Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

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

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2017 · 100-400 II and Filters

  
 
newphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 100-400 II and Filters


I am in the habit of using B&W UV filters on all my lenses. Using my 100-400 II on my 7D II it seemed just a little soft at 400mm. Took lots of sharpening in PS to get what, to me, were acceptable results. I recently removed the filter and it seems a little sharper without it. Anyone else experienced this with this lens? Don't really want to start a huge debate on the value of protective filters, just interested in this lens, with and without the filter.


May 26, 2017 at 10:10 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 100-400 II and Filters


I normally don't use protective filters, and so I can't provide a direct answer. In the past, many people posted similar comments about using filters on the original version of the 100-400L IS, but I haven't seen much about the Mk II.


May 26, 2017 at 10:20 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 100-400 II and Filters


newphoto wrote:
I am in the habit of using B&W UV filters on all my lenses.


So am I, including 100-400 II, i.e., a B&W MCR filter on the lens from day one, including duty on 7DII. No reason to take the filter off and experiment, because I found the (lens + filter) to be nicely sharp as expected.

Any performance issues exhibited by my 100-400 II + 7DII setup were due to the fact my 7DII was sort of "fussy", regardless of the lens used .



May 26, 2017 at 10:27 AM
pshyvers
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 100-400 II and Filters


I believe I posted here about similar experiences with the 7D II & 100-400 II and clear filters. Plenty of people agreed they had seen the same behavior. In my case it was a Hoya that was supposedly good quality, but turned feathers to mud. On close inspection it looked like several copies of the image were landing on the sensor, offset by several pixels.

There have been a few people who say the filter causes them no problems; perhaps supreme quality $150 filters manage to perform well enough.



May 26, 2017 at 10:30 AM
hokiejokey
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 100-400 II and Filters


I only use filters for special effects, like ND and polarizers. Even the clear filters block some light, and I don't trust them to not affect sharpness. Yeah, I'm probably gambling a bit but oh well...


May 26, 2017 at 10:58 AM
Licinius
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 100-400 II and Filters


I have the same habit, and on most lenses I haven't found it to be much of an issue, but I found the same thing on my 100-400 ii, esp shooting birds, so it lives without a filter.


May 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 100-400 II and Filters


jcolwell wrote:
I normally don't use protective filters, and so I can't provide a direct answer. In the past, many people posted similar comments about using filters on the original version of the 100-400L IS, but I haven't seen much about the Mk II.


I also have no particular issues with the 100-400 II and a filter. I do use a polarizer fairly often and of course the UV filter on an active shoreline with wind, sand and spray.

The 7D II and its ilk create muddy enough images without any help from a filter.

EBH



May 26, 2017 at 11:34 AM
technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 100-400 II and Filters


My 100-400II is VERY soft for closeup shots (see thread of 1-2 weeks ago), for most of the focal length range (at least 200-400mm, didn't test 100mm setting), as long as the aperture value is below f/8, but even at f/8-f/10 it is still visible depending on scene (most apparent when there is a light background and the subject is relatively dark and sharply defined). The effect is worst for minimum focus distance, but still visible at distances of a few meters if you look for it (compared to e.g. a 200 or 300mm prime lens).

I have now heard from several other users who have the exact same problem with the 100-400II and I'm suspecting that there are many more but they simply haven't used the lens in the conditions that cause this effect, or they have no reference of what such closeup tele images should look like.

Because others suggested that a filter was the likely cause I thoroughly tested that, and my Hoya Pro1 Digital protect filter has ZERO influence on IQ for closeup images. Haven't really tested for large distance because that is almost impossible in my area due to thermal effects (lots of water all around). I agree that one should leave the filter off if possible, but I often work in conditions like sea/sand or lots of dust and small bugs in nature where I need some protection for the lens.

On another note, I have lots of problems with AF inconsistency on my 80D, it sounds similar to what some others are reporting for the 7D2. The AF is fine for e.g. my 15-85 and scenes at normal distance which isn't really criticial, but for closeups with tele lenses (1-5 meters distance or so) it is useless, simply unreliable. If I look at the active AF points in DPP I really wonder what the engineers were smoking ... But I'm sure this doesn't cause the softness either, because I am using MF most of the time and the softness for closeups is still there when using MF or Liveview focus.



