My PL 100-400 lens is very picky with UV filters

[CrisPhoto]

Seems that the 100-400mm lens is very picky with filters!!

Here is the story:

I got the 100-400 some days before.

While I was very happy testing the lens at the shop (compared it to 40-150/2.8 and 300/4), coming home I noticed very bad blur in the range of 350 to 400mm. From 100-300mm the lens was still perfect.

I was starting to believe my new lens is defect, but I remembered that I slapped an expensive UV filter in front of the lens as soon as I came home.

I removed the filter and voila, the lens was sharp again.

I use the same brand on my 40-150 PRO lens and I never noticed any IQ degradation. It's a Hoya HD UV filter which was tested third place in the big lenstip.com filter test. Definitely not a bad or cheap product.

I ALWAYS use filters to protect my better lenses from damage. As a replacement for the Hoya filter, I took an old Nikon filter out of my drawer. While it does much better sharpness wise, the coating of this old filter is very simple. I will buy the Olympus ZUIKO PRO filter next. Hope it does better ...


100% crop: ISO test chart at 400mm without (left) and with filter (right).


100% crop: close up with (left) and without filter (right)

Now as I know the UV filter issue, on close inspection my 40-150 PRO shows some loss of resolution too, but to a much lesser degree:


100% crop: 40-150/2.8 with MC14 at 210mm without (left) and with filter (right)

--
OM-D + Sam7.5, O25, O60, O75
O12-40, O40-150, P 14-140

 

[LMNCT]

The 100-400 has a very capable lens shade system and that should save the front element as long as the shade is secured properly. I would hesitate to add another layer of glass to the front of my 100-400....it has enough glass already.

 

[CrisPhoto]

Searching for similar stories, I found something in the Canon forum. Again with a 100-400mm lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3037888

 

[Jonathan Spool]

Based upon what I see, even with your 40-150, I would say you have a bad UV filter. The difference with it on or off should be nearly indistinguishable. Perhaps it is worse on the 100-400 due to the longer focal length multiplying the defect. I would try a different uv filter.

 

[drj3]

I have always used B+W XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 Filters and have never been able to see any difference with or without the filter with my other lenses. I will have to try it with the 300mm to see if there is a difference.

 

[bradevans]

Did you try manual focus and then add the filter? I had similar issues with a filter on my 100-300

in fact, just holding the filter in front of the lens (manual focus) I could see the image change for the worse

my conclusion is either no filter or try them out in the store with that lens

good luck

 

[richj20]

I'm using B+W Clear (Neutral) filters on my lenses, including the 100-400mm.

When I've tested, I've noticed no difference with or without the filter.

- Richard

 

[richj20]

The 100-400 has a very capable lens shade system and that should save the front element as long as the shade is secured properly.

Years ago, I used my Panasonic-Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro without a filter, keeping the nice metal hood on at all times.

One day, I noticed a drop of sap on the lens. It was not easy to remove. From then, I used a protective filter on the lens.

- Richard

 

[Karld70]

You don't really need a uv filter for digital like film. Maybe try a clear filter if you are just using it for protection.

 

[Julius]

I was using the most expensive NIKON multi coated NC filters on both lenses and it scared the daylight out of me that both of my expensive lenses are defective.

Removed the NC filters and Voila! Both lenses are are outstanding.

Lesson learned, no NC or UV filter on any of my lenses any more. It may not show on shorter focal length lenses but it must have some slight effect even if it is not easily noticeable.

--
Julius
http://www.pbase.com/jkovatch

 

[OzRay]

B&W MRC filters have been my default filter for a long time after testing out many others, including Hoya and finding them wanting. My B&W filter for my 90-250mm f2.8 is better than the Olympus supplied filter.

 

[forpetessake]

Five years ago I had the same experience with Nikon 180/2.8 lens and B+W filter. People blamed the filter, I finally found another filter and the result was the same. Somehow large filters on telephoto have that tendency to blur the image.

 

[OzRay]

I've never experienced that, even my Nikon 300mm had a B&W filter and the images were in no way degraded.

 

[Tom Axford]

Seems that the 100-400mm lens is very picky with filters!!

Here is the story:

I got the 100-400 some days before.

While I was very happy testing the lens at the shop (compared it to 40-150/2.8 and 300/4), coming home I noticed very bad blur in the range of 350 to 400mm. From 100-300mm the lens was still perfect.

I was starting to believe my new lens is defect, but I remembered that I slapped an expensive UV filter in front of the lens as soon as I came home.

I removed the filter and voila, the lens was sharp again.

I use the same brand on my 40-150 PRO lens and I never noticed any IQ degradation. It's a Hoya HD UV filter which was tested third place in the big lenstip.com filter test. Definitely not a bad or cheap product.

