Cool! Now you have one more job to do: point that 400 at some birds!
I don't think that filters are always bad - the one on my 10-22 stays on all the time and though I've never tried the lens without it I get excellent image qualiy with it just the same. But that is a good quality one (still Hoya, but maybe two or three times the price of their cheap ones). I guess the lesson here is that cheap filter bad, good filter OK.
My cheap Hoya close-up lenses .... well ... I tried them out two weekends running and have never used them since. (Bought a 60mm macro lens instead, which I haven't learned to make the most of yet.) It was something familiar about that weird distortion in the gull shot that suddenly reminded me of my results with the close-up lenses and made me think of filters.
Anyone want to by two sets of close-up lenses? 77mm and 58mm, three lenses per set. As-new condition, going cheap!
So, depending on what the experts here think, I guess you could buy a top-quality filter for your 400 f/5.6 and get very, very close to the same results you get with the bare lens. Or, as you say, you could just keep the hood extended and take care. FWIW, that's what I do with all my lenses except the 10-22. (I make the exception for the 10-22 because the front element is so bulbous and exposed, even with the lens hood on, that I just don't think I could rely on keeping it in pristine shape. If I scratch the filter, so what, I've blown $60. Scratch the lens and I've blown $1100. Big differece.)
Very pleased to see you getting the results the lens deserves at last.
|