Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 23 Jun 2012 (Saturday) 13:44
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

100-400 and a uv filter

 
larrycumba
Senior Member
Avatar
311 posts
Joined May 2011
     
Jun 23, 2012 13:44 |  #1

New 100-400 with a Hoya HMC UV filter at the lake. Shot a water tower quite a distance from me. Image soft. I remember someone here saying this lens doesn't like a uv filter. I took it off and the color of the tower was more accurate and the lettering was much sharper. Made me wish I could take back the heron and egret shots I took with the filter on it. I'll got out tommorow and give it another try. Hate to leave this kind of money unprotected but the hood will just have to do. By the way, I always had the impression Hoya was German made. This filter says Philippines. Guess I was wrong. Do you think a B & W would do any better? Priced one at 160.00. This Hoya was 60.00.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Griz
Member
Avatar
168 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: NW Missouri
     
Jun 23, 2012 13:48 |  #2

Save your money. My 100-400L's pics are soft with a UV filter as well. Much better without.


5D Mkiii, 7D, G11, 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS, 50 f/1.8, 24-70 f/2.8 L, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, Sigma 10-20 f/3.5-5.6, EF 2X III TC, 580EX ii, 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thallikar
Senior Member
323 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Jun 23, 2012 13:58 |  #3

good thread. because I just bought a 100-400 L and I have a B+W filter on it. Every frigging image is soft. Good to know about this. Funny thing is just like the OP, I took a bunch of shots of herons and egrets today and I was so disappointed. Got to go back there without the UV.


http://500px.com/thall​ikar (external link)
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/64724969@N06/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Jun 24, 2012 05:38 |  #4

Here's a 100-400 filter test. All are 100% crops.

Filterless - Hoya HD - Noname Cheapo

IMAGE: http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/Filter%20Comparison%20100-400.jpg

Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
1,644 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 238
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Germany
     
Jun 24, 2012 06:29 |  #5

Especially on long lenses filter planeness is a big issue. This is not well known in photography.
Filter advertising and testing is about transmission and coating, but not about filter surface form!
The later is the crucial criteria for the image quality regarding MTF!
Some even have structures in the unsharp background because bad filters!

A friend of mine co-authored an article about this:
http://www.vision-systems.com …into-optical-imaging.html (external link)
In industrial imaging (my work) filter/lens surface form accuracy is an important specification criteria.


DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,533 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2008
     
Jun 24, 2012 07:09 |  #6

larrycumba wrote in post #14621302 (external link)
New 100-400 with a Hoya HMC UV filter at the lake. Shot a water tower quite a distance from me. Image soft. I remember someone here saying this lens doesn't like a uv filter. I took it off and the color of the tower was more accurate and the lettering was much sharper. Made me wish I could take back the heron and egret shots I took with the filter on it. I'll got out tommorow and give it another try. Hate to leave this kind of money unprotected but the hood will just have to do. By the way, I always had the impression Hoya was German made. This filter says Philippines. Guess I was wrong. Do you think a B & W would do any better? Priced one at 160.00. This Hoya was 60.00.

This statement doesn't make sense. If you use the hood, your lens IS protected! A so called "protective" filter doesn't protect your lens, it just takes money out of your pocket and causes IQ issues. Get rid of the filter and always use your hood. Your lens will take great photos and it will be protected as well.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Skul
Member
92 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2011
Location: SE Texas
     
Jun 24, 2012 07:18 |  #7

I've been discussing the same issue with a friend for the past month.
Same lens and Hoya filter. Same issue.
The filter comes off when I feel conditions warrent it.
I need to evaluate my other lenses now.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
56,279 posts
Likes: 2953
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jun 24, 2012 08:16 |  #8

I had all kids of issues when I tried to use the 100-400 with a polarizing filter. It just does not take a filter well.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HKGuns
Goldmember
Avatar
1,770 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 1636
Joined May 2008
     
Jun 24, 2012 08:30 |  #9

I use lens hoods for protection. I don't want anything between my expensive glass and the image. I've even resisted the temptation of a Polarizing filter. The 100-400, as stated above, is especially susceptible to filter freakishness. Leave it off the 100-400 and consider doing the same on your other lenses.

Great examples Hollis.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
modchild
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Lincoln, Uk
     
Jun 24, 2012 09:24 |  #10

I'd spent around £200 on a bunch of good quality (hoya mainly) UV filters for all the lenses I had and was happy with the results on my 550D. When I got a 7D most of my shots were soft on most of my lenses, the only good one being my 100 L macro, and I was so frustrated by it. I'd tried everything from liveview focus, tripod, slow and high shutter speeds and always the same. I was at the point of returning the 7D when I got a grab shot of an airplane passing over when there was no filter on my 100-400 and it was amazing. My first really good shot taken with a 7D. After that all the filters were taken off and all the lenses were tested on the 7D and I could plainly see an improvement in the quality of the shots with all lenses. The only filter I use now (very seldom) is a Hoya Pro 1CPL but I've kept the other filters just in case I'm shooting in a really dusty or wet environment, when they will be used for extra protection.


EOS 5D MkIII, EOS 70D, EOS 650D, EOS M, Canon 24-70 f2.8L MkII, Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII, Canon 100 f2.8L Macro, Canon 17-40 f4L IS, Canon 24-105 f4L IS, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 85 f1.8, Canon 50 f1.4, Canon 40 f2.8 STM, Canon 35 f2, Sigma 150-500 OS, Tamron 18-270 PZD, Tamron 28-300 VC, 580EX II Flash, Nissin Di866 MkII Flash, Sigma EM 140 Macro Flash and other bits.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
macroimage
Goldmember
2,169 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2007
     
Jun 24, 2012 16:26 |  #11

There is a good example of the problems and reasons for the problems of using UV filters with longer lenses here (external link).


Photo Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,242 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 310
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Jun 26, 2012 07:28 |  #12

Never had a problem achieving sharp focus with or without high quality filters on lenses and 7D's.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
1,644 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 238
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Germany
     
Jun 26, 2012 08:19 |  #13

macroimage wrote in post #14625739 (external link)
There is a good example of the problems and reasons for the problems of using UV filters with longer lenses here (external link).

This is exactly what I wrote!
Good filters for longer focal length need to be flat. And not 35 wavelengths difference in thickness. More like 1 wavelength - or even better.


DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pete
I was "Prime Mover" many years back....
Avatar
38,631 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Berkshire, UK
     
Jun 26, 2012 08:25 |  #14

I've never bothered with filters on any of my lenses unless I needed them for a set purpose (i.e. a Circ Polarizer). Front elements are pretty tough and can withstand a bit of use (especially L class lenses) and I've never found that any dust on the front element has caused IQ degradation.

Using them as "protection" might be applicable in hazardous conditions (close to surf or flying mud for example).


Pete
UK SE Catch of the Day

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sambarino
Senior Member
549 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2011
     
Jun 26, 2012 10:34 |  #15

My first outing with the 100-400L was with a UV filter. I thought I had gotten a bad copy. I checked here and was advised to remove the filter and use the hood. It made a huge difference. I started comparing all my lenses with and without the filter. The difference was not as stark as with the 100-400L, but it was noticeable, side-by-side. None of my lenses have filters now. The only time I will use one is if I NEED it, C-POL or ND, grad-ND. No more extra glass mucking up my shots. I can take bad pictures without any help at all.




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

13,450 views & 0 likes for this thread
100-400 and a uv filter
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is aldobr80
857 guests, 266 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.