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
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 24 Mar 2016 (Thursday) 09:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS and polarizer problem

 
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2742
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited over 7 years ago by Bassat.
     
Mar 24, 2016 16:44 |  #16
bannedPermanent ban

I just happen to have a Tiffen CPL hanging around. I put it on my 70D/70-200 f/4L IS/1.4x TC setup. Total crap. I just bought and tested the TC, so I know how well it works without the CPL. With the CPL I get washed out contrast and no sharpness at all. I'm surprised. This lens takes a filter about as poorly as the 100-400L.

Just remembered... the CPL I put on the 70-200 was $15 Tiffen. The one I put on the 100-400L was $130 B&W. The B&W works fine on my 24-105 & 17-40. I've used the Tiffen on 35IS. It definitely looks worse on the longer zoom.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
69,628 posts
Likes: 227
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
     
Mar 24, 2016 17:47 |  #17

Tiffen filters aren't good buys at any price. Spend the money for a quality filter whenever you want to put something in front of your lens..


Jon
----------
Cocker Spaniels
Maryland and Virginia activities
Image Posting Rules and Image Posting FAQ
Report SPAM, Don't Answer It! (link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.
PAYPAL GIFT NO LONGER ALLOWED HERE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dsp501
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
10 posts
Joined Mar 2016
Post edited over 7 years ago by dsp501.
     
Mar 24, 2016 19:33 as a reply to  @ post 17947140 |  #18

A WOW picture! Later posts say the same things about getting a better filter. Thanks




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dsp501
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
10 posts
Joined Mar 2016
Post edited over 7 years ago by dsp501.
     
Mar 24, 2016 19:40 as a reply to  @ post 17947185 |  #19

You make some great points. So I will rethink my view of filters. Your 2nd pic really shows a big difference. Thanks for your time and examples.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2742
Joined Oct 2015
     
Mar 24, 2016 21:38 |  #20
bannedPermanent ban

Jon wrote in post #17947329 (external link)
Tiffen filters aren't good buys at any price. Spend the money for a quality filter whenever you want to put something in front of your lens..

Yeah, I figured that out the first time I put a $20 filter in front of a $1700 lens. Seems kind of obvious after the fact. All my lenses wear hoods now. I'll just leave it there.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,331 posts
Likes: 146
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Mar 25, 2016 12:02 as a reply to  @ Jon's post |  #21

Tiffen filters aren't good buys at any price. Spend the money for a quality filter whenever you want to put something in front of your lens..

Actually, Tiffen makes both low quality and higher-end filters. Same is true of Kenko and others (Kenko are likely made by Hoya, since they are the same company).

Same is true of Hoya and B+W... they both make a range of qualities from low-cost, uncoated, aluminum frame, entry-level to expensive, high end, "nano" multi-coated, brass framed filters.

Last time I looked, Hoya had the widest range of Circular polarizers... five or six different qualities across the spectrum of price ranges.

Cheap filters are almost always a bad deal... more likely to cause image problems.

In this case, the focus problem looks so bad that I suspect it's actually not a circular polarizer, but is a linear. Those often mess with autofocus and cause focus errors, which might be worse on some lenses than others. Linear polarizers also sometimes cause metering problems on modern cameras. Linear are cheaper... worked fine on most older, manual focus cameras and lenses... just aren't usable on modern AF systems.

A CPL continues to be one of the most useful of filters in the age of digital photography. Some of a polarizer's effects are impossible or nearly impossible to replicate in any software (most other filters are pretty easily done either with camera settings or in post-processing). CPL have a number of uses, so I HIGHLY recommend you get the best quality you can.

I mostly use B+W Kaesemann. Hoya HD3 and EVO are very good, too. I hear great things about Marumi, as well... though I haven't yet used them personally. Singh-Ray and Heliopan are excellent, too... though they can be rather pricey.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII, 7D, M5 & others. 10-22mm, Meike 12/2.8,Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, EF-M 22/2, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Sigma 56/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS, 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dsp501
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
10 posts
Joined Mar 2016
     
Mar 26, 2016 08:31 as a reply to  @ amfoto1's post |  #22

Thanks for the input. I'm shopping now. Got some WOW pics yesterday of flying Great Egrets using a clear UV filter but definately going to buy a good polarizer.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,331 posts
Likes: 146
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
Post edited over 7 years ago by amfoto1.
     
Mar 26, 2016 10:07 |  #23

dsp501 wrote in post #17949263 (external link)
Thanks for the input. I'm shopping now. Got some WOW pics yesterday of flying Great Egrets using a clear UV filter but definately going to buy a good polarizer.

That clear UV filter is also largely unnecessary.

If you think it's going to protect the lens somehow, the lens hood and lens cap do a much better job of that than some thin piece of glass ever could.

There is little, if any, "protection" benefit from a filter.

