Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II....at last, it's announced!!
- Thread starter mipevo6
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,696
- Name
- Frank
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nope.
All so-called 'protective' filters, even the most expensive, will cause noticeable image degradation under some conditions. This degradation is much more likely on long lenses. The old Mk1 was notorious for behaving very badly with these filters and there's no reason to believe that the Mk2 will be any different. Use the hood every time and it'll be extremely difficult for anything to get in to the front element of the lens.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am about to buy this lens, but was wondering the best way to carry it around on a 7dmk2 body using my Black Rapid strap?
Should I connect the BR to lens, if so will it just screw into the foot, or should I still connect the BR to camera body?
Also should I by a filter for the lens for protection? Or is this down to personal choice?
....I use this 100-400mm L II on a 7D2 and a BlackRapid strap.
I have an Arca-Swiss (A-S) plate semi-permanently attached to my lens tripod collar foot. I also have an Arca-Swiss plate attached to my 7D2 body.
On my BlackRapid strap I have an Acratech Swift Clamp semi-permanently attached which receives A-S plates (in the same way that a tripod/monopod can do).
This arrangement offers me maximum flexibility and with ease and speed. However, it ain't cheap! But then again, I won't have to buy any replacements.
DON"T hang your body off the BR when the 100-400mm is mounted - Although all the mounts are metal it nevertheless adds potential stress. I do hang my body off the BR for convenience sometimes when swopping lenses.
I find the standard BR carib fiddly to attach/detach so the Acratech Swift Clamp solves the problem :
Regarding lens protection I use a Hoya Pro1 Digital filter. IF you drop a lens it's usually the front glass element which breaks first and so cheaper to replace a filter than repair a lens. But besides that reason, it protects from rain and/or mud splashes and dust etc and that stuff does fly around in the real world outdoors.
Last edited:
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....I don't agree.
If the old 'Mk1' was so notorious then there is every reason to believe that Canon will have taken note and may have included such design considerations in the Mk2.
Even with the lens hood attached it is still easy to get rain splashes etc on the glass - It has happened to me more than once.
But Each-To-Their-Own, Frank
- Messages
- 1,823
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ditto Neil's comments.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....I bought my 77mm filter from Park Cameras for my Canon 400mm prime (now sold) and kept it and transferred to my 100-400mm (bought from HDEW).
Whereas it's of course true that the lens hood affords some protection, outdoors what the wind etc whisks up is not under our control. In the old pre-digital days it was commonly thought that the addition of filters somehow degraded the image but both lens and filter technology has advanced since then.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cool, thanks for a very informative reply. You're right, the BR Carib is a bit fiddly to use. So BR on lens foot
....Yes on lens foot but you then need either a plate or a ring to screw into the lens foot to go between.
- Messages
- 1,525
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why does it matter if you get rain splashes on the front of your lens? They can't damage the lens and you have to wipe them off whether you have a protective filter or not. Perhaps I'm missing something?
Last edited:
Do you have this one robin? http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/hoya-pro1-77mm-uv-1180-p.asp
- Messages
- 3,696
- Name
- Frank
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Except that it's all long lenses that have such problems.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....I would far rather risk any marking or abrasion while wiping a filter than the lens glass. We each do what we feel most comfortable with.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....What are the specific "noticeable image degradation" problems you speak of, please? What should one look for as evidence?
- Messages
- 3,696
- Name
- Frank
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,696
- Name
- Frank
- Edit My Images
- Yes
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uv+filter+100-400
How on earth do you abrade anything by cleaning a lens? Perhaps you need to stop using Brillo pads.
How on earth do you abrade anything by cleaning a lens? Perhaps you need to stop using Brillo pads.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....Depending where you are, it's easily possible for fine grit or similar to get between a cleaning cloth and the lens surface. Similarly on a brush if that's what you use. Anyway, as I said before, we each do what we feel most comfortable with < with regard to this aspect I feel more comfortable with a filter attached [/end of]
The other aspect of image degradation which you illustrate is nothing short of alarming! I am finding it difficult to believe but can't read the tiny green print on those three images.
Note that I am not using a UV filter, nor recommending a UV filter.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 775
- Name
- lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i have my lens now and its a real beast.
is there anything good to be said for using a Polarizing filters for motorsports??? i.e bikes
is there anything good to be said for using a Polarizing filters for motorsports??? i.e bikes
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....Polarising filters lose some light and therefore reduce your setting values but can enrich the colour in an image. They also cut down reflections / highlights according to how dialled in but I would question how much you need to do that for motorsport.
A high quality 77mm circular polariser will not be cheap but if you like the results it can offer it doesn't matter. It's important you get a circular polarising filter. I sometimes use a circular polarising filter on my Canon 100mm Macro but I often shoot across water.
I am very impressed that Canon thought through the design of this lens enough to include a sliding hatch in the lens hood so you can easily dial a polarising filter. Depending how this Dragonfly flight season pans out I may consider a circular polarising for my 100-400mm II.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....I have read some of those linked discussions in your online search (thanks) and find that the jury is still very much out and has been for many years.
There is as much valid and strong reason for either side of this often hotly debated subject, Need I say again that we should each do what we feel more comfortable with - I prefer the peace of mind which having a filter brings but I shall also do some tripod-mounted direct comparison tests on my 100-400mm II when I find it convenient. I have shot with and without a filter on my 400mm prime and seen no difference to image quality, but wasn't consciously testing. Meanwhile, it stays on!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,696
- Name
- Frank
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can quite easily read it by zooing in on my browser. The three images were taken within 1'30" and f13, Av, with no hood. The centre image is with a Hoya HD - one of the most often recommended 'protective' filter. I bought one because it is very tough and I was shooting my friend on her horse - and there were lots of stones flying about. I'd have taken the risk, but I was using her 70-200. I was surpised that the degradation was so obvious.
