DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> My New 100-400mm IS L Lens
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/22/2004 07:19:28 AM · #1

2 weeks ago I bought a new lense, 100-400mm IS L lense. I had tried out a Sigma 50-500, see an earlier thread, but couldnt try the 100-400 prior to buying it. Despite getting excellent results with the Sigma I thought the Canon L lense should be better. On buying it, I tested it out. Dissappointing, but it was a dull day, so I took some more, just as bad. I took it back to the shop were they tried it. They said it was returning good results but not excellent as you would expect. Being a very good shop, they did more tests and were preparing to get a replacement lense. In the mean time a friend at work said they had the same lense, so I brought it into work and compared the 2. His was better. Then he suggested I remove the Hoya Skylight filter of the front of it, although he had one on his, but a Pro version.

Instant improvements, and now I am getting the results I expected. I didn't know that there were differs grades of filters as I alway buy the same type. I have the standard green boxed Hoya filters on my other lenses with no problems, but with the IS, it seems to effect the focus and the IS, give really poor results. I now have a Hoyo Pro HMC filter on order, so will be able to use my new lense this weekend when I visit a Rare Leopard Sanctury, to take "unrestricted" photos, no bars or wires.


07/22/2004 07:20:00 AM · #2
Cont...

Here are the improved results (//www.leophotography.com/pages/birds/gb_002.htm & //www.leophotography.com/pages/birds/gb_007.htm), and this is one before the filter was removed (//www.leophotography.com/compare), ). I will post some of the leopard photos when I have sorted them out. Also took some good aircraft photos, see Transport section of my website.

I suppose the moral of this, is that I should have thought about the quality of the filter against the quality of the lense. I guess now the question is, is it effecting any of my other lenses or is the L lenses just too good! ?

Message edited by author 2004-07-22 14:24:49.
 07/22/2004 09:07:19 AM · #3
I must admit, I'm no where near a pro photographer - but spending $1300 on glass only to buy a $50 3rd party filter to put over it makes no sense to me. It's like buying a new couch and then leaving the plastic cover on it.

I know it's supposed to provide protection, but why spend that kind of money on pro glass and then shoot thru a dirty window? Perhaps someone smarter than me can shed some light.

Also, while I'm voicing my ignorance, I have another question. How come you have the copyright inkmark in huge type right across all your pictures?

ps ... your pictures rock! very nice stuff.
 07/22/2004 09:19:23 AM · #4
I agree, putting a filter over the lense, is criminal, put waving around a £1500 piece of unprotect glass is also not a good idea. This is why I am now going for the pro version of the filter. Also the filters help cut out glare.

The copyright is because I want to display the photos but stop some people who might decide to nick the photos and use them for their own use without asking, as they are a reasonable size to use. I have tried to keep a balance.

Thank you for the compliment on the photos.
 07/22/2004 09:29:59 AM · #5
Thx for pointing this out Lee. Though I dont have very expensive glass I always use the UV for protection but sometimes pol and ND. Now I´ll try to shoot without the UV and see what difference it´ll make.
 07/22/2004 09:47:03 AM · #6
I'm told a cheap filter can degrade the quality of the lens by 5-10% (of course, I was being told this by someone trying to sell me a $100 UV filter). But that's a drop in the bucket compared to ruining a lens worth more than 20x that amount.

P

ps the filter you're using is leaving a mark in the middle of the image that looks remarkably like your name. you should clean it or something to get rid of that annoying distraction on an otherwise very nice photo ;)
 07/22/2004 09:56:26 AM · #7
Originally posted by Lee31:
2 weeks ago I bought a new lense, 100-400mm IS L lense. I had tried out a Sigma 50-500, see an earlier thread, but couldnt try the 100-400 prior to buying it. Despite getting excellent results with the Sigma I thought the Canon L lense should be better. On buying it, I tested it out. Dissappointing, but it was a dull day, so I took some more, just as bad. I took it back to the shop were they tried it. They said it was returning good results but not excellent as you would expect. Being a very good shop, they did more tests and were preparing to get a replacement lense. In the mean time a friend at work said they had the same lense, so I brought it into work and compared the 2. His was better. Then he suggested I remove the Hoya Skylight filter of the front of it, although he had one on his, but a Pro version.