I ALWAYS use filters to protect my better lenses from damage. As a replacement for the Hoya filter, I took an old Nikon filter out of my drawer. While it does much better sharpness wise, the coating of this old filter is very simple. I will buy the Olympus ZUIKO PRO filter next. Hope it does better ...

The glass surfaces of the filter need to be very close to perfectly flat to avoid causing significant changes to the direction of the light rays passing through. The longer the focal length of the lens used, the more accurately flat the filter needs to be so that the image quality is not degraded noticeably.

It is expensive making the glass surfaces close to perfectly flat, and the bigger the filter, the more expensive it is. It seems possible that the Hoya HD filter you used was not ground flat to sufficiently high accuracy. It probably wouldn't be noticeable at shorter focal lengths.

I would be tempted to complain to Hoya, giving the evidence you supplied in your post. It would be interesting to see their response and they might replace the filter with a better one.

 

[Robiro]

Seems that the 100-400mm lens is very picky with filters!!

So is the older Pana 100-300mm lens.

Over time, you will learn that putting any filter in front of your Leica 100-400mm is a bad idea. Any piece of glass, even clean glass to protect the front element.

Just don't use any filter. Especially when shooting over 200mm.

Does your lens focus correctly with a CPL filter?

My 100-300mm will not focus with a CPL filter. Because there is no point of exact focus with CPL attached.

 

[OzRay]

Over time, you will learn that putting any filter in front of your Leica 100-400mm is a bad idea. Any piece of glass, even clean glass to protect the front element.

Just don't use any filter. Especially when shooting over 200mm.

Seriously, that is just rubbish. I own a lens that, when introduced, cost $10,000 and it came with an OEM filter. Do you truly think that a lens manufacturer would provide a lens filter if they thought that it would degrade the image quality?

 

[Robiro]

Over time, you will learn that putting any filter in front of your Leica 100-400mm is a bad idea. Any piece of glass, even clean glass to protect the front element.

Just don't use any filter. Especially when shooting over 200mm.

Seriously, that is just rubbish. I own a lens that, when introduced, cost $10,000 and it came with an OEM filter. Do you truly think that a lens manufacturer would provide a lens filter if they thought that it would degrade the image quality?

I am deadly serious. Don't use filters with long tele lenses. These lenses work on thin margins at longest zoom settings and putting a filter in front of them often significantly degrades the image quality.

Any irregularities introduced by a filter get very much magnified and the poor image quality results.

 

[OzRay]

Over time, you will learn that putting any filter in front of your Leica 100-400mm is a bad idea. Any piece of glass, even clean glass to protect the front element.

Just don't use any filter. Especially when shooting over 200mm.

Seriously, that is just rubbish. I own a lens that, when introduced, cost $10,000 and it came with an OEM filter. Do you truly think that a lens manufacturer would provide a lens filter if they thought that it would degrade the image quality?

I am deadly serious. Don't use filters with long tele lenses. These lenses work on thin margins at longest zoom settings and putting a filter in front of them often significantly degrades the image quality.

Any irregularities introduced by a filter get very much magnified and the poor image quality results.

I've been using filters with long lenses for the last decade without issue. My 90-250mm f2.8 lens takes a 105mm diameter filter. It's been there since day one and does not affect image quality.

 

[Robiro]

Over time, you will learn that putting any filter in front of your Leica 100-400mm is a bad idea. Any piece of glass, even clean glass to protect the front element.

Just don't use any filter. Especially when shooting over 200mm.

Seriously, that is just rubbish. I own a lens that, when introduced, cost $10,000 and it came with an OEM filter. Do you truly think that a lens manufacturer would provide a lens filter if they thought that it would degrade the image quality?

I am deadly serious. Don't use filters with long tele lenses. These lenses work on thin margins at longest zoom settings and putting a filter in front of them often significantly degrades the image quality.

Any irregularities introduced by a filter get very much magnified and the poor image quality results.

I've been using filters with long lenses for the last decade without issue. My 90-250mm f2.8 lens takes a 105mm diameter filter. It's been there since day one and does not affect image quality.

It is quite possible. It is a quality lens and probably can cope with a filter. Plus, it does not go beyond 250mm which helps as well.

What I know for sure is that there will never be any filter attached to my Leica 100-400mm after I finally get it.

Except for astro filter when taking sun eclipse shots or possibly ND filters at wider zoom settings (100mm - 200mm)to slow down shutter speed (a waterfall in the distance).

 

[OzRay]

It is quite possible. It is a quality lens and probably can cope with a filter. Plus, it does not go beyond 250mm which helps as well.

Well, with a 1.4x converter it does go beyond 250mm.

What I know for sure is that there will never be any filter attached to my Leica 100-400mm after I finally get it.

That's a personal choice, but where I take photos, filters are a must. Lens hoods on their own simply don't cut it.