DavidBM Online Upload & Sell: On
|
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Has anyone replaced their drop-in filter on 400/600GM? | |
ChrisMak wrote:
You might like to try and leave out the filter, and see how that goes. You might be pleasantly surprised. I did just that with the Canon 400DOII, and noticed an improvement in detail. This will only be true for a high resolution camera, and for a sub-par screw in filter like Canon's older one, but the thing is, I never noticed ány downsides on leaving the filter out, despite the endless theoretical ones. Only thing that happens as far as I know, is a slight shift in focus as soon as pulling out the filter, but that is corrected by the AF.
someone sometime will have to let me in on the usefullness of these drop-in filter holders, since I like lenses without them best. They always introduce some kind of impact, be it a slight (or even clear) color cast, a drop in very fine detail, a lesser acuity or clarity. It is not a coincidence that lenses without these drop in filters often seem to punch above their weight, like the Nikon 500PF, or Sony's own 200-600G. Or Olympus latest 150-400mm....
It is just a suggestion, but it is one of the first things I will try as soon as I get mine. ...Show more →
Not a good idea, I think. These long tele lenses are calculated with a flat element in the image path, whose refraction is taken into account. Removing it will give you induced field curvature and possibly a little outer field astigmatism. This is the reason there is a clear/UV filter there is the first place. They want you to be able to use a polariser or ND filter, but if they calculate the lens with a filter, then shipping it without one will be problematic. If they calculate the lens without a filter, then using a pol or ND will be problematic. So they calculate it with a filter, and put in a more or less clear one when it ships so performance is as expected (filters at the front of the lens have no or negligible effect, but at the rear you need to calculate for them)
|