IQ isuess with 70-300 VR and filters -updated with 17-70 examples

Dogfish_magnet

Dogfish_magnet

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,613
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Has any one any ideas why my Nikon 70-300mm VR lens appears not to work with a filter :thumbsdown:, I've tried Hoya and Nikon filters (skylight,CPL & ND) and the IQ is appalling with any filters fitted.
the following were shot indoors from a tripod using Mup and wireless remote.

1 - No filter
Aperture priority
f/5.3
1/13sec
220mm

No_filter_1.jpg


2 - Nikon CPL fitted.

Aperture priority
f/5.3
1/6sec - appears to block some light also
220mm

Nikon_CPL_1.jpg



These images have been taken using a nikon 17-70mm with the same CPL .

1- No filter

f /4.5
1/25sec
ISO 200
70mm

17-70_NOCPL.jpg


2 - With Nikon CPL

f/4.5
1/13sec
ISO 200
70mm

17-70_CPL.jpg


Both images have been resized then sharpened only from RAW.
 
The slower shutter speed with the second shot shouldn't really matter with a tripod mounted camera and a remote release, but ignoring the unsharp image, the thing which leaps out at me is the difference in colour saturation in the second shot, which is just why I prefer not to use filters at all.

The numerous multi coatings on modern quality lenses are designed among other things to give good colour depth and saturation, so sticking a cheap filter in front of the lens can only impact on image quality. If you have to use filters, buy quality ones, they're expensive for a reason. ;)
 
Joe T said:
CPL will always block some light. I think the shutter might have got just a little too low? 1/6 is a bit slow for any lens, VR or not?

What does it look like with a skylight?
Click to expand...

JoeT - I'll have to dig that out and get some shots

CT - The Nikon CPL wasn't that cheap - :'( and it appears OK on the 17-70mm. :shrug:
 
To be fair, whilst I'm not a fan of filters, a polariser is one which is probably still pretty essential, especially for landscape work and for some product shots.

You can see exactly the same drop in image saturation using the filter with these further images though. But why use a polariser for these shots anyway? A polariser is used to reduce reflected glare, and I don't see any in evidence here?
 
CT said:
To be fair, whilst I'm not a fan of filters, a polariser is one which is probably still pretty essential, especially for landscape work and for some product shots.

You can see exactly the same drop in image saturation using the filter with these further images though. But why use a polariser for these shots anyway? A polariser is used to reduce reflected glare, and I don't see any in evidence here?
Click to expand...

These are just test shots - i had a load of shots from Mevagissy harbour the other day that were useless :thumbsdown: - it was the first time i have used the CPL on the 70-300.

meva.jpg
 
Why do you think the shot is rubbish? Obviously it needs a sharpen, but just reducing the image size for web viewing will lose sharpness. This is with a sharpen and a boost in contrast...

meva-edit.jpg


I can't see one logical reason though, why you'd want to use a polariser on a dull overcast day like that, or why you'd expect your shots to benefit from it's use.

The most common use of a polarisor in landscape work is to darken blue skies on sunny days, but even then it's only effective within about a 45 -90 degree angle to the sun.

Sorry DM - but it looks like you need to do a bit of reading up on polarisers. ;)
 
CT - The image had been sharpened after resize - this is a shot without the CPL, resized for web then sharpened only - there's lot more definition (clearer), The day was mostly sunny and bright ;) , I've deleted most of the images i'd just kept that as an example :thumbs:.


70-300TestShot.jpg



I was trying to get the sky like this (18-70mm with CPL)

biomes.jpg
 
Well there's not much wrong with that first shot and the sunny conditions in that second shot are much more suited to the use of the polariser, where it's clearly worked well. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top