May 26, 2017 at 03:47 PM
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 100-400 II and Filters


technic wrote:
My 100-400II is VERY soft for closeup shots (see thread of 1-2 weeks ago), for most of the focal length range (at least 200-400mm, didn't test 100mm setting), as long as the aperture value is below f/8, but even at f/8-f/10 it is still visible depending on scene (most apparent when there is a light background and the subject is relatively dark and sharply defined). The effect is worst for minimum focus distance, but still visible at distances of a few meters if you look for it (compared to e.g. a 200 or 300mm prime lens).

I have now heard from
...Show more

After reading this, I went and did some controlled testing. For the record, I don't see softness in my copy when shooting at close distances (within a meter or two) using Live View focusing and firm support.

However, my copy does need a different MFA setting at close distances than at infinity when focusing through the viewfinder. Are you sure you aren't experiencing this effect in your copy?



May 26, 2017 at 06:49 PM
David Garcia
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 100-400 II and Filters


PetKal wrote:
So am I, including 100-400 II, i.e., a B&W MCR filter on the lens from day one, including duty on 7DII. No reason to take the filter off and experiment, because I found the (lens + filter) to be nicely sharp as expected.

Any performance issues exhibited by my 100-400 II + 7DII setup were due to the fact my 7DII was sort of "fussy", regardless of the lens used .


+1
You took the words right out of my mouth. :-)



May 26, 2017 at 08:19 PM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 100-400 II and Filters


PetKal wrote:
So am I, including 100-400 II, i.e., a B&W MCR filter on the lens from day one, including duty on 7DII. No reason to take the filter off and experiment, because I found the (lens + filter) to be nicely sharp as expected.

Any performance issues exhibited by my 100-400 II + 7DII setup were due to the fact my 7DII was sort of "fussy", regardless of the lens used .


"fussy"

Yes I will add that one to my ongoing list of ways to describe the 7D2's AF behaviour



May 26, 2017 at 09:16 PM
newphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 100-400 II and Filters


arbitrage wrote:
"fussy"

Yes I will add that one to my ongoing list of ways to describe the 7D2's AF behaviour


Guess the 7D II may be more at fault then the filter on the 100-400 II. It's really weird. Sometimes I am more then pleased with the sharpness of this combination, and then, like yesterday, not so much. Don't know what the difference might be



May 26, 2017 at 09:21 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 100-400 II and Filters


My 100-400 II cum B+W MRC UV filter has always worked consistently well on 1DX as well as dRebel T6s.

Edited on Jun 01, 2017 at 06:45 AM · View previous versions



May 26, 2017 at 10:47 PM
rattlebonez
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 100-400 II and Filters


That is a beautiful image Peter. Even with that IQ robbing filter


May 26, 2017 at 11:15 PM
technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 100-400 II and Filters


garyvot wrote:
After reading this, I went and did some controlled testing. For the record, I don't see softness in my copy when shooting at close distances (within a meter or two) using Live View focusing and firm support.

However, my copy does need a different MFA setting at close distances than at infinity when focusing through the viewfinder. Are you sure you aren't experiencing this effect in your copy?


Yes, I'm absolutely, 100% sure. The softness is exactly the same when using exact MF or Liveview focus.

Also, although many of my images using PDAF (AI Servo) had some focus error, there were quite a few images that have exact focus: easy to see because there are many sharply defined, very fine structures - there definitely is no focus error or camera shake, the only problem is a diffuse flare from 'background glow'. The 'soft focus' effect occurs whatever the focusing method or accuracy of focus.

Please note that as I mentioned before, you only will see it near MFD, at apertures from wide open to about f/7.1 (less obvious from about f/8) and when the background is relatively light and subject relatively dark. It probably is 'bokeh blur' as was mentioned in an earlier thread. Although I still see the effect for distances up to 5 meters or so, it is most obvious when the whole subject frame is less than postcard size. Most birds are many times bigger than this, especially when we are talking about BIF shots that usually have wider framing - so the effect would be far less obvious.

I also found that on my 80D the 100-400II at 400mm needs different MFA for far or close subjects, which is a problem because I use a range of MFD to at least 5 meters or so and not setting will do for everything. However, the 2.8/200 with TC1.4 that I'm now using instead has a similar problem regarding required MFA (but whatever the focus, it never has the 'soft focus effect'). The only solution I have is using MF (not accurate enough, but usually pretty close) or Liveview focusing when possible.



May 27, 2017 at 04:02 AM
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 100-400 II and Filters


technic wrote:
Yes, I'm absolutely, 100% sure. The softness is exactly the same when using exact MF or Liveview focus.

