I received my Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS from Poon a few weeks ago. Beautifully packaged and presented, built like a tank etc etc. I had a lot of fun for a few weeks, then I started to notice that the images were not as sharp as I would have expected.
I mainly shoot wide open, so I stopped down a bit and alas, no discernable difference in image sharpness. I called in to see a very well respected pro in Brisbane last week, he took a series of test shots for me with and without IS and came to the same conclusion - only 20% of shots were tack sharp. This is a legendary lens and should produce A1 results most of the time.
I was wondering what to do and then I thought of something - I had an el cheapo protective filter on the front. I removed it and voila!! - photos are tack sharp to the expected standard.
So the moral of the story is, either buy a top quality filter for your expensive lens, or use none at all, which is what I am going to do, at least for the present time. I know this is not news to many on this forum, but it is true anyway - don't buy cheap lens filters.
Ozi.
DSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
Lesson learned...Moderator: Moderators
Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Lesson learned...
President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Canon EOS R6, RF 24-105 F4, RF 70-200 F4, RF 35mm F1.8, RF 16mm F2.8 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
He did, but he took some shots anyway. Actually, my friend said that it may be a focussing problem, not a lens problem, but it seems to be fine without a filter on it.
President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Canon EOS R6, RF 24-105 F4, RF 70-200 F4, RF 35mm F1.8, RF 16mm F2.8 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Laughs at Matt.
Filters suck anyway, unless they add to the image. The lens-shade that comes with the lens will protect it well enough. Congrats on the purchase too  Steve.
|D700| D2H | F5 | 70-200VR | 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-70 | 10.5 | 12-24 | SB800 | Website-> http://www.stevekilburn.com Leeds United for promotion in 2014 - Hurrah!!!
I don't think you would be the first to buy a $1000+ or x lens and put a $10 filter on it!
 Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
$2000+ lens and a $5 filter...  President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Canon EOS R6, RF 24-105 F4, RF 70-200 F4, RF 35mm F1.8, RF 16mm F2.8 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
No, a coffee filter...  President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Canon EOS R6, RF 24-105 F4, RF 70-200 F4, RF 35mm F1.8, RF 16mm F2.8 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Actually, I was intending to buy a quality filter down the track but I don't think I'll bother, the lens hood does a good job.
President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Canon EOS R6, RF 24-105 F4, RF 70-200 F4, RF 35mm F1.8, RF 16mm F2.8 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Single or double? Actually, the LM filters generally have a pretty even hole distribution, from what I understand, so you should have been ok. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Try a mesh in front of the lens, it turns itself into a "stars" filter... Its fun
Previous topic • Next topic
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|
- Mods Database • The team • Delete all board cookies • Reset blocks • All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]
