Filter for Canon's 100-400mm lens

[PhillipA]

I have just packed for a 5 night trip to Singapore in the morning, and reading your post about filters ( I am one of the original "no filter on my 100-400" guys) I realised that I hadn't put in either a polariser or an ND grad ! You saved mr from a fate worse than (photographic) death !
--

Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '

 

[Fike]

The 17-40 is an entirely different beast than a 100-400. Yes, the hood on a 17-40 will cause a shadow. If I remember correctly, even without the hood, there is a bit of a shadow at the 17mm end with the built-in flash. This is to be expected. Flashes aren't very good at getting that wider angle view--requiring diffusers to get wider than 24mm (I think it is 24mm). This in no way diminishes the usefulness of a hood on the 100-400. Rarely are you photographing things closer than 2 meters, and rarely will you be using a flash with that lens.

And a final word on filters: I don't use them because I don't want to degrade quality. I acknowledge that the amount of degradation is generally small. Many great photographers use them all the time. Using them or not, it isn't that big a deal. Don't worry about it, but always use a hood. You will protect the lens and reduce reflections and flare.
--
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc
http://www.trailpixie.net
http://www.marcshaffer.net

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I have checked my 100-400 with and without a filter and as regards focus and image quality I could discern no appreciable difference.

That is the nature of the beast unfortunately. You can test and test and test again and find no issues at all, then one day a filter will mess up your images - surely there have been enough examples posted here to convince most people.

[snip]

I know in the days of film that the use of a filter was the norm. It would seem that with digital cameras this may not be necessarily the right thing?

Both Skylight and UV filters were genuinely useful for film. The "protection" they afforded was just a side-effect, but even then I do wonder whether sales people pushed protection because it was easier to sell that aspect to an anxious beginner than to explain the technicalities of UV fogging, or colour balance issues under blue skies.

Digital cameras don't need UV filters - and in any case there never was much UV at sea level! And colour balance is obviously no longer handled by filters. The only thing left is protection and the retailers don't want to lose the easy income stream from grossly overpriced bits of flat glass.

Although digital per se isn't responsible for any of the problems associated with filters, the smaller darker viewfinders probably make it a little harder to notice issues such as veiling flare and internal reflections, and of course we no longer use manual focus, which was immune to any inaccuracies caused by filters. Lastly, the bar was much lower when most images (or rather photographs as we used to call them) were never viewed larger than 9"x6".

 

[paure1]

Hi,

I have tested my 1-400 (UV0917) with B&W UV (010 MRC) and C-Pol (KSM MRC) and found a small (only visible @ 100%) degradation in resolution.

As I need to crop quite often (small birds) I have chosen not to use a protective filter but rely on the lenshood. I use the lens as a walkabout lens and have had no damage to the lens or hood although I have worn out the stop lugs on the hood and have had to get the zoom lock refurbished ( 14,000 frames)

YMMV, Allan