Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password FM Forum Rules Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell    Search Used end    Archive 2009 · Protective filter on 100-400L?

mtnski Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #1 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Nov 16, 2009 at 02:10 PM

erichard Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #2 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. I love my 100-400. Nov 16, 2009 at 02:20 PM

eos3d Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #3 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Nov 16, 2009 at 03:13 PM

mtnski Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #4 · Protective filter on 100-400L? Thanks for the input. Are the coating realy that easy to "disturb"? Nov 16, 2009 at 03:24 PM

reko Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #5 · Protective filter on 100-400L? I kept my 2 cameras and lenses in 2 separate plastic bags. You'll have time to take the cameras out as shooting ops present themselves. Nov 16, 2009 at 03:33 PM

AGeoJO Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #6 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Edited on Nov 16, 2009 at 04:18 PM · View previous versions Nov 16, 2009 at 03:40 PM

mtnski Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #7 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Nov 16, 2009 at 04:17 PM

dirb9 Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #8 · Protective filter on 100-400L? mtnski wrote: Thanks for the input. Are the coating realy that easy to "disturb"? Modern coatings are harder than the glass onto which they are coated. If you are careful, it is very difficult to scratch the glass. Nov 16, 2009 at 04:27 PM

AGeoJO Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #9 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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? Nov 16, 2009 at 04:29 PM

mtnski Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #10 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Nov 16, 2009 at 04:41 PM

AGeoJO Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #11 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Have fun in Tanzania! Nov 16, 2009 at 05:00 PM

Jeffrey Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #12 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Nov 16, 2009 at 07:23 PM

Imagemaster Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #13 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. So don't do any fast zooming. Nov 16, 2009 at 07:29 PM

molson Online Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #14 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Note to self: Don't buy a used lens from Jeffrey... Nov 16, 2009 at 07:33 PM

gdanmitchell Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #15 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Nov 16, 2009 at 11:27 PM

Imagemaster Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #16 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Dan Nov 17, 2009 at 02:53 AM

PetKal Online Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #17 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Nov 17, 2009 at 04:02 AM

gdanmitchell Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #18 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Nov 17, 2009 at 04:36 AM

molson Online Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #19 · Protective filter on 100-400L? 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. Nov 17, 2009 at 02:05 PM

Ian.Dobinson Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #20 · Protective filter on 100-400L? molson wrote: 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. Nov 17, 2009 at 02:10 PM

gdanmitchell Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #21 · Protective filter on 100-400L? ;-) At least we can be assured that since a filter won't degrade image quality that the sum of "no degradation" on each filter will still be "no degradation" with all nine of the non-degrading filters in use. :-) But in all seriousness, one issue regarding the "filter as insurance" approach is that the cost of the "insurance" can become quite high if you a) use filters whose optical quality is equal to the optical quality of your lenses, b) put one of these fine filters on each of your lenses, and c) think through the odds of actual damage, the cost of that damage, and your total cost of insurance. This goes to my point that on a cost basis alone such filters generally don't make a lot of sense. More here: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not Take care, Dan molson wrote: 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. Nov 17, 2009 at 10:21 PM

dcains Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #22 · Protective filter on 100-400L? molson wrote: 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. I do the same thing - thought I was the only one. And, I only shoot from inside my car, with the windows rolled up. Nov 17, 2009 at 10:27 PM

molson Online Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #23 · Protective filter on 100-400L? dcains wrote: I do the same thing - thought I was the only one. And, I only shoot from inside my car, with the windows rolled up. Well, it is safer that way... but my personal preference is to stay home and use really long lenses. Nov 18, 2009 at 12:45 AM

PetKal Online Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #24 · Protective filter on 100-400L? molson wrote: dcains wrote: I do the same thing - thought I was the only one. And, I only shoot from inside my car, with the windows rolled up. Well, it is safer that way... but my personal preference is to stay home and use really long lenses. It's good to see that you are not being bashful about it, Molson: there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a collector of gears. Nov 18, 2009 at 12:53 AM

tanglefoot47 Online Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #25 · Protective filter on 100-400L? I have gotten away from using filters unless I am in a dusty or wet area and when I do use one i use the protector filter it's clear glass coated and a little less money than a UV filter. But from what I have read with the digital camera one does not need a UV So going to Africa I would use a filter just to protect my glass in the dusty environment Nov 18, 2009 at 12:57 AM

	FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost your password?