06-09-2012, 02:35 PM
[quote name='photonius' timestamp='1339192874' post='18796']
I have seen lots of empirical claims, in particular for the 100-400 lens, that this has issues with filters,
claims range from bad bokeh, affected AF, softness, even with good filters. but no serious test.
But generally, tele lenses would be more susceptible to flaws in the glass, so there may be something to it.
[/quote]
Actually, as an owner of a 100-400L, currently my second one (sold the first one because I needed the money badly at the time), I can state that this is not my experience <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
I reckon people need to get used to working with a 100-400L, especially at the long end. It is rather susceptible to picking out the exact item for focusing. Essentially it means one has to get to know the equipment well before expecting to get really good shots, sharp where they are supposed to be. And with some equipment that is easier than with others. I think the biggest problems are that the IS needs to be able to do its work for at least 1 to 2 seconds, prior to pressing the shutter button all the way through, something many people seem to forget, and the limited amount of DoF. When shooting, e.g., a small bird, a little body movement may put the subject in the OOF zone.
I also reckon that telelenses are less susceptible to "flaws" in the glas of good quality filters, basically because the angle of incidence is very narrow, compared to WA lenses. Less to go wrong due to refraction and/or reflection, and due to the limited DoF of telelenses any objects close to or on the filter will not contribute to problems either.
Kind regards, Wim
I have seen lots of empirical claims, in particular for the 100-400 lens, that this has issues with filters,
claims range from bad bokeh, affected AF, softness, even with good filters. but no serious test.
But generally, tele lenses would be more susceptible to flaws in the glass, so there may be something to it.
[/quote]
Actually, as an owner of a 100-400L, currently my second one (sold the first one because I needed the money badly at the time), I can state that this is not my experience <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I reckon people need to get used to working with a 100-400L, especially at the long end. It is rather susceptible to picking out the exact item for focusing. Essentially it means one has to get to know the equipment well before expecting to get really good shots, sharp where they are supposed to be. And with some equipment that is easier than with others. I think the biggest problems are that the IS needs to be able to do its work for at least 1 to 2 seconds, prior to pressing the shutter button all the way through, something many people seem to forget, and the limited amount of DoF. When shooting, e.g., a small bird, a little body movement may put the subject in the OOF zone.
I also reckon that telelenses are less susceptible to "flaws" in the glas of good quality filters, basically because the angle of incidence is very narrow, compared to WA lenses. Less to go wrong due to refraction and/or reflection, and due to the limited DoF of telelenses any objects close to or on the filter will not contribute to problems either.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....