Drop-in Filters for 400mm 2.8...

The title tells it all really, what I need to find out is, what is a good one, and where are they, I didn't really see any on Amazon, where usually go. There was a guy in the Reviews that said that he used this filter on his, but I have no real idea what is a good one, I don't want to mess up the sharp I have now.
http://www.amazon.com …9V7&coliid=I1WJ​06GBDFPHOT

I already have the drop-in Filter Holder in my lens, but I am unsure as to what brand is a good filter for that holder.

My lens is a Canon 400mm 2.8 version 1
My drop-in filter is like this one in this shot...

I see that there are gels that you can use, and screw-in types glass ones too, so I don't know a thing about them, please clue me in, if you would.
Can you use 'normal' screw type filters, at least ones that will fit?
This is what I have in my lens already, but it has no filter in it, just so you can 'picture' this, I don't want to buy the entire set-up, only the filter.
(I am wanting to try a Circular Polarizer Filter)

Speaking of fit, how do you know what size will fit?

Any and all help would be really appreciated.

Thank you!

EDIT!
I do have one actually, I never removed it because I just knew there wasn't one in there, I did buy this lens used, but it was not very old, and the guy I bought it from didn't mention that there was a filter in it.
The filter is has only says that it is a "Canon Gelatin 52 Filter[COLOR="Navy"]", it's clear, so I assume it's a UV or similar, it's definitely not a Polarizer Filter.
It is kind of looking like I might need to buy the entire set-up for a glass screw-in filter, which I would guess is a better route...

Randy

To use a CP with one of Canon's big super-tele lenses you need the filter sold especially for that purpose. LINK.

The thing about a CPL is that it needs to be rotated to maximise the polarizing effect. The Canon PL-C 52WII has an external knob that allow the filter to be rotated. Just sticking an ordinary CPL in the normal filter holder won't allow adjustment.

hollis_f wrote in post #17255481
To use a CP with one of Canon's big super-tele lenses you need the filter sold especially for that purpose. LINK.

The thing about a CPL is that it needs to be rotated to maximise the polarizing effect. The Canon PL-C 52WII has an external knob that allow the filter to be rotated. Just sticking an ordinary CPL in the normal filter holder won't allow adjustment.

Thanks Hollis, that is what I am going to have to do, I guess. I did see that on B&H, I just was hoping that there was going to be a cheaper outcome for this. To have a rotating polarizer, I did know that there would have to be a way to turn it, like it says on their site. Oh well, I was afraid of that. (It was really just common sense had I had any) heheh

Thanks again, Hollis, I appreciate the time and effort that you put in to help me out.

Randy

I have the Canon 52mm drop in filter and it works quite well. However, for some reason, it loses a lot more light than any of my conventional CPL filters - probably a stop more.
This means that it is of little use on my 800 F5.6 though it can be handy on my 300 F2.8 where water is involved. Additionally they are very expensive for a medium quality filter, so I would think twice before purchasing. If you really need a CPL for a Canon SuperTele they are the only solution.

johnf3f wrote in post #17256881
I have the Canon 52mm drop in filter and it works quite well. However, for some reason, it loses a lot more light than any of my conventional CPL filters - probably a stop more.
This means that it is of little use on my 800 F5.6 though it can be handy on my 300 F2.8 where water is involved. Additionally they are very expensive for a medium quality filter, so I would think twice before purchasing. If you really need a CPL for a Canon SuperTele they are the only solution.

John,

That helps a lot, thanks for that, I wondered about the loss too, but since mine is a 400mm it won't be that bad, but, I've lived with it this long, so I may just forget about it.
I thought I'd try it, but at that price, maybe not... heheh

Thanks John!

Randy

I have a question...

Has anyone here removed their GEL filter completely? By that I mean, actually remove it and leave it out, the reason I say that is, anything in front of my sensor is not a plus. The Gel filter I have in there is more than likely a UV, so really, it's not doing much except getting in the way.
By removing, I mean, remove the GEL part only, but leave the holder. Really, I didn't see that it was easy to remove that filter, it is really tight, it just doesn't pop out. I am sure I could get it out, but I'd like to not destroy it.

Thanks!

Randy

recrisp wrote in post #17257431
I have a question...

Has anyone here removed their GEL filter completely? By that I mean, actually remove it and leave it out, the reason I say that is, anything in front of my sensor is not a plus. The Gel filter I have in there is more than likely a UV, so really, it's not doing much except getting in the way.
By removing, I mean, remove the GEL part only, but leave the holder. Really, I didn't see that it was easy to remove that filter, it is really tight, it just doesn't pop out. I am sure I could get it out, but I'd like to not destroy it.

Thanks!

Randy

Are you sure there's a gel filter inside the holder?

The holder has a glass element which must not be removed. Check out p.16 of the manual - LINK

hollis_f wrote in post #17257445
Are you sure there's a gel filter inside the holder?

