Drop in 52mm Filter for f/2.8 300mm - Screw vs Gel II

Hi,  I have the original drop-in "Gelatin 52 (WII) that came with my f/2.8 300mm IS USM II and I also bought a "Screw 52" when the latches on the original got stuck.

I noticed that the diameter of the Screw52 is larger than the Gelatin 52 WII - both have glass.

Questions:

1.  Can the difference in the diameter of the two drop in lenses change "any" aspect of the light directly or peripherally to the sensor? 
2.  The Screw52 causes the filter glass to be at a different distance from the sensor than the original.  Can the change in distance cause any difference in focus, clarity or anything else?
3. My screw in is a "CANON Protect" - If this indeed is NOT causing any "even the most minute" issues due to light, diameter, clarity, focus than the original...  Is there a "Higher" quality or better-suited 52mm screw in to use?

Thank you!

ffabrici wrote:

The optical construction or equation requires a glass filter in place; either the Gelatin 52, a 52mm screw-in filter or the POL filter solution. There should be absolutely no performance difference using the Gelatin or a 52mm filter which has slightly wider diameter than the Gelatin filter and is positioned with a slight off-set compared to the Gelatin filter.

I am actually not so impressed with the Canon filters and I use the best HOYA or B&W filters. I have not tested the different filters on any of my white primes, but I have the best results with HOYA PRO1 Digital Filter, HOYA PROND and their best POL filter in front of primes and zooms. Especially the old 100-400L I is very sensitive to bad filters, which makes it a great test bench.

I usually use either a POL filter or a HOYA ND8 filter in my 200L f/2 as I prefer to use it wide open if at all possible.

Thank you. And may I ask which of the filters you mentioned do not in any way change exposure or add any level of filtering? The 0 lens you mentioned indicates it cut UV. I did not want to introduce anything in the path of the lens or sensor.

Thank you.

ffabrici wrote:

The HOYA PRO1 Digital Protector is supposed to be absolutely neutral.

Thank you!!

BigBen08 wrote:

I also have the 300 f2.8 IS II. Because I shoot aircraft at slow shutter speeds to capture prop blur, I needed to add a ND filter. At first I used the gel filter holder that comes with the lens. Later, I bought the screw filter. With the screw filter holder I use the Heliopan Digital ES 52 ND filter. With either filter holder used, I cannot see any optical difference or degradation. None at all.

However...about 4 or 5 years ago, on another photography web site, an aviation shooter advised me against using the screw-in filter holder. He owned the 300 f2.8 also. He claimed the screw-in holder diminished IQ in some manner. It has been so long ago that I can't remember the details. But when I use the screw-in holder, I experience no problems.

MY thought is that the lens was designed with specific tolerances between the sensor, first lens and then the lens and their elements.   I don't know how smart it is to change what Canon designed as optimal.  There are clear differences between the Screw in and Gel filter.  Both in size and distances from the sensor.

I'd like to read what the person stated about IQ and loss of IQ using the Screw Filter to see if it warrants changing back.  I say this as I would have to buy another. My original that came with the lens has a frozen latch.  I think constant shooting sea/ocean sports has the latch all gummed up and it won't stay closed. Can't risk water getting in there!!!

Thank you

BigBen08 wrote:

I did a search and my post has some errors. The photographer was talking about his 500 II lens, not the 300 II. He claims the screw in filter when used with a tc results in decreased sharpness. But hey, that's just one person's opinion.

My experience with the screw filter holder has been very good. I have a hard time believing Canon would design a screw type filter holder that decreases lens performance.

I have the 400DOII and on the Canon website, with the 52mm screw in filter holder, the 400DOII is specifically mentioned as one of the compatible lenses. The new 400 and 600mm mkIII lenses are supplied from the factory with the screw-in filter holder.

