Filter caused poor quality

K

kennycanon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
404
Edit My Images
No
I dont know if anyone has came across this before but this weekend I spent in wales photographing the red kites at gigrig.. I filled 2x 8 gig cards all looked good on the camera screen but when I loaded them to the mac they were all poor quality fuzzy and not sharp ????.
CANON 1D MK3 . 300mm F4 is. with a canon 1.4 coverter . all focus tracked.

at first I thought it was the converter so Ive had it on a tripod tonight playing with the micro focus settings it cured it a little .I then tried the 70-200L and this was very sharp .
so all pointed to the lens so I removed filter as a last ditch effort and the quality improved vastly..
the filter was a hoya 1b skylight ..
anyone came across this ????????
 
Yes, I too found this with cheap(ish) filters. I now only have one lens with a filter on, (not cheap) and thats because I don't use a hood on it. All the other filters have been taken off.
 
I always use a filter no problem... but only first quality ones.
 
Filters must be multicoated like Hoya pro 1 or even the cheapy mc ones fro 7dayshop. Should be clean as well and flair could be exacerbated when pointing the camera skywards.
Filter off is often best bet when shooting into the light.

John
 
wontolla said:
Yes, I too found this with cheap(ish) filters. I now only have one lens with a filter on, (not cheap) and thats because I don't use a hood on it. All the other filters have been taken off.
Click to expand...

He said he was using a Hoya Filter. Hoya and Cheap aren't two words I'd generally associate with each other. Mind you, I'm not sure why one would want to use a skylight filter on digital, I thought they died along with 35mm. (For a reason I can't quite remember at this early hour)
 
F*** Me!

Canon telephoto lenses don't seem to like filters - no Nikon user ever makes posts like this...
 
trencheel303 said:
.... Hoya and Cheap aren't two words I'd generally associate with each other. Mind you, I'm not sure why one would want to use a skylight filter on digital, I thought they died along with 35mm. (For a reason I can't quite remember at this early hour)
Click to expand...

Hoya do make cheapo filters ... their Green box range

Kenny - if you were using a straight 1B, it's the bottom of the range
their model numbers seem to be,
green box
multi-coated MC
then HMC
then Pro-1 Digital MC
some reports of a Super Pro-1
lastly HD

why a 1B anyway - It gives a pink cast
think it was used for film on overcast cloudy days which were blue cast

UV filters no longer required it seems
so begs the question - why a filter at all ?
if for lens protection - use a hood and a lens cap when not in use

anyway that's what I do after reading all the threads here.....:D
BUT still attach a Marumi DHG Protector to my Sigma 17-70 cos the lens surface is very exposed
 
Yardbent said:
...UV filters no longer required it seems
so begs the question - why a filter at all ?
if for lens protection - use a hood and a lens cap when not in use...
Click to expand...

...and when in use? That lens-cap will be a lot of good...
 
Arkady said:
...and when in use? That lens-cap will be a lot of good...
Click to expand...

That's true. Hoods are ok for knocks and bumps but what about airborne particles? pollen? seaspray etc?
 
Voyager said:
Canned air? Lens tissues?
Click to expand...

yeah - carry canned air around with me all the time and scrub abrasive particulates around on my very expensive front element...
or...
use a filter, wipe any crap off with any cloth I have to hand and wait til I get home to clean it properly in a clean, dust-free environment.

Hmmm... tricky choice...
 
I concur with Mr R. Kady.

People go on about lens hoods being fine as protection, and that you don't need a filter. Lens hoods are all well and good (I use mine ALL the time), but they don't protect against water, or grit, or dirt, or abrasive particles, and the funny thing about lens hoods is they don't have some sort of magic force field round them (the way people talk about them sometimes I wonder whether they do!). They're open at the end. They're going to be no help whatsoever if, for example, you fall onto a jagged piece of rock, and your camera lands lens face down, onto a piece of rock that's deeper than the lens hood. I'd rather have the protection of a filter than the cost of a smashed front element.
 
Arkady said:
yeah - carry canned air around with me all the time and scrub abrasive particulates around on my very expensive front element...
or...
use a filter, wipe any crap off with any cloth I have to hand and wait til I get home to clean it properly in a clean, dust-free environment.

Hmmm... tricky choice...
Click to expand...

You generally shoot in alot harsher environments than the average tog on this forum so it's a bit of an unfair comparison.

NikonSimon said:
I concur with Mr R. Kady.

