 |  #24

Lester Wareham wrote in post #17524862external link
B also fits 300 f/4L IS.

Wait, really?
I think "A" fits it, the B is the one that needs the bodies with the lugs, like the 70-200mm f/2.8


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
Hampshire, UK
Apr 20, 2015 13:11 |  #25

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17525155external link
Wait, really?
I think "A" fits it, the B is the one that needs the bodies with the lugs, like the 70-200mm f/2.8


I believe it is the old non-IS 300/4 that uses the A (clamshell), the newer IS one uses the B, same as the MP-E, 180 macro but white (I have all three). The only lens I have that uses the A is the 200/2.8L.

You can see the TMA type in the pictures:
IS 300/4 http://www.canon.com ...hoto/ef_300_4lis_us​m.htmlexternal link
non-IS 300/4 http://www.canon.com ...ephoto/ef_300_4l_us​m.htmlexternal link


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

367,206 views & 1 like for this thread
-=FAQ=- EF LENS FAQ -READ FIRST- Before asking "What Lens?"
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00152 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.17s
Latest registered member is lrottner
1047 guests, 471 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016