Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2013 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or simila...
  
 
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
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.


Jan 21, 2013 at 09:27 PM
WestFalcon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
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.


Jan 21, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
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.



Jan 22, 2013 at 12:15 AM
RobDickinson
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
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.





Jan 22, 2013 at 12:21 AM
Zenon Char
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
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.



Jan 22, 2013 at 01:10 PM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
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.



Jan 22, 2013 at 02:25 PM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
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).



Jan 22, 2013 at 02:26 PM
firstgear99
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
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
...Show moregood explanation.....makes sense to me...



Jan 25, 2013 at 01:35 AM
kodakeos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
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..



Jan 25, 2013 at 01:41 AM
RobDickinson
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400


I dont clean my lenses with brillo pads...


Jan 25, 2013 at 01:45 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
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.




Jan 25, 2013 at 01:59 AM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
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.



Jan 25, 2013 at 02:08 AM
DocsPics
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
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


Jan 25, 2013 at 02:24 AM
RobDickinson
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400


Thanks DocsPics, its these handy pro tips you always struggle to pick up!


Jan 25, 2013 at 02:29 AM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
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.



Jan 25, 2013 at 09:20 AM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
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.



Jan 25, 2013 at 01:24 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
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.


Edited on Jan 25, 2013 at 02:50 PM · View previous versions



Jan 25, 2013 at 02:25 PM
Chris Anthony
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400


Does this problem occur when using polarizers or other filters or is it just UV filters?


Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48 PM
CW100
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400


firstgear99 wrote:
Thanks to those that commented that the 100-400 is known to be soft with filters.


I think all telephotos suffer somewhat with a UV filter




Jan 25, 2013 at 06:31 PM
Zenon Char
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400


I agree they do but can the human eye tell the difference if a high quality is used.


Jan 25, 2013 at 07:40 PM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password