I first discovered how horrible 'protective' filters can be when I had my 70-300 DO. I was going to return it until I removed the filter (recommended by the man in Parks) and I've been anti- them since. I've also never believed the advice I got from salesmen of internet 'experts' - I always try and see for myself.
There is virtually no difference between the two types of filter UV and Protective. Ordinary glass does a good job of absorbing UV. Indeed, if I were a filter manufacturer, I would only make one type and change the label on it (making sure I added the magic word - 'Digital' - to the 'Protective' packaging).
- Messages
- 6,063
- Edit My Images
- No
I did the same sort of thing ... bought a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 off Ebay and it came with a Hoya filter attached so I left it on. Took some test shots and the IQ was terrible so thinking I had bought a lemon I was just about to contact the seller to arrange return when I decided to try without the filter.
Night and day .... sharp as anything without it. Never used one since.
- Messages
- 2,940
- Name
- Marie
- Edit My Images
- No
Each to their own indeed, but Im firmly in the no filter camp.
I've never used one, and never seen a scratch or mark on any glass. I've bought and sold many used lenses.
I've never used one, and never seen a scratch or mark on any glass. I've bought and sold many used lenses.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm going to try out with and without a filter on my 100-400mm II sooner rather than later.
I already know that a filter on my Canon 100mm F/2.8 L IS Macro does not degrade the image. When really close, I have to remove the lens hood.
I already know that a filter on my Canon 100mm F/2.8 L IS Macro does not degrade the image. When really close, I have to remove the lens hood.
- Messages
- 2,940
- Name
- Marie
- Edit My Images
- No
It would be interesting to see your comparisons with and without filter Robin
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There are several factors that determine what, if any, detrimental effect a filter will have on the perceived IQ. There isn't a blanket yes or no without looking at the lens that the filter will be used on, the diameter of the aperture, the focal length and the magnification of the final image...and this assumes filters of supposedly equal quality.
So, in short, these are the things that need to be specified along with the individuals opinion (assuming that the filters are of similar quality);
Long focal lengths will highlight degradation.
Larger physical apertures will highlight degradation.
Higher final magnification will highlight degradation.
There is no generic yes/no answer in the anti or pro camp.
Bob
So, in short, these are the things that need to be specified along with the individuals opinion (assuming that the filters are of similar quality);
Long focal lengths will highlight degradation.
Larger physical apertures will highlight degradation.
Higher final magnification will highlight degradation.
There is no generic yes/no answer in the anti or pro camp.
Bob
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....Hmm,
Currently while still shooting birds, I am using my Canon 1.4x III quite a lot (= long focal length).
As the lens performs well at wide aperture settings I am tending to often use that to gain soft backgrounds (= larger physical apertures).
Shooting wildlife very often results in relatively large magnification (= higher final magnification).
These are all factors which POTENTIALLY work against the case for using a protective filter.
So I am keeping an open mind on this and am prepared to possibly say that my previous advice was wrong. We'll see when I have done some tripod tests on a static subject.
Last edited:
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 1,525
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just bought the 100-400 MK2 from HDEW
Putting a £25 piece of glass on a £1500 piece of glass just seems incongruous to me.
- Messages
- 3,696
- Name
- Frank
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Indeed.
I've always thought a bit of cling-film would be better. At least that won't shatter into zillions of shards of super-sharp shrapnel if hit by something.
indeed, hence the question on filters. I'd be interested in seeing Robin's test with and without on his 100-400 MK2.
Although I guess the cost of each piece of glass is probably not as much as you think (21 elements at say £70 per element = £1470, plus the cost of the lens body + parts, AF electronics, some R&D costs). So a £50 Hoya Pro 1 glass element may not be too far from the cost of an individual Canon element in this lens.
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
An average Canon element maybe, but factor in the fact that the front is over twice the diameter of the rear and the Hoya perhaps becomes a poor relation to the glass immediately behind it.
Bob
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 3,294
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- No
I've seen this on other forums but there doesn't seem to be a definite answer on this. I've never put filters on and never will. Personal choice but I don't consider the protection of the front element is an advantage compared to the disadvantage of another piece of glass in the way, however good it is.
- Messages
- 2,616
- Name
- Glenn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Interesting. I can't find an actual reference to the need for a 'sealing' filter myself now either, but I'm sure I read it somewhere when I was researching this lens prior to buying one.
Anyway, mine currently has a clear protection filter on it for the time being and I'm quite happy with results so far.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....Perhaps that is what Canon advise for their non-weather proofed lenses, or are you certain the 100-400mm L II was referred to?
....Shooting the moon isn't practical for me - It's going to be a much more mundane subject when I eventually get around to it. But today I am off shooting more wildlife and they don't hang around posing for test photos. Still, I'll have the tripod with me so might find something static as a subject.
Should I test with or without my 1.4x III Extender? Doing so would introduce the worst scenario in terms of long focal length possibly degrading image quality. I have already noticed from the very beginning that in poor light at 400mm + 1.4x the image can look 'mushy' but I had just put that down to pushing the performance envelope too much.
I'll shoot with aperture wide open at both 100mm and 400mm on the zoom.
Last edited: