p.1 #1 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
I can't remember which thread I read about the 100-400 zoom being soft when UV or similar type of protective filter is attached to the front of the lens. Today, I attached the lens to my 1Dx and took sample shots with and without the filter.
Yes, I can confirm I saw a difference with the lens softer with the filter than without. My filter might have been cheap, maye that was part of the problem but a noticeable difference without. My lens will now be without. The filter used was a Hoya UV.
Thanks to those that commented that the 100-400 is known to be soft with filters.
p.1 #6 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
eskimochaos wrote:
Dont use UV filters on any lens.
Will, you do realise that beginner photographers may be reading this and that what you wrote could be potentially harmful, don't you?
You have to offer more information and reasoning than that; the pros and cons, and alternatives.
With your experience I know you realise that the Canon weather sealed lenses are only such with a filter; UV or other.
I have filters on all my lenses. Sometimes I even like to reduce reflections and use a polarizer; have you ever used a polariser? How about a neutral density filter; ever?
Just be mindful of who may read flippant comments.
p.1 #7 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
eskimochaos wrote:
Dont use UV filters on any lens.
+1 on this. Filters will affect all lens, some more than others for sure. I used to think there's no discernible difference but after careful testing I have removed all filters off my lenses. Like some of you, I was willing to pay almost triple the 24-105 for a 24-70 mk2 for that little bit of IQ improvement then why would I want to degrade it with a filter?
Like most, I baby my lenses and I can't recall ever bumping any of them against anything. I figure the lens hood will help in that regard. I'm not a working pro so I don't have time pressures or anything like that. I have seen subtle but immediate improvement in IQ without the filters. It also saves some money not buying them
Edit: as part of babying lenses, I don't shoot in bad weather either. I don't need to make a living at it so why risk my equipment in the rain or stuff like that. Regarding the claims that Canon lenses require a filter for weather proofing...is there any proof to that? None of my lenses manuals mention anything like that...
p.1 #8 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
diverhank wrote:
... Regarding the claims that Canon lenses require a filter for weather proofing...is there any proof to that? None of my lenses manuals mention anything like that...
AFAIK, only the 17-40L needs a filter to complete the weatherproofing. Maybe the 24-105L too. A few others probably do as well, but it's the exception, not the rule.
p.1 #10 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
jcolwell wrote:
AFAIK, only the 17-40L needs a filter to complete the weatherproofing. Maybe the 24-105L too. A few others probably do as well, but it's the exception, not the rule.
I believe the 16-35/2.8 II also requires a filter to complete the weather-proofing.
p.1 #11 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
Paul Mo wrote:
Will, you do realise that beginner photographers may be reading this and that what you wrote could be potentially harmful, don't you?
.
The beginner photographer in question has a 1DX and multiple L lenses.
Furthermore, only SOME require a UV filter for complete weather sealing.
Sorry, what I wrote was not harmful, this is the internet and you must take everything you read with a grain of salt. It is up to the end user to absorb nuggets of key pieces of information and decided for themselves what it is they deem important or not.
p.1 #12 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
eskimochaos wrote:
Dont use UV filters on any lens.
Sweet dude, come to Hawaii with your nekid tele 'n shoot big waves 'n surfers.
I use a UV filter, hood and damp towel when I shoot on North Shore beaches during big wave season (winter). After about 30 minutes my hair is stiff from salt mist and my sun glasses are useless until I rinse off in a beach shower. After the shoot I wipe down the camera and lens, remove the UV filter and rinse off it in the kitchen sink, padding dry with a micro fiber cloth. After a season of shooting I often need to toss the filter as it's too scratched to use. When I first started shooting on beaches I ruined the front element of a zoom trying to remove salt spray.
p.1 #13 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
Well, actually not beginner. Hobby photographer......
For years and years (>40) I have always had some kind of filter on my lens to protect them. Came in handy once when we went to a wedding, my wife opened the rear door and my lens had shifted on the back seat and took a dive to the ground. The filter was dented and cracked the filter. Nothing happened to my lens.
I do have a bunch of L lens and all but the 8-15 FishEye have/had a filter. The filter is off the 100-400. Are there any others? I haven't noticed other lens being soft, but I may have others. Supposedly the 100-400 is a known lens that doesn't like a UV or Skylight filter on it.
p.1 #17 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
eskimochaos wrote:
OK, lets take it to an extreme where anyone with any common sense would use a UV filter. The OP is discussing using a filter on a telephoto.
Not an extreme. It's my backyard! Albeit no filters on may pancakes since they're for indoor and bar shooting.
p.1 #18 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
Protective UV filters have their time and place, when i am out hoofing it in weather for a great shot, i have a filter on. When i am in a controlled environment like my studio, i never use a filter.
It is not either/or
A time and place.
I did have CPS send me the 100-400mm to check out for ten days, and took it out for 3-4 good outdoor shoots with a 77mm B+W MRC filter on the whole time, and was non plussed with the results, so did not purchase the lens. If any lens should cry out for a protective filter, this beast should be on the list. I would hesitate to say any lens over 300mm should also be on the list.
+1 on not using cheap filters, B+W MRC being the bare minimum in my book.
p.1 #19 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
I noticed an improvement in focus accuracy and sharpness when I took the UV filter off my 100-400L. Not so with my other lenses. I don't use UV "protective" filters anymore, but always put back lens caps when finished using each lens.
I was using Hoya multi coated filters but found them devilish hard to keep clean and free of smudge marks, the main reason why I gave up on screw in filters.
p.1 #20 · Thanks to those that commented on No Filter (UV or similar) on 100-400
I really interested in what was said about the UV filter being necessary to make a lens weather proof. Never heard of that, but, that is not unusual for me.
Could you enlarge on that issue or show me where I could find what lenses need or do not need this?
Thanks much.