Watch this: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds (external link)

In fact, your images are being negatively effected.... though maybe not a lot with high quality, multi-coated filters.

Read this: http://www.backcountry​gallery.com …ips/all-about-uv-filters/ (external link)

In all likelihood, that clear UV filter is doing more harm to your images than good protecting the lens!

Honestly, I do have high quality, multi-coated UV/protection filters to fit most of my lenses (just not for the really big expensive lenses because they're 130mm and 150mm in diameter and don't even have filter threads). My UV filters are stored separately in my camera bag until actually needed.... such as shooting at the beach, photographing paint ball, out in a dust storm or similar high-risk situation. The rest of the time, my lenses go naked, and have for much of the 30+ years I've been shooting, without any harm. I use a CPL or ND filter far, far more often than UV. CPL, especially, are much more useful filters, plus both CPL and ND actually serve a photographic purpose... can improve images in some way. At one time, when I was shooting film I used UV filters more often. But digital cameras are not sensitive to UV, the way films were.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII, 7D, M5 & others. 10-22mm, Meike 12/2.8,Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, EF-M 22/2, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Sigma 56/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS, 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
46,420 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 4508
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Mar 26, 2016 10:36 as a reply to  @ amfoto1's post |  #24

Agree with your use in those 'high risk' situations...better the windblown sand hitting the filter than front optics; easier to rinse salt spray off a filter under the tap than the front element.

Most modern photographers don't even believe a filter ring 'sticks' to a lens, since lens barrels are so seldom metal like the lenses in the 1980. I just happened to pull my Olympus OM kit out, and that kit was from my days of 'perpetual filter' use. There is a filter very firmly stuck on a 24mm f/2 Kiron lens, and you start to disassemble the lens if you try to remove the filter...that, in spite of the fact that I never screwed filters in tightly because of the 'bonding' of aluminum ring to aluminum barrel.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
20,051 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 5573
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Mar 26, 2016 10:46 |  #25

dsp501 wrote in post #17946962 (external link)
...

Just wondering: could this have something to do with the f stop? At f4 I get no sharp pics but at f9 I get a few sharp photos.

...

I'm a little more concerned with this question. You should get *somewhat* sharper images at f/9, but you should still get sharp shots at f/4 with this lens. When you're doing these comparisons, are you using the bare lens w/ no UV filter?


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (R5, RF 800 f/11, Canon 16-35 F/4 MkII, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dsp501
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
10 posts
Joined Mar 2016
     
Mar 26, 2016 12:54 as a reply to  @ Snydremark's post |  #26

Hi,
That was with the polarizing filter I was using to get no sharp images at f4 and a few at f9. I was thinking that the opening would be smaller on the f9 and so the filter might have a scratch or defect on the outside of the filter that would cause the auto focus not to work correctly.

Regardless, my auto focus does not work correctly with a polarizer. At least the 2 I have tried and it does work without a filter or just using a UV filter.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
46,420 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 4508
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 7 years ago by Wilt. (3 edits in all)
     
Mar 26, 2016 13:03 |  #27

dsp501 wrote in post #17949542 (external link)
Regardless, my auto focus does not work correctly with a polarizer. At least the 2 I have tried and it does work without a filter or just using a UV filter.

Try this test with your two filters...stand in front of a mirror and look at yourself THROUGH the polarizing filter...


  1. if you look thru the rear of a CPL, you will see your eye in the mirror thru the filter; but when you look thru the front of a CPL at yourself in the mirror, the CPL will darken so you cannot see your eye in the mirror!
  2. If you look thru the ordinary linear polarizer, you can see your eye in the mirror through the filter, regardless of filter orientation

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,393 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 578
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Mar 26, 2016 21:19 |  #28

another segue for the anti-filter guys haha.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4 x2, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, 14L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 28 f1.4 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
46,420 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 4508
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 7 years ago by Wilt.
     
Mar 26, 2016 21:28 |  #29

ed rader wrote in post #17950029 (external link)
another segue for the anti-filter guys haha.

But nothing can substitute for a polarizer in those circumstances in which the unique capability of the polarizer is needed, so you might as well have a GOOD one rather than a cheap one. While folks might put UV filters on permanently as 'protection', no one is foolish enough to permanently install a filter which loses -2EV or more of light. So even the antifilter guys have to throw in the towel once in a while for a polarizer.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dsp501
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
10 posts
Joined Mar 2016
     
Mar 28, 2016 08:38 as a reply to  @ Wilt's post |  #30

Did the test and both are CPL. Thanks. Guess I'll order the better quality CPL filter and go from there.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

9,002 views & 0 likes for this thread, 13 members have posted to it and it is followed by 4 members.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS and polarizer problem
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

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

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 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Niagara Wedding Photographer
1183 guests, 149 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, 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.