I bought the 52mm screw in filter holder, because I want the freedom to use other (better) filters than the Canon supplied stock filter. When I shot the Sigma 500mm f4.5 and the Pentax 560mm f5.6, I also experimented with different filters and also with leaving the filter out. With the Pentax DA560 in particular, I got best results with no filter at all in place. With the Sigma, best results were with a filter in place, and after some experimenting, I find that the 400DOII also performs best with a filter in the holder. Leaving the filter out results in a small focus shift, and even though the super telelenses that I tried all performed fine without a filter in place, it is also dependant on the circumstances in which you are shooting, The biggest impact of the drop-in filter seems to arise when shooting in very bright midday light with the sun at a near 90 degrees angle to the camera/lens. All sorts of artifacts are enhanced in my experience, and it will be dependant on the quality of the filter.

About the filters as such, I do not like the glass in the gelatine filter holder very much, and found the 52mm drop-in filter with the supplied Canon 52mm protect filter "better". As filters all have their unique impact on the resulting images, depending on the light circumstances, it is a subjective issue more than a technical one it seems. I settled on a B+W 007 clear filter though, which has great clarity and seems to add to a certain "3D" rendering. I look at sharpness, clarity, but also possible effect on bokeh, neutral color rendering and fine detail resolution. I find that in general, there is very much an attitude towards drop-in filters, that the manufacturer (of these very expensive super telelenses) should know best, and best IQ and perfomance should always be with the supplied stock filter, but I like to test the effect of filters on IQ myself, and mostly by using my own eyes to see which I find to give the best rendering and performance for my needs. The small 52mm threaded filters are not that expensive, so it may pay off to try one or two out to see which works best for you.

Chris

Chris Mak wrote:

BigBen08 wrote:

I did a search and my post has some errors. The photographer was talking about his 500 II lens, not the 300 II. He claims the screw in filter when used with a tc results in decreased sharpness. But hey, that's just one person's opinion.

My experience with the screw filter holder has been very good. I have a hard time believing Canon would design a screw type filter holder that decreases lens performance.

I have the 400DOII and on the Canon website, with the 52mm screw in filter holder, the 400DOII is specifically mentioned as one of the compatible lenses. The new 400 and 600mm mkIII lenses are supplied from the factory with the screw-in filter holder.

I bought the 52mm screw in filter holder, because I want the freedom to use other (better) filters than the Canon supplied stock filter. When I shot the Sigma 500mm f4.5 and the Pentax 560mm f5.6, I also experimented with different filters and also with leaving the filter out. With the Pentax DA560 in particular, I got best results with no filter at all in place. With the Sigma, best results were with a filter in place, and after some experimenting, I find that the 400DOII also performs best with a filter in the holder. Leaving the filter out results in a small focus shift, and even though the super telelenses that I tried all performed fine without a filter in place, it is also dependant on the circumstances in which you are shooting, The biggest impact of the drop-in filter seems to arise when shooting in very bright midday light with the sun at a near 90 degrees angle to the camera/lens. All sorts of artifacts are enhanced in my experience, and it will be dependant on the quality of the filter.

About the filters as such, I do not like the glass in the gelatine filter holder very much, and found the 52mm drop-in filter with the supplied Canon 52mm protect filter "better". As filters all have their unique impact on the resulting images, depending on the light circumstances, it is a subjective issue more than a technical one it seems. I settled on a B+W 007 clear filter though, which has great clarity and seems to add to a certain "3D" rendering. I look at sharpness, clarity, but also possible effect on bokeh, neutral color rendering and fine detail resolution. I find that in general, there is very much an attitude towards drop-in filters, that the manufacturer (of these very expensive super telelenses) should know best, and best IQ and perfomance should always be with the supplied stock filter, but I like to test the effect of filters on IQ myself, and mostly by using my own eyes to see which I find to give the best rendering and performance for my needs. The small 52mm threaded filters are not that expensive, so it may pay off to try one or two out to see which works best for you.

Chris

Thank you for writing Chris. Best, Tony