The holder has a glass element which must not be removed. Check out p.16 of the manual - LINK

Well, I assumed that the filter was plastic (GEL) because it says, "GEL" on the holder itself. Also, yesterday (and I tried again just now) it 'feels' plastic-like.
I don't know, whatever it is, it is cut perfectly round, and has a beveled edge like glass would be, but a beveled edge does not mean that it is glass.
I tapped the filter with the backside of my fingernail (lightly) and it definitely sounds plastic to me, it has that 'dull thud' sound.

"Because the lens optics are designed to include a
glass filter, you must always install the filter holder,
even if no gelatin filter is fitted"

This still doesn't mean that the original owner of this lens didn't remove the glass lens... It really doesn't say (at least to me) that you have to have the glass installed, it says the 'filter holder' must be. I may be reading that wrong though.
Really, I guess I can see it both ways...

Thanks Hollis!

Randy

I have the Canon CPL. you are wondering about. You can adjust the levels with a little set of dials on top. It will take 2-3 stops depending on how it is set. It is really designed for man made objects but helps for harsh midday shots. I think it was about $170.00 US. The gel one that comes with the 400 2.8 I would not take out as it opens up your glass to dust. Kinda neat little gadget, got mine at B&H

It just drops right in and locks in place with little tabs on each side. I can probably try to find some shots with it if you would like

Thanks Bret, I appreciate the information. I was thinking about getting one, but really, the more I thought about it, and the more I read about it, I probably won't get one. I've used it this far without it, and really, I shoot mainly flying birds, or moving stuff, so it wouldn't be that advantageous for me, more than likely. I was happy to know I had the UV filter in it though, I thought I was left out. heheh (Not really, I wish it wasn't there, one more thing to be in the way)

Thank you also for your offer to show me shots with it, that was nice of you.

Randy

Does anyone here know what the difference is between the PL-C 52WII and 2585A001 drop-in filters? I am (hopefully) close to buying a 400mm DO II and definitely want a polarizer. Apart from the price difference I'm finding it had to figure out how they are different. Both seem to fit all the big whites.

If the PL-C 52WII is multi-coated or something, I'm wondering whether that would really make any difference for a rear filter.

From the images, it looks like the difference is that the PL-C 52WII is the perhaps the slightly non-white color of the latest lenses. So I'm going to pay $80 for a color match.

Just to add to the confusion the Q&A in B&H says the PL-C 52WII is not compatible with the 5000 f4 II, but then reviewers say they are using it with this lens.

I believe that the PL-C 52WII is just the "New" version of the older model, it is more expensive but I have no idea if it is any better.

OK, so as far a color it looks like both of these are the same. I didn't have them side-by-side, but both matched the color of the outside of the 400 DOII.
( EDIT: This is NOT true. I don't know what I was seeing (bad light at home probably), but the older filter is the creamier white and not the same white as the 400 DO II).

I thought I'd go with the more expensive version initially. However, as impossible as it might seem I must have gotten a faulty one. I'm sure they are not all bad, but this one basically acted like adding a blue color tint as it was turned, but seemingly had no polarization. Anyway, I sent it back and in case it came from a bad batch I ordered the older version from a different store. I couldn't believe that with the experience of people using the lenses these go in that this is what these drop-in polarizers did. The second one I just got is fine as does exactly what I'd expect.

I would never have though one could get a 'bad' polarizer, goodness only knows how that got made. - and I can assure you I do know what a polarizer is supposed to do.

Anyway, I don't see a reason to get the more expensive one unless someone has something enlightening to add. They both seem to color match the new lenses and both seem pretty flimsy with the glass rattling around a bit in the holder.

ejenner wrote in post #17742985
OK, so as far a color it looks like both of these are the same. I didn't have them side-by-side, but both matched the color of the outside of the 400 DOII.

I thought I'd go with the more expensive version initially. However, as impossible as it might seem I must have gotten a faulty one. I'm sure they are not all bad, but this one basically acted like adding a blue color tint as it was turned, but seemingly had no polarization. Anyway, I sent it back and in case it came from a bad batch I ordered the older version from a different store. I couldn't believe that with the experience of people using the lenses these go in that this is what these drop-in polarizers did. The second one I just got is fine as does exactly what I'd expect.

I would never have though one could get a 'bad' polarizer, goodness only knows how that got made. - and I can assure you I do know what a polarizer is supposed to do.

Anyway, I don't see a reason to get the more expensive one unless someone has something enlightening to add. They both seem to color match the new lenses and both seem pretty flimsy with the glass rattling around a bit in the holder.

May I ask where you ended up getting yours? I didn't see a link above, not unless i missed it somehow.
Would it also be possible to see some of your images? I know above that I mentioned to Bret that I didn't need any, but I'm curious now that you did this.
Also, I just went to your Flickr site, you have some REALLY NICE images on there, you do very good work! I looked and didn't see any shots with the lens or the polarizer used that I could see.

I'm glad that you knew to send that bad polarizer back and that you're happy now.
Thanks also for letting us all know how that went for you, that is good stuff to know.

Randy