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

[goodbokeh]

I've used B+W F-PRO 007 Neutral MRC Filters on all of my lenses since going digital. I also use a B+W F-PRO CPL on occasion, mostly for getting a slow shutter speed for waterfalls.

Below are a few tests from this morning, all @400mm. I include the CPL, even though I wouldn't normally use it for these situations. An earlier waterfall photograph below.


Sign in a kids playground


Mallard Hybrid, Anas platyrhynchos


Pink Rock Rose, Cistus albidus

I've also used a Nikon 6T Achromat on different lenses for 30 years. I can't test as above, but here is an an example using in on the 100-400mm. The Neutral filter is removed:


Scarlet Sage, Salvia Coccinea

And here is a waterfall example with the B+W CPL:


Small Waterfall in a Local Wildlife Habitat

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

How did you get the duck to stand so still while changing filters?

 

[richj20]

How did you get the duck to stand so still while changing filters?

I had a talk with him; I said, If you move, I'll smack you! (I wish)

No, he was taking a nap, like this guy below, although if you look closely, he's keeping an eye on me:


Hybrid Mallard, Anas platyrhynchos

Below, another duck sleeping. I quietly came close to photograph his red wattle. When I removed the filter for the second exposure, the noise woke him up.


Muscovy Duck, Cairina moschata



- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[glassoholic]

I wonder if this phenomenon is to blame for differing experiences with the Pana 100-300 and Oly 75-300??

 

[goodbokeh]

I'll have to watch out for sleeping ducks ;-)

 

[richj20]

I'll have to watch out for sleeping ducks ;-)

Yes, and geese, especially the tiny tots.




Canada Geese and Goslings, Branta canadensis



- Richard

--

http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[richj20]

I must must admit the b&w filters looked liked they show no loss in detail .

Hi Paul,

Filters, Diffraction, and other such stuff, are topics that generate a lot of wordy and technical discussion, with charts, physics/optics equations and formulas, and the like. And photographic examples to support the arguments.

In the technical article about filters cited in an above post by glassoholic, I smiled when I read,

"Of course the best way to evaluate filter quality is to test it on the lens that you intend to install the filter on."

How about that! (Useful advice if you don't own a micrometer)

Over the years, I've noticed that users' experiences are often not consistent across the board with technical findings. There are just too many variables, including users' own perceptions. It's best to test yourself and decide what is usable for you.

So, while my test looked good to you, trying that filter on your lens, photographing your subject matter, might suggest a different conclusion. Or, might not.

regards,

- Richard

 

[Baba Ganoush]

I wonder if this phenomenon is to blame for differing experiences with the Pana 100-300 ??

 

[CrisPhoto]

I've used B+W F-PRO 007 Neutral MRC Filters on all of my lenses since going digital. I also use a B+W F-PRO CPL on occasion, mostly for getting a slow shutter speed for waterfalls.

Below are a few tests from this morning, all @400mm. I include the CPL, even though I wouldn't normally use it for these situations. An earlier waterfall photograph below.


Sign in a kids playground


Mallard Hybrid, Anas platyrhynchos


Pink Rock Rose, Cistus albidus

I've also used a Nikon 6T Achromat on different lenses for 30 years. I can't test as above, but here is an an example using in on the 100-400mm. The Neutral filter is removed:


Scarlet Sage, Salvia Coccinea

And here is a waterfall example with the B+W CPL:


Small Waterfall in a Local Wildlife Habitat

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

Richard, thank you very much for this very instructive and beautiful set.

And many thanks testing the B+W adapter.

Especially ith CPL filter, there seems to be a very very slight contrast loss but I am not sure. Anyhow much much better than my samples.

I ordered two B+W filters, one for the 40-150, theother for 100-400.

The 75/1.8 will stay with a Hoya.

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

 

[CrisPhoto]

...

Focus is quite sharp out to around 250mm, less so beyond but still very, very good. That's one data point for you.

But this is describing exactly the symptom I stumbled upon

Up to 250mm the 100-400 was quite sharp but at longer focal lengths the IQ was degrading rapidly.

 

[glassoholic]

I wonder if this phenomenon is to blame for differing experiences with the Pana 100-300 ??

 

[glassoholic]

My 4/3 50-200mm SWD wide open @ f7 400mm with EC20.

I have NEVER had a sharp shot wide open. Always stop down to f10 and even then it is so-so. Took filter off and BAM! Sharpest I ever seen it and better than all the f10 shots I ever took with the filter!

A BIG thank you to the OP. I would never have even suspected a really well rated filter could do this. As the OP has said, on shorter FL the same filter has no effect to speak of.

--
"You are a long time dead" - credit to my wife
Make the best of your brief time in this world

 

[richj20]

Richard, thank you very much for this very instructive and beautiful set.

You are welcome, Chris, it was fun to do

And many thanks testing the B+W adapter.

