p.3 #1 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
Cheap filters--Hoya basic or Tiffen--flare easily if you shoot sunsets or have a bright street light in a night scene. I assume poor coatings are to blame. Otherwise it is difficult to tell a difference.
p.3 #2 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
I clean my lenses fairly often and I don't want to touch the glass with any liquids or cleaning cloth and cause the dreaded cleaning marks. I would prefer to clean a good quality filter instead.....I really don't see a decrease in sharpness but this battle has been waging for many years and to each his own. My good friend was anti filter and came back from a photo trip with a 1/4 inch scratch in the glass of his lens....He now uses filters but hey, you make up your own mind. It's your glass.
p.3 #3 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
WestFalcon wrote:
I clean my lenses fairly often and I don't want to touch the glass with any liquids or cleaning cloth and cause the dreaded cleaning marks. I would prefer to clean a good quality filter instead.....I really don't see a decrease in sharpness but this battle has been waging for many years and to each his own. My good friend was anti filter and came back from a photo trip with a 1/4 inch scratch in the glass of his lens....He now uses filters but hey, you make up your own mind. It's your glass.
Bush branches nailed my front element once when I was carrying my camera on a tripod.
p.3 #4 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
Roger Cicala said:
weather sealing is rarely more than a rubber gasket at the lens mount and tape over any holes in the lens barrel under the rubber. At least as far as we can tell.
p.3 #5 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
WestFalcon wrote:
I clean my lenses fairly often and I don't want to touch the glass with any liquids or cleaning cloth and cause the dreaded cleaning marks. I would prefer to clean a good quality filter instead.....I really don't see a decrease in sharpness but this battle has been waging for many years and to each his own. My good friend was anti filter and came back from a photo trip with a 1/4 inch scratch in the glass of his lens....He now uses filters but hey, you make up your own mind. It's your glass.
I'm the same. I bet I touch my front element once a year.
p.3 #6 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
People tend to clean their lenses too often and thus get sucked into the notion of using 'protective' filters.
A quick dusting with a blower like a rocket blower is usually all that is needed. Less frequently, one can dust the lens with a blower brush, with the lens pointing down. It's very efficient and hardly counts as touching at all. The purpose of the blower in a blower brush is to blow through the brush as a way of cleaning the brush without touching the brush.
p.3 #7 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
Lenses with longer focal lengths and larger entrance pupils (which typically go together) have a double-whammy increase in sensitivity to the quality (optical flatness/uniformity) of filters --- the lens both magnifies the small angular changes caused by nonuniformity more, and each point in the image "sees" a larger area of the filter (so the filter needs to be flat over a much larger scale). A filter that will be just fine with a wide/normal lens may cause trouble on a telephoto (the plastic Singh-Ray grad NDs I've used are great on wide angles, but will turn a shot with my 280/4 to mush). Issues with flare/contrast can strike any lens.
Not doing apples-to-apples comparisons with focal length and entrance pupil often adds confusion to the "filter-or-not" debates --- one person sees degradation on their fast telephoto (using a high-$ filter), which another disputes because their wide-angle slow zoom works with the cheapest window-glass filter. The level of filter quality necessary to avoid noticeable compromise in image quality might vary by an order of magnitude or two based on the lens (length, speed, intrinsic sharpness, filter reflection interactions).
p.3 #8 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
mpmendenhall wrote:
Lenses with longer focal lengths and larger entrance pupils (which typically go together) have a double-whammy increase in sensitivity to the quality (optical flatness/uniformity) of filters --- the lens both magnifies the small angular changes caused by nonuniformity more, and each point in the image "sees" a larger area of the filter (so the filter needs to be flat over a much larger scale). A filter that will be just fine with a wide/normal lens may cause trouble on a telephoto (the plastic Singh-Ray grad NDs I've used are great on wide angles, but will turn a shot with my 280/4 to mush). Issues with flare/contrast can strike any lens.
