I don’t normally use a filter on this lens, however I’m going on safari in Tanzania where it will be very dusty. Is there any reason to use a protective filter on my 100-400L? I figure the hood provides ample protection from scratches and dust should be removed with a blower. How easy is it to damage the front element when cleaning?
I do use filters on my wide angle lenses where there is a much greater potential for damage as the hood still allows easy access to the front element.
I use a filter on mine 100% basically, but if I didn't do it 100%, I sure would use it in dusty Africa. Maybe take it off when indicated. I personally don't like cleaning the front element and disturbing the coatings, etc., although I'm sure many have done it over and over. If the filter gets unusable, get a new filter, but tougher for the front element. You may want a polarizing filter over there, since it's so bright, and that would be instead of a protecting filter.
With the push-pull, large zoom range of that lens (high volume movement), you will likely suck in some dust over there. Maybe try to minimize zooming when when the dust is stirred up.
eos3d wrote:
I used mine without a filter during my safaris in Africa but I always keep the lenshood on. I just remove the dust with a blower.
+1
That's what I did in Tanzania. No "stinkin' " filter on my lenses and they came back without any issues whatsoever. In my experience, it was dusty when traveling from one location to another on dirt road but you can store/cover your gear properly during that time. At shooting spots/opportunities, it wasn't that dusty at all.
BTW, the notion that a 100-400mm would suck in more dust than any other zoom lenses that extend while zooming is just not true. It doesn't matter whether it is a twisting action and a push-pull action, it moves the same amount of air, given the same zooming specs though.
I wonder if what makes the difference is that you can potentially zome faster and hence move the air faster. When I zoom in fast I can feel the air suching in to 30D battery door. Gave me quite a supprise the first time.
mtnski wrote:
I wonder if what makes the difference is that you can potentially zome faster and hence move the air faster. When I zoom in fast I can feel the air suching in to 30D battery door. Gave me quite a supprise the first time.
I took my first copy of this lens on long trips to the Galapagos, Antarctica and Tanzania, in addition to shorter trips within the US. I didn't experience any dust issues whatsoever. For some stupid reasons, I sold that lens . I missed it that much that I bought another copy. I like it because of its fast push-pull zoom action; really, I don't want that to be different. Have you experienced any dust issues or have noticed a lot of dust inside your lens?
I have not noticed any dust in this lens and to be honest it would not worry me if there was so long as it does not effect the image. I do wonder if it will increase dust in the sensor given the wa it sucks dust into the body although that is inly noticable when zooming fast.
Some people may have different experiences but my current bodies have the dust cleaning feature and I never had any dust issues on the sensor. Frankly, even with my previous bodies, the dust issues were minimal. I didn't have to resort to any wet cleaning method. I just use a rocket blower to get rid of some minor dust.
I took two camera bodies to Tanzania and the 100-400 was mounted pretty much on a FF body. I took a 24-105mm for landscape on that FF body. My main lens was a 500mm f/4.0 IS lens on a 1D Mark III. Frequently, I had to add a 1.4X TC onto that lens for more reach. By carrying two bodies, I could minimize lens changing in the field. In the evening at the camp, I always cleaned my gear, again, by just using the blower and nothing else.
I use filters most of the time, not for dust, but for impact protection. In fact, in the last month alone my 70-200 f2.8 IS fell twice (once directly onto a cement driveway), both times smashing the UV filter with NO damage to the lens. A $25 filter saved my $2K lens. If that happened to you with NO filter protector, mere dust would be a distant worry. And yes, I do remove the filter sometimes for shooting, but I hike in very precarious situations on granite and sandstone and often the lenses get bumped as I crawl around. My protection had paid off well. Even on my African safari, I used filters because gear was bouncing around the vehicle.
mtnski wrote:
I have not noticed any dust in this lens and to be honest it would not worry me if there was so long as it does not effect the image. I do wonder if it will increase dust in the sensor given the wa it sucks dust into the body although that is inly noticable when zooming fast.
Jeffrey wrote:
I use filters most of the time, not for dust, but for impact protection. In fact, in the last month alone my 70-200 f2.8 IS fell twice (once directly onto a cement driveway), both times smashing the UV filter with NO damage to the lens. A $25 filter saved my $2K lens. If that happened to you with NO filter protector, mere dust would be a distant worry. And yes, I do remove the filter sometimes for shooting, but I hike in very precarious situations on granite and sandstone and often the lenses get bumped as I crawl around. My protection had paid off well. Even on my African safari, I used filters because gear was bouncing around the vehicle....Show more →
Note to self: Don't buy a used lens from Jeffrey...
I never use a UV filter on my 100-400. Here is my thinking on this:
1. Because of the long focal length the hood is very deep and does a fine job of protecting the front element.
2. Dust on the front element isn't a big deal. You'd have to clean the filter anyway, so addingit won't save you any effort at all.
3. Front element glass is actually pretty tough material. You are very unlikely, indeed, to damage it by cleaning it.
4. A pristine front element isn't all that important anyway. A small bit of dust on it won't have any visible effect on your photographs at all.