Also, although many of my images using PDAF (AI Servo) had some focus error, there were quite a few images that have exact focus: easy to see because there are many sharply defined, very fine structures - there definitely is no focus error or camera shake, the only problem is a diffuse flare from 'background glow'. The 'soft focus' effect occurs whatever the focusing method or accuracy of focus.

Please note that as I mentioned before, you only will see it near
...Show more

Interesting. So it is kind of a bloom or halation seen at very close distances, noticeable with light backgrounds? That's fascinating. I will do some more checking. Though this phenomenon wouldn't likely impact my use of the lens in most cases, I still like to know the limitations of my tools.



May 27, 2017 at 05:40 AM
Sy Sez
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 100-400 II and Filters


There's wide consensus that UV control is totally irrelevant with Digital Sensors.
https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+filter+for+Digital%3F%3F%3F&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_enUS416&gws_rd=ssl

A "clear" protective device may be prudent in certain harsh conditions; but a Lens Hood, especially with a depth, typically, found on a telephoto lens should offer adequate protection in most situations.



May 27, 2017 at 08:11 AM
pshyvers
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 100-400 II and Filters


technic wrote:
Also, although many of my images using PDAF (AI Servo) had some focus error, there were quite a few images that have exact focus: easy to see because there are many sharply defined, very fine structures - there definitely is no focus error or camera shake, the only problem is a diffuse flare from 'background glow'. The 'soft focus' effect occurs whatever the focusing method or accuracy of focus.

Please note that as I mentioned before, you only will see it near MFD, at apertures from wide open to about f/7.1 (less obvious from about f/8) and when the background
...Show more

Frankly some of my test shots have reminded me of the old 70-300mm non-L I started with. 300mm f/5.6 it would have considerable glow. That was when I learned about stopping down for sharpness, in that len's case f/8 fixed almost all of the edge blur/glow/halo.

We expect the 100-400 to be sharp wide open, but I wonder if it's possible for a lens to be sharp at "normal" distances, but start to need stopping down near MFD.



May 27, 2017 at 01:31 PM
technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 100-400 II and Filters


Sy Sez wrote:
There's wide consensus that UV control is totally irrelevant with Digital Sensors.
https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+filter+for+Digital%3F%3F%3F&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_enUS416&gws_rd=ssl

A "clear" protective device may be prudent in certain harsh conditions; but a Lens Hood, especially with a depth, typically, found on a telephoto lens should offer adequate protection in most situations.


Agree, I use the filter when I have to deal with lots of 'junk' (sand, salt, small bugs) in the air. I'm in a windy area near the coast, otherwise it would probably not be an issue.



May 27, 2017 at 01:46 PM
technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 100-400 II and Filters


garyvot wrote:
Interesting. So it is kind of a bloom or halation seen at very close distances, noticeable with light backgrounds? That's fascinating. I will do some more checking. Though this phenomenon wouldn't likely impact my use of the lens in most cases, I still like to know the limitations of my tools.


Yes, that is my impression and some other users say basically the same.

For most users it may not be an issue at all, I just have bad luck that I purchased the 100-400II primarily for exactly the type of subject where it doesn't work well. Due to the 'universal praise' it gets on the forums I assumed it would be no problem, and I wasn't able to do real testing until long after purchase.

---------------------------------------------

pshyvers wrote:
Frankly some of my test shots have reminded me of the old 70-300mm non-L I started with. 300mm f/5.6 it would have considerable glow. That was when I learned about stopping down for sharpness, in that len's case f/8 fixed almost all of the edge blur/glow/halo.

We expect the 100-400 to be sharp wide open, but I wonder if it's possible for a lens to be sharp at "normal" distances, but start to need stopping down near MFD.


It is probably more common with zoom lenses, my 15-85 has a bit similar problem (the 'glow' is less pronounced but unlike the 100-400 it has simply low resolution for closeups and strong field curvature as well). My 4/300IS and 2.8/200L don't have this issue. From what I remember, my old 18-55IS didn't have the closeup problem either, but that lens had another 'flare' issue in high contrast scenes, irrespective of subject distance.

Indeed stopping down to f/8 and staying away a bit from the MFD cures most of the glow, but in some cases it can still be very annoying - it really depends on the subject. I guess this is acceptable to most users, but for my dragonfly photography I cannot normally use f/11 due to light levels, especially for flying dragonflies that would require too high ISO.



May 27, 2017 at 01:57 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.