Making some fine memories there and even the seams on the ball are reasonably frozen in the next to last image. It's amazing what big lenses can resolve around. Fences, twigs, etc can near disappear. Some of the softness could also be a product of downsizing.
I'd second the above suggestion though to try a few test shots with and without ones filters. Cookie runs Canon equipment and early on after the initial equipment purchase I spent serious bucks getting filters (polaroids and skylights) for her standard lenses and a 100 to 400 mm with mainly protection in mind.
Installed same upon arrival, and went out for a full weekend of chasing abundant wildlife. Came home and was severely disappointed as prior image crispness just was not there. Some fine shots/opportunities but dumped absolutely everything.
Most would have thought things were fine, but there was perceptible image degradation. I got out the tripod, went to the back deck, and ran paired with/without filter shots of a distant realtor sign carrying a variety of font sizes about 300 yds away. The smallest fonts were legible with out the filters and marginally readable with. All the filters immediately went to the round file, and I'll never purchase another with doing some tests first.
Today's lenses are highly engineered with lens surfaces and coatings all meshed in an attempt to get the full color spectrum to converge at a common point. Slapping a piece of flat glass on the front end really cannot offer much more than color manipulation and physical protection. Handle the lenses like they're glass and one should be fine.
If one conducts a similar test, pick a subject with lots of minute details and zoom in on common points with your image software for comparison. For protection now, we count on hoods and careful handling. Cookie hangs with several pros during the month of Nov chasing mule deer, and none of them are using filters on any of their gear.
Last edited by 1minute; 06/27/16.
