RF800mm F11 IS STM Images do not seem sharp...ringing around image

[dcomora]

I am new to Canon products and recently purchased an R5 with the the RF 800 fixed f11 lens.  I have been shooting birds over the past few months.   I have been comparing my shots to those I see posted on line and it seems I am not able to get the sharp focus that I see others getting.  I am using the animal eye focus setting, I am shooting at  shutter speeds of  between 1000 and 2000, my ISO is usually never above 2000.   I have the image stabilization engaged and I most recently used a tripod.   When I zoom into my images, I see a little "ringing" around the outside of the birds and birds eyes.   Someone said I should use Topaz AI sharpen to get sharper images, but I am thinking that should not be necessary.  Is it possible that the lens is out of calibration or am I still doing something wrong?  I also have an R 25 - 105 lens and photos are super sharp. Any advice would be appreciated. 

[dcomora]

So, Canon is shipping my lens and clear filter back and I humbly admit that they determined the issue was caused by my clear filter, a Fotasy 95mm Ultra Slim filter which was very cheap and I think I learned my lesson.  I am awaiting the return shipment of the lens and the question I have, is what clear filter should I be using for the RF 800 F11 lens.  Is there a decent option that is less expensive than the $250 to $350 range that folks are asking for the Canon 95mm Protector Filter?  Is the B&W 95mm MRC #007 Clear Filter any good or are there other options that anyone recommends?   Thanks for all of your advice and help!!!

[jrhoffman75]

---

@dcomora wrote:

So, Canon is shipping my lens and clear filter back and I humbly admit that they determined the issue was caused by my clear filter, a Fotasy 95mm Ultra Slim filter which was very cheap and I think I learned my lesson.  I am awaiting the return shipment of the lens and the question I have, is what clear filter should I be using for the RF 800 F11 lens.  Is there a decent option that is less expensive than the $250 to $350 range that folks are asking for the Canon 95mm Protector Filter?  Is the B&W 95mm MRC #007 Clear Filter any good or are there other options that anyone recommends?   Thanks for all of your advice and help!!!

---

The use of protective filters is a subject that generates a lot of opinions. Certainly, as you found, a poor filter will degrade your images.

Some lenses do require a filter to provide full dust and weather protection; the lens manual will tell you that.

What I do is always use a lens hood. That provides good protection from bumps, sticks in the woods hitting the lens, light snow/rain etc. I do not normally have a filter on the lens. 

I also use a magnetic ring filter system on my lenses. If its snowing/raining enough where the lens surface is getting wet I can just snap on the filter. I can also easily snap on other filters as needed, like a polarizer or night sky filter. 

Having said all that, B+W and Breakthrough are two high quality filter manufacturers. No doubt the Canon filter will be good as well, but Caanon does seem to charge a premium for products with their name.

[ebiggs1]

I am a big supported of protecto filters but not on big tele lenses. I don't use any filters on any of my big teles. Either bite the bullet and get a top quality protecto filter or leave it off. The Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM Lens is, although the FL is super tele, not a super tele lens. Its design makes if fit somewhere else and a 95mm top quality filter is going to be expensive. If I were you I would go filterless on this lens.

The bottom line any filter on a super tele is, it will never help but it may not hurt it. Always, 100%, use the hood.

[wq9nsc]

I do use high quality protective filters on all of my lenses that will accept one.  In addition to protection, when hiking or shooting sports I don't hesitate to do a quick wipe of the filter during the action if something gets on it which is something I wouldn't do carelessly with the actual lens front element.

I do have several Canon fast tele primes and these have rear drop in filter holders with no provision for a filter on the front of the lens  because of the extremely large front elements.  These always have their lens hood in place when in use and Canon uses a special coating to help protect the front element in these builds.  Also, the front element for most of these fast long primes is considered "sacrificial" in that although not cheap, replacement of the front element is cheap compared to the other elements.

A 95mm filter is large but if you are using this lens in adverse conditions, a moderately expensive filter is probably worth the piece of mind.  B&W's filters have been fine in my experience, as always buy from known sources because there are fake B&W filters out there.  There are unusual lighting situations where any filter can cause problems but those are not common with a good filter and you can always temporarily remove it when needed.  I wouldn't put a $300 filter on a $900 lens but a $120 filter may be worth it.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

" I wouldn't put a $300 filter on a $900 lens but a $120 filter may be worth it."

That ole common sense thing!

[dcomora]

Just ordered a B&W clear from B&H...figured I would avoid Amazon in case of counterfeits.  Thanks for all your advice!  Got my lens back from Canon today and my POS filter.  Took some great shots with amazing clarity without the **bleep** filter. 

[wq9nsc]

I am glad it was a fairly simple solution.  A Japanese friend sent me the special 135mm "soft focus" lens that Canon made years ago that has adjustable soft focus.  It was intended for portrait shots before the days of Photoshop when you didn't want too much fine detail.  It sounds like your prior filter was inadvertently a soft focus filter 🙂

I suspect this problem happens often but many people are not nearly as critical as most of us about image quality and likely never notice.  One of the local papers has been publishing sports photos that make me cringe to look at them, they could best be described as blobs doing something in what looks like a field because that is the level of detail.  Apparently their readers are good with it.

Canon should include a brochure with their lenses titled, "How to instantly turn a good lens into a bad lens" pointing out the effects of putting a poor piece of glass in front of a good piece of glass.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

"One of the local papers has been publishing sports photos that make me cringe to look at ..."

I doubt anyone would choose news print as a medium of choice for fine detail!  In this case the finial product determines the gear.  

[wq9nsc]

Ernie,

You wouldn't expect fine detail from a newspaper although that is starting to change now that online has become the most important outlet for what was traditional print journalism.  But some of this stuff is so motion blurred that you wouldn't even be able to make out bold jersey numbers.

I don't blame the journalists, it is the corporate ownership that has cut staff to the bone and often has no understanding of or interest in journalism beyond short term profits.  It is truly sad what has happened to local and regional print journalism.  My brother-in-law moved to TV news a few years ago and loves the different environment after spending 25 years in the newspaper business starting as a sports reporter.

The area television stations are doing a great job with sports coverage and they have some really sharp people who are proud of what they do and the younger ones are just as dedicated. 

A couple of years ago I was afraid I might have a "me too" moment because a new young TV sports reporter was doing her own video work for her first post-season HS football game and she was locked in on a great kickoff return but wasn't paying attention to the lead blockers.  I grabbed her by the shoulders and pulled her out of the way just before two big farm boys crashed through where she had been standing.  She thanked me and it was a good teachable moment about situational awareness and keeping both eyes open on the sidelines but it could have been a bad situation.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

Number one rule for any sports photographer is to know the sport. I don't care how many thousands of bucks you spent on camera gear if you don't know what you are shooting, it will be difficult to be successful..

You know I really never even gave on-line a thought but you are right. On-line will make a big difference in newspaper photographs.