People go on about lens hoods being fine as protection, and that you don't need a filter. Lens hoods are all well and good (I use mine ALL the time), but they don't protect against water, or grit, or dirt, or abrasive particles, and the funny thing about lens hoods is they don't have some sort of magic force field round them (the way people talk about them sometimes I wonder whether they do!). They're open at the end. They're going to be no help whatsoever if, for example, you fall onto a jagged piece of rock, and your camera lands lens face down, onto a piece of rock that's deeper than the lens hood. I'd rather have the protection of a filter than the cost of a smashed front element.
Click to expand...

You do realise that the front element on your camera isn't made of some aged french cheese and is actually pretty hard and quite dificult to scratch especially if just wiping of the dirt with a micro fibre cloth?

And for your extreme and rare example of a fall I have insurance.
 
a1ex2001 said:
You do realise that the front element on your camera isn't made of some aged french cheese and is actually pretty hard and quite dificult to scratch especially if just wiping of the dirt with a micro fibre cloth?

And for your extreme and rare example of a fall I have insurance.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say falling onto rocks is extreme or rare as a photographer! I would say having a stone thrown up by a passing car hit your front element as rare and extreme (I've had it happen), but taking a tumble on rocks?! Rare? Extreme? Maybe it's just me

Maybe I should say that in my opinion filters are good for landscape toggers, and we'll call it quits.
 
NikonSimon said:
I concur with Mr R. Kady.

People go on about lens hoods being fine as protection, and that you don't need a filter. Lens hoods are all well and good (I use mine ALL the time), but they don't protect against water, or grit, or dirt, or abrasive particles, and the funny thing about lens hoods is they don't have some sort of magic force field round them (the way people talk about them sometimes I wonder whether they do!). They're open at the end. They're going to be no help whatsoever if, for example, you fall onto a jagged piece of rock, and your camera lands lens face down, onto a piece of rock that's deeper than the lens hood. I'd rather have the protection of a filter than the cost of a smashed front element.
Click to expand...


Filters are good for modifying the input to the lens, or for protection in extreme environments. At all other times I can't see the point in affecting a carefully made lens.

And that's not just Canon, I made that choice a long time ago when using film (nikon, fujica etc).

As for falling onto rock, that's also pretty rare to get it exactly in that spot so isn't really a valid argument. I doubt whether 1mm or less of glass would offer much protection in that case.
 
2 schools of thought that will never agree...

Count me in to the no filter [but hood] camp except if there is likely to be spray or dust flying, then I'll put a protective filter on.
 
Byker28i said:
As for falling onto rock, that's also pretty rare to get it exactly in that spot so isn't really a valid argument. I doubt whether 1mm or less of glass would offer much protection in that case.
Click to expand...

Again, I woudn't call it rare. I'd say it would be bad luck, but a hazard that I'd rather protect against should it happen (which as someone who likes to take landscapes is more likely). I'd rather say it would be bad luck, but hopefully my filter would help if it did happen, than say it would be bad luck if it happens so I won't bother with a filter
 
Arkady said:
yeah - carry canned air around with me all the time and scrub abrasive particulates around on my very expensive front element...
or...
use a filter, wipe any crap off with any cloth I have to hand and wait til I get home to clean it properly in a clean, dust-free environment.

Hmmm... tricky choice...
Click to expand...
The question I was answering was what is the alternative to having a filter - not that you had to do it in the field. :suspect:
 
poor quality glass filters without any coatings reduce contrast and induce flare alot. good quality MC filters have no effect on quality but they can increase flare if you don't use a hood. I don't have a filter on my 24-70 HSM sigma but thats only because I can't afford it lol. People have no qualms about using CP's or lee/cokin filters which have more effect on the image than a UV.
 
Arkady said:
A filter is also insurance - a lot cheaper too...
Click to expand...

Yup in your dusty, dirty environments, or maybe with all that kit you carry around as well, which can knock against the camera I'd probably fit one too.

We certainly put them onto the cameras when we mount them on cars etc.
 
NikonSimon said:
for example, you fall onto a jagged piece of rock, and your camera lands lens face down, onto a piece of rock that's deeper than the lens hood. I'd rather have the protection of a filter than the cost of a smashed front element.
Click to expand...

Hmmm ok, your filters must be made out of something mine certainly aren't then... possibly some kind of advanced Sputnik teknology, a translucent ablating panel developed for the nose cone of a SS18 warhead or something?

No, in your example that filter will provide as much protection to your precious kit as a t-shirt does to a Kalashnikov round.
 
Arkady said:
F*** Me!

Canon telephoto lenses don't seem to like filters - no Nikon user ever makes posts like this...
Click to expand...

I had a CPL on my Nikon that trashed about 50 of my honeymoon photos, stinking piece of crap, I've saved it for airgun practice, only wish I had access to high explosives.

Nick.
 
Grumpy_Git said:
I had a CPL on my Nikon that trashed about 50 of my honeymoon photos, stinking piece of crap, I've saved it for airgun practice, only wish I had access to high explosives.

