Do you use the lenshood on the 100-400mm II?

[Besisika]

I'm with Neuro and candyman.

BW 007 clear filter as front protection from dust and water - easy cleaning. I use lens hoods to protect my lenses from hard bump.

+1
I see no reason not to use it. No need for filters.

 

[[email protected]]

I too have had an issue with the 100-400 II hood. I like to use hoods rather than filters when I can, but I've taken to leaving my 100-400 II hood at home and use the hood I have from my 70-200, which fits nicely and doesn't have that little window in it that I keep finding open whenever I bother to look.

I want to state clearly that I really appreciate Canon innovating by making that little window, but they just didn't quite get it right. I have to use a little piece of tape to keep the window closed, especially as it gets dragged in and out of a bag. In the time it takes to move the tape, I could have adjusted my polarizing filter by reaching around.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I always use the hood on almost all my lenses except when the lens doesn't fit in the bag with the hood attached in reverse position. It helps protecting the front element of the lens besides protecting from flare.

The 100-400 II is in my wishlist, but I'll use the hood when I get one.

 

[AlanF]

For the violently anti-protective-filter advocates: "Chuck Westfall of Canon USA has confirmed that a filter is required for full sealing of this lens." (TDP).

 

[AlanF]

For what it is worth, according to Canon: "The new Air Sphere Coating has been developed by Canon to minimise reflections and flare. It consists of tiny nano particles of air trapped in a film above the conventional multi-layer coatings. These Air Sphere particles form a super low reflective coating on the surface of the lens element to reduce reflection and act as a ‘crash mat’ to reduce the speed that light travels through the layer so there is not such a large change in speed when the light enters through the glass of the lens element. The major cause of reflections is the sudden change in the speed of light as it passes from air to glass, and this new technology prevents the cause of visible ghosting and flare."

For what it is worth, according to Canon: "Ultrasonic motor (USM) for quick and quiet autofocusing," is stated in the description of the 85L II. Quick? Perhaps compared to the movement of glaciers and the growth of sequoias.

Canon's statement on flare is backed up for the 100-400mm in the link to TDP I included in my post.

In fact, given that there is flare clearly visible in the TDP shot with the 100-400 II, I'd say that the link to TDP actually demonstrates quite nicely that Canon's statement is false.

The word "prevent" has shades of meaning, from completely stopping to merely hindering. E.g.,

"Prevent" verb (used with object)
1.
to keep from occurring; avert; hinder:
He intervened to prevent bloodshed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prevent

See also definition 4 in Merriam http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prevent

4: to hold or keep back : hinder, stop

In conventional English, you would say "prevent completely" to emphasize 100%.

Canon has greatly decreased flare by their new coatings to the point whereas the sun washed out the whole frame when actually appearing in the corner of the frame of the old 100-400mm, it causes very minor ghosting in the Mk II. It certainly has hindered or held back flare, and I don't think you could legally sue them over their statement being untrue.

 

[YuengLinger]

I too have had an issue with the 100-400 II hood. I like to use hoods rather than filters when I can, but I've taken to leaving my 100-400 II hood at home and use the hood I have from my 70-200, which fits nicely and doesn't have that little window in it that I keep finding open whenever I bother to look.

I want to state clearly that I really appreciate Canon innovating by making that little window, but they just didn't quite get it right. I have to use a little piece of tape to keep the window closed, especially as it gets dragged in and out of a bag. In the time it takes to move the tape, I could have adjusted my polarizing filter by reaching around.

How can you see through your hand to judge the effects of the CP??? Are you just imagining?

 

[weixing]

Hi,
I always use with the hood and a good protection filter. The protection filter is basically for peace of mind when cleaning and of course when you do birding, "something" might just drop down from above and shizzle happens.... ;D

Have a nice day.

 

[Loswr]

For what it is worth, according to Canon: "The new Air Sphere Coating has been developed by Canon to minimise reflections and flare. It consists of tiny nano particles of air trapped in a film above the conventional multi-layer coatings. These Air Sphere particles form a super low reflective coating on the surface of the lens element to reduce reflection and act as a ‘crash mat’ to reduce the speed that light travels through the layer so there is not such a large change in speed when the light enters through the glass of the lens element. The major cause of reflections is the sudden change in the speed of light as it passes from air to glass, and this new technology prevents the cause of visible ghosting and flare."

For what it is worth, according to Canon: "Ultrasonic motor (USM) for quick and quiet autofocusing," is stated in the description of the 85L II. Quick? Perhaps compared to the movement of glaciers and the growth of sequoias.

