Filters and Autofocus
Jun 7, 2018 07:56:30 #
when I bought my Panasonic 100/400 used from B&H, it came with a filter that I attached and put the lens on my new Olympus EM1 Mark ll, I was excited to go out and give this thing a try only to find out that the lens wouldn't auto focus. I figured I had a dud, but something told me to try it without that filter and to my relief it worked fine. I put the filter back on and no auto focus. I kind of lost faith in any kind of filter after that and have not used any since.
Jun 7, 2018 13:30:45 #
Thanks for that explanation. I always wondered.
SonyA580 wrote:
Steve beat me to it!
Some of the older non-circular polarizers will throw off the autofocus of today's cameras but the new circular ones should not have any effect except to increase aperture to compensate for less light coming through the lens.
Some of the older non-circular polarizers will throw off the autofocus of today's cameras but the new circular ones should not have any effect except to increase aperture to compensate for less light coming through the lens.
Jun 7, 2018 19:08:01 #
photoman022
Loc: Manchester CT USA
The only way an ND filter could throw off auto focus is if the filter were too dark for the camera to focus. I use a variable ND filter and will always auto focus with the filter wide open, after I achieve focus I will darken the filter to the desired level, I will then take my photograph.
Jun 7, 2018 21:19:10 #
bkijek wrote:
Hello -
I read an article today that, in passing, said that the use of polarizing, ND and other filters throws off the auto-focus feature in cameras. Is this true? In what way? I don’t quite understand.
I read an article today that, in passing, said that the use of polarizing, ND and other filters throws off the auto-focus feature in cameras. Is this true? In what way? I don’t quite understand.
Well. I am going to go WAY out on a limb here and say that Yes, IMO, any and all filters have the potential to throw off AF in a MOSTLY insignificant way - based on optical theories and having nothing to do with volumes of light. IMO, longer focal lengths tend to exacerbate this tendency to the point where they MAY become significant. Don't ask me to prove any of this , but this opinion comes from studying optics for many years......
..
Apr 3, 2020 06:06:22 #
hogesinwa
Loc: Dalyellup Western Australia
Just adding my 2c worth to this topic.
I was using my 5dMkIV with my Canon 28-300 EF out on a river recently. Because of the contrast between sky and water, I had on a OEC Graduated ND Grey.
My camera refused to AF - hunted back and forth constantly. Took the filter off and it was fine.
Tried this again a couple of weeks later - over the ocean with the beach sand bright and the sky even brighter. Same result.
Tried a third time in a mangrove swamp (the southernmost mangroves in the world) and with the water and sky somewhat matched, no problem with the AF.
Filter appears completely clean i.e. no spots to fool it.
Not sure what to replace it with but I need to do something - the light in Western Australia is pretty harsh.
I was using my 5dMkIV with my Canon 28-300 EF out on a river recently. Because of the contrast between sky and water, I had on a OEC Graduated ND Grey.
My camera refused to AF - hunted back and forth constantly. Took the filter off and it was fine.
Tried this again a couple of weeks later - over the ocean with the beach sand bright and the sky even brighter. Same result.
Tried a third time in a mangrove swamp (the southernmost mangroves in the world) and with the water and sky somewhat matched, no problem with the AF.
Filter appears completely clean i.e. no spots to fool it.
Not sure what to replace it with but I need to do something - the light in Western Australia is pretty harsh.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.