Nick.
Click to expand...

A bad 'cheap' CPL is fairly common - we're talking Skylight, UV and 'protection' filters here...
 
Arkady said:
A filter is also insurance - a lot cheaper too...
Click to expand...

My insurance was free as I was already paying it and my camera gear cost no extra and decent UV filters for big lenses are anything but cheap.
 
a1ex2001 said:
My insurance was free as I was already paying it and my camera gear cost no extra and decent UV filters for big lenses are anything but cheap.
Click to expand...

If you're already paying for it, how is it free? Well, whatever - your lenses, your risk.

Irregardless - no-one is ever going to convince me that good-quality filters are a bad thing if used properly: with a lens-hood and removed if required for night/low-light photography with point light-sources visible in the frame.
 
Common sense should apply I guess.

I have never used a UV filter, have used a CPL and was very disappointed.
Quality is expensive.

There is also still a residual idea being carried from then days of film (and helped along by stores) that you should put a filter on all your lenses...

Why bother protecting a lens with a cheap filter if all the quality goes away? If the lens is cheap then the quality will likely be little anyway so way decrease it further. And if you go for good filters in cheap lenses... why bother? Waste of money when that filter breaks...
When you have an expensive lens then protect it with the hood and a filter (if conditions justify it) and get insurance too.

I've seen many people who cradle their kit lenses, which they use for shots in innocuous environments, many time without the hood.
It seems they want to protect their equipment like Arkady very reasonably has to, but what is the justification?

My suggestion is to think a see if it makes sense.
 
Arkady said:
If you're already paying for it, how is it free? Well, whatever - your lenses, your risk.
Click to expand...

It is free from the point of view of a photography cost as I was already paying it before I picked up this expensive hobby, unlike a decent 77mm UV filter which would have cost me a not insignficant amount.

Arkady said:
Irregardless - no-one is ever going to convince me that good-quality filters are a bad thing if used properly: with a lens-hood and removed if required for night/low-light photography with point light-sources visible in the frame.
Click to expand...

I never said they were a bad thing I'm just not convinced they are worth the money, to me it seems like a great money making scam invented by camera shops to turn over a few more quid. I've definately encountered the pushy sales person who practically insists you have a UV filter with your new lens.

This is particularly apparent with cheaper lenses, I've known people insist on putting a UV filter on a nifty fifty when a decent filter would cost nearly as much as the lens, it makes more sense on a super expensive L lens but then if you've got an L lens that insn't insured against being dropped your pretty mad in my opinion.
 
a1ex2001 said:
It is free from the point of view of a photography cost as I was already paying it before I picked up this expensive hobby, unlike a decent 77mm UV filter which would have cost me a not insignficant amount...
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough if it's on your household insurance - I can't do that for commercial use and for conflict areas there's no cover available whatsoever...
I still think that £80 is insignificant compared to £1400 for a new lens (potentially)...
Even worse would be that I have a damaged and unusable lens while actually on a job and no replacement - whereas I can easily carry five or six 77mm UV filters in my spares bag. And I do...
 
hmmm 33 posts........

where's "kennycanyon"..................:lol:
 
Not going to get involved in 'should I, shouldn't I' debate, but even a basic Hoya filter shouldn't cause the sort of quality problems you are talking about.

I heard at Focus, I know another rumour, of counterfeit / fake filters being sold in the UK market. It involved a UK based ebay retailer selling Hoya, B+W and Canon filters as genuine UK stock and at prices that were lower than normal high street prices but not so low you would be concerned.

In this case it was a B+W filter that was purchased and it turned out it was a fake. The packaging was apparently very good but the filter was rubbish, poor quality glass and a cheap aluminium mount.

If the results are that bad it may be worth contacting the importer and getting some feedback - if this was the case it would be wrong to blame Hoya.
 
Yardbent said:
hmmm 33 posts........

where's "kennycanyon"..................:lol:
Click to expand...

im here and finding this all very amusing.....
rocks .insurance. canned air. wow did I ask the wrong question LOL :lol: :cuckoo:
 
Bostin,

Yes, I have a feeling my 'bargain' 'Hoya' fits that bill. Just doesn't seem quite right. However, as I've taken to using ND-grads a lot, it usually stays off anyway these days, as it's too much hassle faffing about with it. FWIW, shots without it do seem better, but that's probably purely subjective....

For lens cleaning, I use one of those blower brushes very gently to remove loose crap, then a lens cloth when I know there's nothing abrasive left. Seems to work, but then I accept at some point my kit may get damaged if I want to use it, and factor this in! If I'm shooting near spray, I usually have an ND of some description on to slow things down, so that also works protectively...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top