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 22 Mar 2009 (Sunday) 05:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is 70-200mm f4L IS - a dust sucker??

 
rral22
Senior Member
885 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
     
Mar 22, 2009 16:04 |  #16

gdl357 wrote in post #7574822 (external link)
HAHA scratch your front lens and see how much it costs to replace it. Much less than a Hoya filter??? NO...

Did you read my whole post?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tmwag
Brown Noser has crush on Suzyview
Avatar
2,641 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 11
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Kansas City
     
Mar 22, 2009 16:22 |  #17

I use a Tiffen uv just for added protection. Never shoot with it on




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sf_loft
Member
Avatar
212 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Mar 22, 2009 16:52 |  #18

Denny G wrote in post #7575051 (external link)
That's awful, What kind of filter was it\?

It is a Quantaray Professional Filter Series UV protector. I know it's not the best, but it is manufactured by Hoya and it's not their cheap $15 ones. It is supposed to be the same filter as the Hoya DMC Pro1 but manufactured for Quantaray. I paid $50 for it and have tried taking the same photo with it on and off with no IQ degradation. The build quality looks solid, but not sure why it's so soft. Many roads in india are unpaved / super dirty. I took some pics in a moving vehicle (45mph) and stuck my camera out the window. Practically sand-blasted my lens.


Canon EOS 5D Mark III & FUJIFILM X-T1 mirrorless

35mm f/1.4L | 85mm f/1.2L II |135mm f/2L | 16-35mm f/2.8L II | 24-70mm f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/4L IS | 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro
Benro C2691T Travel Angel | GP-E2 GPS | EF 1.4x III
FUJINON 23mm 1.4 | FUJINON 35mm 1.4 | FUJINON 56mm 1.2

flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vadim_c
Senior Member
716 posts
Joined Feb 2009
     
Mar 22, 2009 17:45 |  #19
bannedPermanent ban

sf_loft wrote in post #7574948 (external link)
True... I always have a filter on my lenses more for protecting my investment. When I went to India, my camera took a beating from the heat, dust, and high winds which slams debris against the lens. At the end of the trip, my brand new UV filter had fine pit marks in some areas from the elements. This could have been your lens.

How come you protected his lesn with your filter  ???


Exif Internet Explorer Addon (external link).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vadim_c
Senior Member
716 posts
Joined Feb 2009
     
Mar 22, 2009 17:49 |  #20
bannedPermanent ban

rral22 wrote in post #7573411 (external link)
You want to take one of Canon's sharpest, most well built, and weather sealed lenses and stick another piece of glass onto the front to "protect" it? Why would you want to degrade the images of a lens for which you paid so much?

I see no problem with having a filter to put on it when you are in honestly dangerous environments, but you don't buy a race horse and then make it pull a wagon all the time.

Any proof to that ? Seiously if somebody points me to a side by side comparison of the same picture taken with and without a UV that would be great. Increased flare in hard situations is a known issue. Otherwise something tells me that lower image quality becuase of a decent filter is an urban tale,


Exif Internet Explorer Addon (external link).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rral22
Senior Member
885 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
     
Mar 22, 2009 20:19 |  #21

vadim_c wrote in post #7575880 (external link)
Any proof to that ? Seiously if somebody points me to a side by side comparison of the same picture taken with and without a UV that would be great. Increased flare in hard situations is a known issue. Otherwise something tells me that lower image quality becuase of a decent filter is an urban tale,

How about the known issue of increased flare in hard situations? I hear that is a good reason to avoid filters. :rolleyes:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smorter
Goldmember
Avatar
4,506 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Mar 22, 2009 20:28 |  #22

OP, when I got my lens I hadn't had time to order a B+W filter from BH Photo, so I used it without a filter for a while

Within 2 weeks I had 3 dust specs inside the lens, and also the front element got rained on and I nearly scratched it trying to clean it off

I then put on the B+W filter and since then not a single new dust spec has appeared.

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I think not as there are 3 tiny rectangular indents at the front of the lens, that the filter covers

Sean wrote in post #7572904 (external link)
It's weather sealed, so dust cannot get into it.

This is false.


Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vadim_c
Senior Member
716 posts
Joined Feb 2009
     
Mar 22, 2009 21:05 |  #23
bannedPermanent ban

rral22 wrote in post #7576756 (external link)
How about the known issue of increased flare in hard situations? I hear that is a good reason to avoid filters. :rolleyes:

Certainly not. It is just a reason to take the filter off sometimes,


Exif Internet Explorer Addon (external link).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jsmonet
Member
147 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: So Cal
     
Mar 23, 2009 00:10 |  #24

even canon mentions now and then that to fully seal a lens they want you to buy a genuine canon filter for the front.

*snicker*

for <40 bucks you can get a really decent uv from 2filter as big as 77mm. really, it's cheap insurance.

oh and those genuine canon filters... bleh. I'm going to use it as half of my hickspodisc because that's about all it's good for. I was young, stupid, and didn't realize how overpriced canon filters could be.


i have a camera. it takes nice pictures.

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

2,099 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is 70-200mm f4L IS - a dust sucker??
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 Cyndi
1014 guests, 283 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.