Microstock Photography Forum - General > Cameras / Lenses

$50 Insurance saved me $2,400

(1/3) > >>

Uncle Pete:
The filter is a goner but the Canon 28-300L is safe and perfectly clean.



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

pancaketom:
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.

georgep7:
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...
 ::)

ShadySue:
Yes, I had a filter save a tele zoom back in film days and I had to get it wrenched off by a repairer.

tomn:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page