Especially ith CPL filter, there seems to be a very very slight contrast loss but I am not sure. Anyhow much much better than my samples.

There may be some contrast loss, I haven't noticed, but contrast is easy to tailor to your likes when editing.

I ordered two B+W filters, one for the 40-150, theother for 100-400.

I notice that I didn't include any examples @400 and wide open @f/6.3 with and without the B+W neutral. These from this morning:









At close distance, I usually stop down for more DOF, but the lens is excellent wide open @400mm:







- Richard





--

http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[richj20]

I've used a Hoya HMC NDX8 for many years on other lenses, but nothing as long as the 100-400mm (=800mm).

Today I photographed with the ND from 100mm up to 400mm. I consider the ND to be useless past about 250mm (=500mm).

Below, at 400mm (=800mm)







I don't foresee using the ND on this lens, since it's really too long for photographing waterfalls, although on a recent trip, I photographed a nice waterfall just to try it out. At 100mm, the lens + filters performed well.


100mm with B+W CPL and Hoya NDX8 stacked. The lens is too long to take in the entire falls. (See below). Although it makes for a nice detail capture.


This is a view of the canyon and water fall.

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[Baba Ganoush]

...

Focus is quite sharp out to around 250mm, less so beyond but still very, very good. That's one data point for you.

But this is describing exactly the symptom I stumbled upon

Up to 250mm the 100-400 was quite sharp but at longer focal lengths the IQ was degrading rapidly.

 

[Ken610]

I just ordered my 100-400 last night. Should be here before the weekend. I have a B+W Pro UV from another lens saved for this. Thanks, OP, for the heads up on this issue. I'll do some testing and try to contribute one more data point to the mix.

 

[Baba Ganoush]

Went out tonight and took a series of photographs of the Moon with the P100-300mm on my GX8. First with the B+W filter, then without. FL=300mm. Tripod mounted. Electronic shutter. 2s time delay. AF-C single shot. There were some low lying clouds at first, but once they passed by, the sky was exceptionally clear. In fact, the photos are probably the sharpest ones I've yet taken of the Moon with this camera. There were lots of craters along the illuminated limb of the Moon to use for comparison, many of them quite small that were illuminated at very high contrast. After comparing the two sets by eye, I can see no difference in sharpness between the two: filter ON, filter OFF, same sharpness.

I will only note that all of my tests were done with focus set "at infinity," i.e., unlike some of the other commenters in this thread I have not carried out any tests taking close-ups. Perhaps that makes a difference, IDK. I might try a few close-up tests in a few days just out of curiosity if I have some time...

 

[stokey]

This thread piqued my interest so I decided to add my two penn'orth and try my own test.

E-M10.2 + 75-300mm + Hoya Pro1D UV

Camera on tripod, 2s anti-shock, cable release, lens at 300mm f/6.7, test chart at 22 ft, test performed indoors. Both S-AF and MF tried, didn't try other focal lengths as max. is supposedly worst case.

Result - very slight reduction in resolution and contrast when viewed at 200%. I'm not normally a pixel-peeper so no worries !

Bob

 

[SidSnot]

Result - very slight reduction in resolution and contrast when viewed at 200%. I'm not normally a pixel-peeper so no worries !

I'm no pixel-peeper either but that would bug the hell out of me....

I have now removed the filters from my 75-300 and 45-175 lenses - no point in having two extra surfaces of glass there if there is *any* reduction in IQ - my head can't/will not cope...

 

[CrisPhoto]

This thread piqued my interest so I decided to add my two penn'orth and try my own test.

E-M10.2 + 75-300mm + Hoya Pro1D UV

Camera on tripod, 2s anti-shock, cable release, lens at 300mm f/6.7, test chart at 22 ft, test performed indoors. Both S-AF and MF tried, didn't try other focal lengths as max. is supposedly worst case.

Result - very slight reduction in resolution and contrast when viewed at 200%. I'm not normally a pixel-peeper so no worries !

Bob

Your post is not clear.

Did you use electronic shutter together with the 2s delay?

From my own experience, the 75-300 is not very vibration resistant and the normal 2s delay does not help much against shutter vibrations. The vibration effect might be stronger than the filter effect.

Only delay and electronic first curtain or delay with electronic shutter will help. Which is 2s+diamond symbol or 2s+heart symbol.

 

[Robiro]

This thread piqued my interest so I decided to add my two penn'orth and try my own test.

E-M10.2 + 75-300mm + Hoya Pro1D UV

Camera on tripod, 2s anti-shock, cable release, lens at 300mm f/6.7, test chart at 22 ft, test performed indoors. Both S-AF and MF tried, didn't try other focal lengths as max. is supposedly worst case.

Result - very slight reduction in resolution and contrast when viewed at 200%. I'm not normally a pixel-peeper so no worries !

UV filters tend to be fine. But try a CPL at 300mm.