Canon's statement on flare is backed up for the 100-400mm in the link to TDP I included in my post.

In fact, given that there is flare clearly visible in the TDP shot with the 100-400 II, I'd say that the link to TDP actually demonstrates quite nicely that Canon's statement is false.

The word "prevent" has shades of meaning, from completely stopping to merely hindering. E.g.,

"Prevent" verb (used with object)
1.
to keep from occurring; avert; hinder:
He intervened to prevent bloodshed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prevent

See also definition 4 in Merriam http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prevent

4: to hold or keep back : hinder, stop

In conventional English, you would say "prevent completely" to emphasize 100%.

Canon has greatly decreased flare by their new coatings to the point whereas the sun washed out the whole frame when actually appearing in the corner of the frame of the old 100-400mm, it causes very minor ghosting in the Mk II. It certainly has hindered or held back flare, and I don't think you could legally sue them over their statement being untrue.

Thanks for the unnecessary English lesson. In conventional English, to prevent means to stop, to keep from happening. In the scientific literature, which generally attempts to be more precise than lay writing, when 'prevent' is qualified it is generally negatory, as in 'does not completely prevent'...because prevent means stop. Certainly, words can have shades of meaning...but highlighting the tertiary or quaternary meaning and suggesting that is the primary definition is not consistent with how dictionaries are written.

I have no intention of suing Canon. My point was that your implication that Canon's new air sphere coating obviates the use of the lens hood is untenable. Having supported my point with evidence which you provided, further discussion on the matter would be as superfluously redundant as the phrase 'completely prevent'.

 

[Joey]

I always use my 100-400 II with its hood. Currently I also have a protective filter attached but I 'm wondering if I'm degrading its performance. My protective filter is an expensive one but it doesn't have Canon's new coatings. Some of Canon's new coatings are only effective on the outer element - which in my case is the filter, which doesn't have them...

I use hoods with all my lenses except the pancake. Protective filters with most, most of the time.

 

[Vern]

I always use the hoods for my lenses and no 'protective' filter unless the environment is very abrasive (blowing sand and surf etc.). I can't see routinely introducing another optical element unless it adds something - like a CP. More recent lenses have a 'fluorine' coating (I assume this mean a fluorocarbon coating, as fluorine is a toxic gas) that makes cleaning very easy anyway. Additionally, all the most expensive glass doesn't accept a front filter anyway, so why not get used to going commando? (but with hood in place).

 

[CurtL5]

Because I shoot mostly sports with this lens and I'm constantly swinging it around through different sunlight angles, I leave the hood on always. I also use a good filter since I'm often a belt n' suspenders kind of guy.

Interested to hear of the filter door regularly opening itself. Glad to know I'm not the only one!

 

[AlanF]

Hi Neuro
I am sharing this snippet just as a matter of interest, not to press a point. I dined this evening with an etymologist who told me that the origin of "prevent" is "to act in anticipation of" - see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prevent for the Latin root.

 

[eos650]

I don't have the 100-400 II, but will say that I always use a hood. This is more for the protection of the lens than anything else. In the past I often went without a hood, due to the size of the hoods and the fact that I couldn't fit as much in my bag.

One day I was shooting a basketball game, sitting on the floor and using two camera's. One of my cameras slipped from my leg and on to the floor. I had a UV filter on the lens for added protection. The edge of the UV filter hit the floor and bent and shattered. In the process, the front element of my 70-200L got some slight scratches. Had I had a hood, I most likely would have not suffered any damage.

Since that time, I have removed the UV filters from all of my lenses and always use a hood.

 

[Loswr]

Thanks, Alan – good stuff!

 

[mycanonphotos]

I use the hood all the time. Same goes for all my others (filters vary)
1. For added protection against the various elements
2. Flare protection
3. Hood always remains on in reverse when in storage
4. Filter I use with it...the HOYA EVO Antistatic UV Filter

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I had to go check the little door on my hood to see if it stayed closed. I played with it a while, but could not get it to open buy itself. Then I took it off the lens and banged it on the table pretty firmly. It opened just a sliver, but more banging had little or no effect. Then, I really pounded it hard, and it opened half way, and after a couple more hard tries, it was completely opened.

If I were to hit my camera or lens that hard, it would likely be damaged, so I think my hood is OK.

For those with a issue, Contact Canon and ask for a replacement. See what they say and let us know. I suspect that different people will get different responses.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I think here in Canada we're more likely to say "completely prevent".

Jack

 

[Houndog]

I always use lens hood with my 100-400 II. It looks like protective filter may slightly affect sharpness so, in some circumstances, I will remove protective filter.