MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photography Equipment => Cameras / Lenses => Topic started by: Uncle Pete on July 29, 2019, 09:10

Title: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: Uncle Pete on July 29, 2019, 09:10
The filter is a goner but the Canon 28-300L is safe and perfectly clean.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Wzkvx418/another-lens-saved-cracked-filter.jpg)

This is not the first time a filter has saved one of my lenses, but I want to point out that old fashion and stupid, because I have a filter on every lens, has saved me again. So now someone tell me about "never put another piece of glass on your lens".  ;D $50 is much cheaper than $2,000


Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: pancaketom on July 29, 2019, 10:27
I have a few of those.

It is surprising how good the pics are through the busted filter. One took 2 people and a pair of pliers to remove, but the lens was good.
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: georgep7 on July 29, 2019, 12:51
Never thought as silly the idea to attach a filter in the front, but
I prefered to always have a hood on, for most lens was wide enough to protect front element
In fact that was the reason that I originally dropped NDs.
A good point here.
...that actually cost me a fisheye and a standard zoom...
 ::)
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: ShadySue on July 29, 2019, 16:37
Yes, I had a filter save a tele zoom back in film days and I had to get it wrenched off by a repairer.
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: tomn on July 29, 2019, 17:27
I don't know if it's true because I have no first hand experience (and it would be an expensive experiment to try) but I heard once that a broken filter isn't proof the incident that caused it to break would even have done any damage to the lens had the filter not been there. The reasoning behind this is that the filter ring is just a thin piece of aluminum or brass and that the glass in the filter is quite thin, whereas the front element of a lens is much much thicker and tougher. It was even argued that having a filter on a lens may damage the lenses filter threads and the broken filter glass may scratch the lens in the event of the filter receiving an impact and breaking and that it was better to use a lens hood instead.

Again, this is just something that I heard but it does have some logic behind it.
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: flywing on July 29, 2019, 20:29
[Sorry, post deleted, I can't find a way to insert the image between text without hosting it somewhere else.]
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: f9photos on July 30, 2019, 14:08
Were you using a lens hood?
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: Uncle Pete on August 02, 2019, 08:08
Were you using a lens hood?

Me? Yes and I work in a fairly hostile environment, the edge of a speedway. I wear a bandana or a hat, safety glasses and should start with some face covering. So I admit, this is extreme. I just like to say, that one little piece of filter, doesn't ruin my images. Whenever I get a chance  ;)

If someone is in the studio, I'd say, it doesn't need to be that way, but if someone works outdoor, a filter will save money and broken equipment. I've seen people drop a lens and bust it.

The filter is the first defense against our own mistakes, like a tripod tipping over in the wind? The people who had to have the filter wrenched off, was because the filter took the beating, not the lens. Same accident and the lens threads would be bend and beyond future use. But with the filter maybe saved?

Anyone who has a couple thousand dollars to spare, for what we make on Microstock, by all means, don't use a filter to protect your lenses, the manufacturers and camera shops will love you.  ;)

The front element on those big white Canon high speed lenses is clear glass, since sometime in the late 90s. If you break that glass, you can get it replaced, if you break the huge front element, terrible news, it's going to cost thousands.

(https://i.postimg.cc/CLLVk9Dk/canon-300mm-lens-design.jpg)

Stone thrown up by a car:

(https://i.postimg.cc/FsFzvq2z/uv-filter.jpg)

I buy better filters now, they run $50

I have a couple lenses with scratches on them (meaning one dot or tiny surface coating scratch) They came that way, used with equipment. Doesn't seem to hurt the images, except when the light hits the scratch just wrong. I got them cheap, because someone else didn't like putting a filter on and was a purist. Thanks!

So it's not just about breaking things, also scratching a lens and I know it's horrible, but if something gets on the filter, bug, dust, rain... I sometimes use my shirt to wipe it off. Not like I'm going to ruin a lens and cost myself a bundle of cash.
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: flywing on August 02, 2019, 11:03

The people who had to have the filter wrenched off, was because the filter took the beating, not the lens. Same accident and the lens threads would be bend and beyond future use. But with the filter maybe saved?

Yes, my tripod fell over on hard floor in my house once. Without the filter, the lens' thread would have been busted.
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: f9photos on August 03, 2019, 05:22
Well, if you a getting your lens hit by stones from speeding cars, then it is wise to protect your lens with a filter.

Otherwise a lens hood will suffice. For 10+ years of travel photography I've had a scratch only once - not sure how, but I believe it happened when a small stone got between lens and lens cap.
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: rinderart on August 03, 2019, 13:07
I have Been using 81A or B warming filters forever. at least as Long as they Have been available. don't see the reason to Put some cheap Piece of crap On a good Lens that has a Optical negative effect On Image quality. But, if you can't see the difference...?? who cares. Im not paying $1,000s for a Lens and Put some Piece of Plastic crap  on it. Camera stores make more On that crap than anything else and they Laugh and High Five each other after you Leave. Trust Me.Some are very Good friends at the Largest Camera stores On the West Coast.
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: flywing on August 03, 2019, 22:02
But, if you can't see the difference...?? who cares.

Purists.
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: alan b traehern on August 09, 2019, 14:33
I have Been using 81A or B warming filters forever. at least as Long as they Have been available. don't see the reason to Put some cheap Piece of crap On a good Lens that has a Optical negative effect On Image quality. But, if you can't see the difference...?? who cares. Im not paying $1,000s for a Lens and Put some Piece of Plastic crap  on it. Camera stores make more On that crap than anything else and they Laugh and High Five each other after you Leave. Trust Me.Some are very Good friends at the Largest Camera stores On the West Coast.

You use filters but you don't use filters. You buy expensive $1000 lenses but then buy cheap plastic filters not good glass. I bet your good friends are slapping hands and laughing at you whenever you leave the store. You don't need a 81A or 81B for digital, they are for warming with film. Now you'll say you are shooting film not a cheap plastic lens on a phone.

You are on 5 agencies maybe 4, then next day you are on 4 maybe 3. Do you make up your numbers like everything else.
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: KuriousKat on August 10, 2019, 12:54
Just had to spend $50 on a new protective UV filter after dropping a camera this morning. It only dropped 6 inches, but the filter smashed to a million bits. Thankfully the $2000  24-70 F2.8 came out completely unscathed.

It's the second time that's happened to me, and I'm all for using the filter. It doesn't have to be cheap plastic, but a mid-quality option is usually sufficient and much cheaper than a new lens. 
Title: Re: $50 Insurance saved me $2,400
Post by: jefftakespics2 on August 17, 2019, 17:11
As an ex-photojournalist I had every lens protected with a UV filter and everyone I know did. When you are working in hostile environments it makes sense. Now I work in a studio and I still have most of my lenses filtered up, albeit with more expensive filters. I work somewhat with splashing liquids and foods and I'm surprised and how much crap ends up on the filter -- instead of the lens.