70-300

Recently I purchased "9+" 70-300 from B&H for my E-620, based largely on the positive comments and good photos I've seen here. The lens looks unused and it was much cheaper than a new unit. I like the build quality.

I didn't think about buying a UV filter but found an old but clean 58 UV filter in one of my bags and put it on.

I have been underwhelmed by the photos, especially close-ups. I was hoping to get decent macro shots form this lens but couldn't do it. Neither shutter speed nor aperture seemed to matter. A tripod didn't help. I'm not stranger to telephotos; I use a 70-300 with my Nikon all the time, with good results.

This morning, I gave the lens one last try before returning it. Still no luck; the photos were slightly out of focus. I thought I'd remove the UV filter. It made a big difference! The photos are sharp without the filter. I know filters can degrade an image, especially poor quality filters, but I didn't think there would be such a noticeable difference as was the case here. I'm not sure what brand the filter is; it says only "made in Japan." I will not be using it any longer and now, I can enjoy this lens. I'll most likely take this camera/lens combo. with me when I visit Australia in a couple of months.

This makes me wonder about the UV filters I have on the kit lenses; I'll have to do some tests with them as well.

Has anyone here had a similar experience with filters?

DW
pbase.com
californiasurfpix.com

Had the same experience. Bought a Promaster HGX UV filter and photos are sharpppp. I'm sure there are other high grade filters around too.

Yes, on both my 14-42 and 11-22.

It has been my experience that adding filters to a lens usually degrades the photo unless I spend BIG BUCKS on the filter... So I dont use a filter that I dont "photographically" need.

I do tend to be careful with my lenses though.. I think the hood is better "protection" than any filter, until the lens goes in the bag..

--
Larrys Wife/alter ego/best friend.

they are a "get what you pay for" item. Sometimes you get lucky and find something cheap that works, but not often.

--

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.

I've taken to keeping the filter attached to the lens cover and just unscrewing it at the beginning of a photo shoot then screwing it back on when done. Probably silly, but gives an added sense of protection when storing the camera without degrading the images in any way. And why shoot through an added layer of non-functional glass in any case?
--
Sailin' Steve

Thanks for the post, stupid me didn't even think of this. I've always put filters of mixed brands on my lenses as soon as I bought them (mainly because I don't trust myself). I haven't been unhappy with my pictures, but who knows. Now I will have to test with and without just to make sure I am not wasting an expensive lens with a cheap filter.
--
Andrew, Toronto ON
(laziness, not necessity, is the mother of invention)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajcgn/sets/

I use a UV filter on my Zuiko 70-300mm lens, and the pictures always come out sharp. This was a filter that I bought at a camera shop, and probably paid too much for it. But hearing your story, tells me that maybe it was a good idea to spend a little more and get quality. I see no difference in sharpness between when I take the filter off or put it on.

I have been told that filters "designed for digital" have much less tendency for reflections of light... not talking about polarizing glass, I don;t know what they are technically.
--
'Photos are what remain when the memories are forgotten' - Angular Mo.

Thanks for your responses. Seems that I'm not alone....

DW

I hope you enjoy the lens. I first got mine almost three years ago. I was one of the first (or maybe even the first) to get it at our local store. I took somewhere over 30,000 photos with it before it finally went bad. Without hesitating, I got another one and enjoy it immensely. I switched the UV filter from the old lens to the new one, and still get sharp photos with it. I don't know the reason why one filter is better than another. That's neat you were able to determine that the filter you were using was the problem...show some pictures when you get a chance.

Thanks, I'm sure I'll enjoy this lens.

Here are a few of photos that I've taken with it. All are jpegs with not a lot of pp but they have been re-sized.













The filter was on when I shot the lizard. It doesn't look too bad after some sharpening, but I had to take dozens of photos to get one even this good.

The bee photo is sans filter. It's acceptably sharp, I think.

The surfer was shot with the UV filter on. It's ok but I think it would be sharper without the filter. (I'll be taking more of these shots when the waves get bigger again.) However, I believe that close-up shots suffered the most with the filter.

Dan

I'm very happy with my lens, but running my photo's through Olympus Viewer 2 with the distortion setting on auto (= use lens info) makes me even happier.

Maybe Olympus can repeat what they did for this lens (people say it's a Sigma design/build lens) and provide us with the Olympus version of the Bigma
(Sigma 50-500)

Enjoy your lens, even full retail price is a bargain.

Cheers,
--
Harm

I had not considered the impact that filters such as UV ones have on my images. I will definetely do some testing!
At least I know my 7-14 is OK as it can't take filters (well, not easily)!
--
Dave
Welsh Photographic Federation Judge
UK Photo Safari Group Member
Chairman Cwmbran Photographic Society
http://www.pbase.com/benvendetta
pbase supporter

Thanks for the info.

Yes, even at full retail, the lens is a bargain (now that it works better for me). When possible, I'll get a used item from B&H if the condition listed is at least a 9. That's almost always worked out well for me.

DW

I'm getting familiar with this lens and like it. Hand-held images such as this one are not easy but I'm satisfied with the result. At least I know that my lens, without the UV filter, is sharp. There are probably lots of folks here who have taken better shots for me, this is pretty good.





DW

that is, "...who have taken better shots BUT for me, this is pretty good."

That is pretty good...always a fun lens to use. I try to get more depth of field, and as a result, I'll use all the way up to F22 on a sunny day. But with the way you show the insect, with the head close like that...it makes a shallow depth of field look good.

Gidday Dan

See my comments here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32137499

And filter testing here:
http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

Note that the cheap Hoya filters are worse than ordinary window glass ...
And the Hoya HMC is exactly the same as the Hoya Pro ... At HALF the price ...

I have seen filters where the blur they cause can be seen looking at my corduroy trousers through the filter alone ... And yes, that filter (a friend's) was causing massive image degradation with his E-30 + 14~54 MkII. Same with some cheap Hoya filters on another friend's E-500 ...

However, I have never yet scratched the front element of any of my lenses by cleaning the filter , lol!

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

Digirame said:

That is pretty good...always a fun lens to use. I try to get more depth of field, and as a result, I'll use all the way up to F22 on a sunny day. But with the way you show the insect, with the head close like that...it makes a shallow depth of field look good.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I tried using various apertures but needed to keep the shutter speed and iso reasonable. A tripod would have made a big difference. However, I like the dof here too. I cared mainly about keeping the eyes in focus.