Canon 400mm f4 DO IS USM protective filter

[Neil Morris]

I'd appreciate any clues as to where I might buy a protective filter - and which filter to purchase - for the objective (end) glass of this Canon white lens. The retailers I have asked misunderstand my question every time and retort that it's a 52mm drop-in.

The Canon 400mm f4 DO does appear to have a screw thread within the housing that looks like it could take a filter around 110mm but it's difficult to be sure. Any help greatly appreciated.

 

[icassell]

Thought I'd see if I could help on the Canon website, but no luck. I did see, however, that the lens cap costs $110. OUCH!

 

[Overread]

The only listing on the canon website is the filter thread size for the drop in slot. Can it actually take a filter on the front at all - or is the thread your feeling just rings of plastic for some odd reason- ie are they an actual screw thread?
If they are a screwthread then the size should be on the lens barrel - if not then chances are it does not take one - it might not all be bad news as I know some of hte canon L range only have a clear glass as the front element - yours might or might not be one of those models I'm not sure

 

[icassell]

A phone call to canon should answer this quickly.

 

[Overread]

Rather late for that now (its nearly 7pm in the uk so chances are canon will be shut). Though if your trying stores in the surrey area try giving The London Camera Exchange in Reading a call.
Just be carefull - there are otters about that place

 

[Neil Morris]

Appreciate your suggestions. I have tried emailing Canon on a couple of occasions about this and another matter - never got a reply to either. Will try a phone call to LCE then Canon. Will let you know how I get on.

 

[icassell]

Just curious. How do you like the lens? I've read mixed reviews. Some decade, I'll be able to afford a super-tele and that one sure sounds appealing, but it's more likely that I'll be able to afford the 400 f/5.6 (which I couldn't use with TC on AF).

 

[usayit]

I don't think it takes filters in front... the largest filters I have seen are 77mm or 82mm. It takes drop in filters

 

[KmH]

Thought I'd see if I could help on the Canon website, but no luck. I did see, however, that the lens cap costs $110. OUCH!

The lens hood is cheap! Only $580.

If it was desireable to have a 'protective filter' in front of the objective glass, why do you think Canon, or Nikon for that matter, doesn't put one on all their lenses, and then brag about it in marketing hype.

 

[Garbz]

If it was desireable to have a 'protective filter' in front of the objective glass, why do you think Canon, or Nikon for that matter, doesn't put one on all their lenses, and then brag about it in marketing hype.

Because like everything else both these companies do, it's much more profitable to charge an extortionate price for "accessories" like say the Nikon 77mm NC (Clear) filter (product code NK-NC77 which retails for a lovely $85US [yeah right I've heard it isn't even that good]).

It would be great if lenses came with high quality protectors. But this idea is directly in conflict of business practices which think hmmm we could charge them $80 for filters, or $350 for a new front element, or **** it sell em a new lens.



Next list of questions: Why doesn't Canon or Nikon for that matter put a GPS unit in their cameras, and then brag about it in marketing hype? Seems to me more useful than many of the other features. Shame the answer is the same though

 

[usayit]

If it was desireable to have a 'protective filter' in front of the objective glass, why do you think Canon, or Nikon for that matter, doesn't put one on all their lenses, and then brag about it in marketing hype.

Because like everything else both these companies do, it's much more profitable to charge an extortionate price for "accessories" like say the Nikon 77mm NC (Clear) filter (product code NK-NC77 which retails for a lovely $85US [yeah right I've heard it isn't even that good]).

It would be great if lenses came with high quality protectors. But this idea is directly in conflict of business practices which think hmmm we could charge them $80 for filters, or $350 for a new front element, or **** it sell em a new lens.

I don't know Garbz.... I agree with the whole accessories and charge up deal. After all, many companies of various products do exactly that (Automobiles come to mind). I am not convinced that this is the reason in this case. I think Canon and Nikon don't put protective UV filters on their lenses because their use are still (and will always be) controversial. Not everyone wants to have extra glass in front of their lenses nor will it be easy to be priced competitive once you force everyone to purchase it as part of the whole deal.

 

[Garbz]

Yeah my point exactly. They give consumers a choice, and then charge for it.

You can't use the fact that something isn't bundled with a product as evidence that it is either a bad or good idea. I wasn't saying they condone it only that they do not condemn it.

 

[Neil Morris]

Thanks icassell. I've not had the chance to really put the lens through its paces yet. I've read some mixed reviews from a while ago - mainly concerned about a slight lack of contrast. More recent reviews seemed to be favourable. For me, the over-riding consideration was the portability on long field treks. Once I've got some proper testing under my belt, I'll let you know whether I should've gone for the much heavier 400mm f2.8 and the trailer to go with it.

Appreciate your comments.

 

[KmH]

Yeah my point exactly. They give consumers a choice, and then charge for it.

You can't use the fact that something isn't bundled with a product as evidence that it is either a bad or good idea. I wasn't saying they condone it only that they do not condemn it.

I wonder why most good lenses come with a lens hood then? Hummmm.....

 

[icassell]

Thanks icassell. I've not had the chance to really put the lens through its paces yet. I've read some mixed reviews from a while ago - mainly concerned about a slight lack of contrast. More recent reviews seemed to be favourable. For me, the over-riding consideration was the portability on long field treks. Once I've got some proper testing under my belt, I'll let you know whether I should've gone for the much heavier 400mm f2.8 and the trailer to go with it.

Appreciate your comments.

I'm watching with interest. Some day I'd like one of those. I think the difference in cost might pay for the mule, though.