Instant improvements, and now I am getting the results I expected. I didn't know that there were differs grades of filters as I alway buy the same type. I have the standard green boxed Hoya filters on my other lenses with no problems, but with the IS, it seems to effect the focus and the IS, give really poor results. I now have a Hoyo Pro HMC filter on order, so will be able to use my new lense this weekend when I visit a Rare Leopard Sanctury, to take "unrestricted" photos, no bars or wires.

I’m afraid I’m missing something in the comparison of these two photos. What exactly is it that makes you feel that the ‘improved results' photo is better than the other one? They are photos of two different subjects, and were taken with different camera settings. The ‘improved’ photo has some blown out areas from light reflecting off the leaves and the bird feeder, but that is probably due to the larger aperture that was used in that shot. Maybe you saw something in the full-size photo that I’m missing in these two smaller versions? I do not doubt that you are right, or that it was caused by the filter. I just want to know what it is that I’m missing.

07/22/2004 10:01:14 AM · #8
Anybody know who makes the best filters? I'm more interested in protecting my lens and not effects. I should try a test like this with my lens and filter. Thanks

Message edited by author 2004-07-22 10:02:49.
 07/22/2004 10:04:17 AM · #9
Originally posted by micknewton:

I’m afraid I’m missing something in the comparison of these two photos. What exactly is it that makes you feel that the ‘improved results' photo is better than the other one? They are photos of two different subjects, and were taken with different camera settings. The ‘improved’ photo has some blown out areas from light reflecting off the leaves and the bird feeder, but that is probably due to the larger aperture that was used in that shot. Maybe you saw something in the full-size photo that I’m missing in these two smaller versions? I do not doubt that you are right, or that it was caused by the filter. I just want to know what it is that I’m missing.


Sorry. The lesser quality one I do not have to hand, and will post tonight. Maybe it was the way I wrote it.
 07/22/2004 10:05:48 AM · #10
I know some of the better ones are produced by B + W and Singh Ray though Singh Ray may be more effects filters.

There are two articles on filters on this page.
 07/22/2004 10:08:32 AM · #11
Thanks cpanaioti.
 07/22/2004 10:16:42 AM · #12
Originally posted by Lee31:
Originally posted by micknewton:

I’m afraid I’m missing something in the comparison of these two photos. What exactly is it that makes you feel that the ‘improved results' photo is better than the other one? They are photos of two different subjects, and were taken with different camera settings. The ‘improved’ photo has some blown out areas from light reflecting off the leaves and the bird feeder, but that is probably due to the larger aperture that was used in that shot. Maybe you saw something in the full-size photo that I’m missing in these two smaller versions? I do not doubt that you are right, or that it was caused by the filter. I just want to know what it is that I’m missing.


Sorry. The lesser quality one I do not have to hand, and will post tonight. Maybe it was the way I wrote it.

No, it was my fault. I am sorry, I just didn't read it correctly. I was still working on my first cup of coffee. :)

I look forward to seeing the 'before' photo. I'm using a Canon filter on my 35-350L lens and I'm wondering if I too might get better photos without the filter, or with a different filter.

07/22/2004 10:39:31 AM · #13
The Green Box Hoya Filters are the lowest end of the Hoya line. It doesn't make sense to put a $10 piece of glass in front of a $1600 lens. I have the Hoya Super HMC UV filters and 2 Pro 1's and have had no degradation. I can't tell the difference between the Pro 1 and the S-HMC, but can definitely tell the difference between a Greeen box and S-HMC.
 07/22/2004 11:12:30 AM · #14
I didnt know, but now I do, and am much happier! :-)
 07/22/2004 11:16:34 AM · #15
Although I've never seen a drastic decrease in image quality from using a cheapo UV filter (i.e., enough to think the lens is malfunctioning), there is a difference in how they affect flare. See this thread for a link with some comparison photos.
 07/22/2004 02:27:09 PM · #16
As mentioned above.

This is the link to compare the without & without filter. This was not the worst I saw when testing, but it is the only one that I can compare with a photo without the filter
//www.leophotography.com/compare


Message edited by author 2004-07-23 14:15:10.
 07/23/2004 02:15:40 PM · #17
I have just found out that the camera shop, is now wary of supplying the green box hoyas with high end lenses, and is advising a high grade filter.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/16/2025 08:41:23 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/16/2025 08:41:23 AM EDT.