Not doing apples-to-apples comparisons with focal length and entrance pupil often adds confusion to the "filter-or-not" debates --- one person sees degradation on their fast telephoto (using a high-$ filter), which another disputes because their wide-angle slow zoom works with the cheapest window-glass filter. The level of filter quality necessary to avoid noticeable compromise in image quality might vary by an order of magnitude or two based on the lens (length, speed, intrinsic sharpness, filter reflection interactions)....Show more →good explanation.....makes sense to me...
p.3 #9 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
Does no one clean their lenses? I mean I use B+W on all my filters and after a few years of cleaning, there are TONS of scratches.
Id much rather scratch a filter and replace it then scratch my 24-70. My front element still looks new, because ive NEVER touched it.
and as long as you use Quality glass and filters, there will be the smallest imperceivable change.
Stop pixel peeping and start getting out there and getting dirty! The best pics happen then..
p.3 #11 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
kodakeos wrote:
Does no one clean their lenses? I mean I use B+W on all my filters and after a few years of cleaning, there are TONS of scratches. Id much rather scratch a filter and replace it then scratch my 24-70. My front element still looks new, because ive NEVER touched it. and as long as you use Quality glass and filters, there will be the smallest imperceivable change.
I clean my lenses. I've been cleaning my 24 year old 50 mm f/1.8 and 28 mm f/2.8 lenses for years and they have no scratches. Zip, zero, zilch. I haven't used a 'protective' filter on them except for a few years at the beginning.
1) Lens coatings are harder and better than filter coatings.
2) People clean their lenses too often. A light dusting with a blower or a blower brush is all that is needed most days. Rarely do you actually have to get out the fluid.
p.3 #12 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
A female security guard pressed her finger in the center of the front element of my 17-55 2.8 IS while warning me not to take pictures. She left a big greasy fingerprint. Strangely enough, I wasn't taking pictures but was simply wearing my camera tourist geek style, dangling from a nurd strap. I lost my temper and yelled at her, actually frightening her and she apologized. I decided to leave the church (Church of the Holy Blood in Brugge) as didn't want to escalate matters while ticked off. I wouldn't have cared if she grabbed my arse (might have thanked her) but fingering my front element is huge no-no. Luckily I easily removed the print outside with a dab of lens cleaner and micro fiber. My prints don't clean nearly as easy...
The funny thing is I normally use a UV filter to protect from stray doggie noses and baby fingers but removed the filter earlier in the day to use a polarizer.
p.3 #13 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
Brillo pads are OK as long as you make circular movements while cleaning. You can get some very unique lens rendering effects that way. I think counter-clockwise cleaning works better in the Northern Hemisphere, has something to do with the Coriolis effect (but don't take my word for it, I think I saw it on the net somewhere sometime ago). YMMV
p.3 #15 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
DocsPics wrote:
Brillo pads are OK as long as you make circular movements while cleaning. You can get some very unique lens rendering effects that way. I think counter-clockwise cleaning works better in the Northern Hemisphere, has something to do with the Coriolis effect (but don't take my word for it, I think I saw it on the net somewhere sometime ago). YMMV
I think I may have experienced Coriolis last night. I was exceedingly thankful as it's been a long time.
p.3 #16 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
As many others mentioned earlier, I have observed the same problem with a good UV filter attached on the 100-400 - it just doesn't work, photos came out blurry. This lens is definitely one where I avoid to use it with filter.
Normally I only use UV filters when I face more severe circumstances like sand or dust, on the beach for example. In most other scenarios, simple hood protection works out fine.
I clean lenses with blower, lenspen and/or with microfiber cloth.
p.3 #17 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
mpmendenhall wrote:
Not doing apples-to-apples comparisons with focal length and entrance pupil often adds confusion to the "filter-or-not" debates --- one person sees degradation on their fast telephoto (using a high-$ filter), which another disputes because their wide-angle slow zoom works with the cheapest window-glass filter. The level of filter quality necessary to avoid noticeable compromise in image quality might vary by an order of magnitude or two based on the lens (length, speed, intrinsic sharpness, filter reflection interactions).
I did not see this on my 400/5.6 telephoto with a B+W filter but it isn't that fast of a lens either. I do plan on getting the Sigma 120-300 zoom this year with front threads for a 105 filter and it will interesting if this has any issues.