5. There are some potential optical issues from using a filter including reflections between teh front element and the back of the filter, possible contrast issues, etc.
6. The UV filtering capability of the UV filters has no value with DSLRs, which are not sensitive to UV in these same way that film supposedly was. (If you want "protection" just get a good plain glass filter.)
7. While a filter can seal some Canon L lenses, the 100-400 is not one of them.
Dan
mtnski wrote:
I don’t normally use a filter on this lens, however I’m going on safari in Tanzania where it will be very dusty. Is there any reason to use a protective filter on my 100-400L? I figure the hood provides ample protection from scratches and dust should be removed with a blower. How easy is it to damage the front element when cleaning?
I do use filters on my wide angle lenses where there is a much greater potential for damage as the hood still allows easy access to the front element.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I never use a UV filter on my 100-400. Here is my thinking on this:
1. Because of the long focal length the hood is very deep and does a fine job of protecting the front element.
2. Dust on the front element isn't a big deal. You'd have to clean the filter anyway, so addingit won't save you any effort at all.
3. Front element glass is actually pretty tough material. You are very unlikely, indeed, to damage it by cleaning it.
4. A pristine front element isn't all that important anyway. A small bit of dust on it won't have any visible effect on your photographs at all.
5. There are some potential optical issues from using a filter including reflections between teh front element and the back of the filter, possible contrast issues, etc.
6. The UV filtering capability of the UV filters has no value with DSLRs, which are not sensitive to UV in these same way that film supposedly was. (If you want "protection" just get a good plain glass filter.)
7. While a filter can seal some Canon L lenses, the 100-400 is not one of them.
All of my lenses including 100-400 are provisioned with B&W UV MRC filters from day one.
That way I don't have to worry about dust penetration (17-55 f/2.8, 16-35, 17-40, 50 f/1.2 and 10-22......had all of them), dust/dirt/water stains etc. cleaning off the lens element proper, nor do I have to worry about accidental marring of the lens glass when I forget to put the dust cap on and similar.
Filters I can literally clean using spit and polish method, no big deal if they eventually end up with cleaning swirls.
So for a few extra $$ I get a very good insurance against a lens damage, at no apparent ill effects of filters on lens IQ. That represents no real dilemma in my mind.
Those cost, what, about $90 a pop? And you bought at least a half dozen of them? You spend over $500 on filters for protection?
OK now...
Dan PetKal wrote:
All of my lenses including 100-400 are provisioned with B&W UV MRC filters from day one.
That way I don't have to worry about dust penetration (17-55 f/2.8, 16-35, 17-40, 50 f/1.2 and 10-22......had all of them), dust/dirt/water stains etc. cleaning off the lens element proper, nor do I have to worry about accidental marring of the lens glass when I forget to put the dust cap on and similar.
Filters I can literally clean using spit and polish method, no big deal if they eventually end up with cleaning swirls.
So for a few extra $$ I get a very good insurance against a lens damage, at no apparent ill effects of filters on lens IQ. That represents no real dilemma in my mind. ...Show more →
gdanmitchell wrote:
Those cost, what, about $90 a pop? And you bought at least a half dozen of them? You spend over $500 on filters for protection?
Yes... these B+W filters cost a lot, so I use a moderately priced Canon UV filter to protect the B+W filter. The Canon filters are a bit fragile, so I cover them with a Hoya to make sure they don't get scratched. Just to be on the safe side, I put a cheap eBay skylight filter on each Hoya, because I can afford to throw them away when they get scratched. On an important shoot in nasty conditions, I'll have five or six of these cheapo filters stacked up on the front of my good filters, and I can quickly peel off the outer ones as they get mucked up without interrupting my shooting (kind of like the tear-away visor covers race car drivers wear).
I also find the big stack of filters acts like the "crumple zone" on a car, so they sacrifice themselves to absorb all the impact when I drop my camera on concrete, and all that extra weight on the front of the lens helps ensure that it strikes the ground end-first.
molson wrote:
Yes... these B+W filters cost a lot, so I use a moderately priced Canon UV filter to protect the B+W filter. The Canon filters are a bit fragile, so I cover them with a Hoya to make sure they don't get scratched. Just to be on the safe side, I put a cheap eBay skylight filter on each Hoya, because I can afford to throw them away when they get scratched. On an important shoot in nasty conditions, I'll have five or six of these cheapo filters stacked up on the front of my good filters, and I can quickly peel off the outer ones as they get mucked up without interrupting my shooting (kind of like the tear-away visor covers race car drivers wear).
I also find the big stack of filters acts like the "crumple zone" on a car, so they sacrifice themselves to absorb all the impact when I drop my camera on concrete, and all that extra weight on the front of the lens helps ensure that it strikes the ground end-first....Show more →
" filter on my lenses and they came back without any issues whatsoever. In my experience, it was dusty when traveling from one location to another on dirt road but you can store/cover your gear properly during that time. At shooting spots/opportunities, it wasn't that dusty at all. 
. I missed it that much that I bought another copy. I like it because of its fast push-pull zoom action; really, I don't want that to be different. Have you experienced any dust issues or have noticed a lot of dust inside your lens?
