Hoya CPL defocusing photos

Wilt wrote in post #19092144
Technique:

• Run your A-B comparisons ON TRIPOD to eliminate the possibility of your shake contributing to blur.
  
• Shoot your shots with exact same focus setting (put lens on Manual Focus after focusing) and be careful not to turn the MF ring on the lens.
  

If you do that, you have a stronger argument in your favor in returning the filter to store/importer to exchange for another filter.
Hoya makes great filters ordinarily, you may simply be suffering from one of not many defective filters.

With the greatest respect, please do not insult my technique. I have never needed a tripod for similar shots before. And at high shutter speeds!? Seriously!???

In any case, it would have been impractical to have taken a tripod to this location

May I remind you that Picture 3 was not taken with a CPL and at a lower shutter speed - and it is sharp

It would be more helpful if you could post a more constructive comment

gjl711 wrote in post #19092149
I had the exact same thing happen on my 100-400 v1. Somewhere here is a old thread where I posted debug pictures. My solution was to not use a CLP with my 100-400. It just doesn't like filters.

I "hear" you but I was using a 70-200mm f4L. I've never had this problem before.

collectingrocks wrote in post #19092161
With the greatest respect, please do not insult my technique. I have never needed a tripod for similar shots before. And at high shutter speeds!? Seriously!???

In any case, it would have been impractical to have taken a tripod to this location

May I remind you that Picture 3 was not taken with a CPL and at a lower shutter speed - and it is sharp

It would be more helpful if you could post a more constructive comment

It was NOT A CRITIQUE...it was giving you a means of building an airtight case to claim valid proof of a defective filter!!! by elimination of the shooter as a variable.

Wilt wrote in post #19092166
It was NOT A CRITIQUE...it was giving you a means of building an airtight case to claim valid proof of a defective filter!!! by elimination of the shooter as a variable.

Fair enough but the location does not permit use of a tripod. And I was using high shutter speeds to eliminate camera shake. Picture 3 was taken at a lower shutter speed than pictures 1 & 2 and the photo is dead sharp (without the filter). I shouldn't have to use a tripod to build my case

I'm presuming then that it is definately a defective filter? I have bought another one and once I receive it, I will return to site and retake. I'm just making sure that I'm not missing anything else obvious as I have not used my 70-200 lens for a long time (and it has never been dropped)

john crossley wrote in post #19092168
With all due respect, the only way that you can maintain any consistency during your test shots is to use a tripod. And you don't have to take the test shots at the side of the railway do you. You can do them in your own home.

at 1/640 !??

The Canon EF 70-200 f4L is not a heavy lens

collectingrocks wrote in post #19092172
Fair enough but the location does not permit use of a tripod. And I was using high shutter speeds to eliminate camera shake. Picture 3 was taken at a lower shutter speed than pictures 1 & 2 and the photo is dead sharp (without the filter). I shouldn't have to use a tripod to build my case

I'm presuming then that it is definately a defective filter? I have bought another one and once I receive it, I will return to site and retake. I'm just making sure that I'm not missing anything else obvious as I have not used my 70-200 lens for a long time (and it has never been dropped)

As long as the camera is not on a tripod, one has one degree of doubt about the test shot not being subjected to camera motion induced by the shooter...it has nothing to do with YOU, it is elimination of a point of doubt that no one can contest.
motion might be as simple as your body sway to and fro as you breathe (a trained marksman knows about this), causing error in plane of focus between two consecutive shots (even if not the motion of the lens axis).
If that location did not permit use of a tripod, I am sure you can find a place where one can be used, with just as effective a target to show blur with filter, no blur without filter.
Just a means of PROOF --to yourself and others -- about the filter bad effects, you eliminate ALL variables comparing A vs B.

john crossley wrote in post #19092182
Also, do you really need to use Image Stabalisation in Panning Mode if you are shooting a static object at 1/640 of a second?

Eh? I don't understand

The 70-200mm f4L that I was using does not have IS (although I know one does exist)

I wasn't panning...

Now you tell me!

I just got a 67mm Hoya Pro1 Digital Protector Filter for my Sigma 100-400 just for protection. I have yet to use it. I'll try to post some shots with and without next week if I get a chance.

john crossley wrote in post #19092209
The EXIF says that IS is set to Panning.

[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 1054156 has been deleted. ]

Oh, I never knew that... thank you for pointing that out.

Clearly, I've been using this all along for goodness knows how long. Why has this not affected anything else or with any other lens?

And I never use AI Servo AF

I'm very confused now...

collectingrocks wrote in post #19092217

john crossley wrote in post #19092209
The EXIF says that IS is set to Panning.

[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 1054156 has been deleted. ]

Oh, I never knew that... thank you for pointing that out.

Clearly, I've been using this all along for goodness knows how long. Why has this not affected anything else or with any other lens?

And I never use AI Servo AF

I'm very confused now...

Maybe do a test on a tripod?

I'm bothered by your use of defocused instead of simply soft. There are multiple things that could be going on unrelated to focus.

As for your technique. The only way to eliminate a variable is to test under strictly controlled circumstances. You've asked for help and then you get prickly when given sound advice from experienced users.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19092247
I'm bothered by your use of defocused instead of simply soft. There are multiple things that could be going on unrelated to focus.

As for your technique. The only way to eliminate a variable is to test under strictly controlled circumstances. You've asked for help and then you get prickly when given sound advice from experienced users.

But everyone has ignored the fact that Picture 3 is sharp. This was using a slower shutter speed without a CPL

I will run tests when I receive my new filter in the post. Looking at all my other pictures taken on the same day, they are all sharp without the CPL.

Initially, I thought there might be a more sinister issue as I hadn't used my 70-200 for a long time

collectingrocks wrote in post #19092249
But everyone has ignored the fact that Picture 3 is sharp. This was using a slower shutter speed without a CPL

I will run tests when I receive my new filter in the post. Looking at all my other pictures taken on the same day, they are all sharp without the CPL.

Initially, I thought there might be a more sinister issue as I hadn't used my 70-200 for a long time

NO, not ignoring the fact that you got one good shot with no filter.
Merely trying to rule out multiple possible reasons (other than the filter) which might explain blurry subsequent shots after losing -1.5EV (or more) of light due to CPL light loss was accomodated.

Initially I panicked as I thought something serious was amiss as I have never before had any issues with filters and autofocus/manual focus. Last night, I checked all my shots again and have come to the conclusion that it is indeed, a dodgy CPL filter. It isn't new, so can't really send it back for a refund.

Out of 200odd pictures taken

All of my shots taken without the filter are sharp (50 shots)

All of my shots taken with the filter are out of focus (73 shots)

The remainder were taken with my 24-105 f4L with CPL (77mm) and all of these were sharp

Thanks everyone for all your help. I await my new filter with earnest

Okay. Just to be clear it's not a focus issue. Just because it's soft, it's soft (blurry fuzzy, etc) but that doesn't mean it's out of focus..