View Full Version : Use a UV filter:::
Ok so let's cut to the chase, I purchased a 70-200 f2.8L non-IS lens off of ebay a few weeks ago for $426 shipped. Still focused, but somebody had scratched the living BAJEEBUS out of the front lens element, and then tried to polish the scratches out!! Needless to say, the element was stuffed, but besides that the lens was fine. So I sent it off to Canon for a new element, clean, test and calibration....
Stupidly, I didn't write on my service note 'please quote' and instead wrote 'please replace...'
So they went ahead and fixed it all and the bill? $766!!
So a lesson to be learned here, I STRONGLY recommend you buy a good quality UV filter because no matter how expensive it is, it'll pretty much always be cheaper than replacing the front glass :)
ps: i'm still glad I got it done, cos it all works out to be about the same as a secondhand lens that HASN'T been so thoroughly checked over, so i'm still 1-up...if only just.
yeah, nah, I dont buy it
bahaha come on, get some UV filters into ya. Why not stack 10 of em up?
As a matter of interest, I do remove my UV filter for some shots which probably defeats the purpose, but eh :p
Speedway
24-09-2010, 4:40pm
Are you sure it wasn't a shattered UV filter that did the damage in the first place.
Keith.
Excellent point, I've actually also seen where some guy removing a stuck filter actually scratched his front element
It's very interesting to find out local cost of front element, I thought they would cost maybe 500
Xenedis
24-09-2010, 5:19pm
Have a read of this thread which discusses in detail why you don't need a UV filter (and specifically shouldn't used one) for 'protection':
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=63081
Local as in...local Canon repair, or a third party repairer? This was through Canon repairs in Clayton, Victoria. I guess 500 is probably right for the element replace, but then there I also requested it to be fully checked out for any other damage, and also recalibrated. Should have it back in my hands by Monday or Tuesday so will let you know how good a job they did :)
It's very interesting to find out local cost of front element, I thought they would cost maybe 500
etherial
24-09-2010, 6:40pm
Don't use a UV filter, use a lens hood; protection with a positive impact on image quality rather than a negative one!
+1 for this. It was the lens hood that ultimately saved my tammy 17-50 when it fell from a great height. I think it really depends what job you're using your lens for. In the other thread somebody mentioned somebody at a rally event or something. In that instance, I would use one to protect against flying rocks etc. But for most situations it probably isn't necessary :)
I really made this thread as a 'holy crap that was an expensive fix!' lesson rather than a major debate on the use of UV filters :) Peace all
Don't use a UV filter, use a lens hood; protection with a positive impact on image quality rather than a negative one!
i prefer using filters to protect the lens, because when i'm cleaning off the seaspray and general dirt/grime that builds up on your lenses, i'd much prefer to be cleaning a cheapish filter than wiping the expensive lens. peace of mind for me
does a uv filter sacrifice picture quality?
i was thinking of getting on for my 50mm f1.8 lens and teds say they are only $25. i didn't ask what brand of filter it was if there are any.
yes, cheap ones do especially. Theres no need to get one for a 50 1.8...just keep the lens hood on
yes, cheap ones do especially. Theres no need to get one for a 50 1.8...just keep the lens hood on
I'm not sure if the 50 f1.8 comes with a hood as standard? Either way, I wouldn't use a UV filter on such a cheap lens.
Xenedis
25-09-2010, 7:19pm
does a uv filter sacrifice picture quality?
Yes, and not just the cheap ones.
oh ok so even the good ones effect the quality too? so prob not worth it on a cheap lens but would be on a more expensive one.
I remember a thread with some test shots by Allan and someone else, they asked people here to pick which shots were taken with and without filter, funny how many of the naysayers wouldn't have a go and commit to choosing, fear of proving their theories wrong perhaps?
JM Tran
29-09-2010, 2:08am
I remember a thread with some test shots by Allan and someone else, they asked people here to pick which shots were taken with and without filter, funny how many of the naysayers wouldn't have a go and commit to choosing, fear of proving their theories wrong perhaps?
unless it was shot in harsh sunny lighting conditions, then I see it to be a non-detrimental thing. I have had important shots ruined in the past slightly, or majorly from sun glares striking the UV filter, and they were expensive B+W ones, wonder how a cheap one would hold up.
Havent used one for a few yrs now, and feel no need to degrade my images when enlarged at big dimensions for clients or for publications.
Xenedis
29-09-2010, 4:13am
I remember a thread with some test shots by Allan and someone else, they asked people here to pick which shots were taken with and without filter, funny how many of the naysayers wouldn't have a go and commit to choosing, fear of proving their theories wrong perhaps?
I recall the thread.
Basically I don't need to play 'pick the image' to know that a UV filter can cause image degradation, as I've seen it for myself first-hand and have all the proof I need.
Note that the fact that a UV filter can cause image quality degradation does not mean that it will do so in all circumstances.
Even if there wasn't potential for loss of image quality, I still would not use UV filters; I see no need for them at all. IQ degradation is one of a number of reasons why I will not use these filters, but it does rate fairly highly in my book, and it's a variable I simply don't want or need to introduce to the equation.
la lumiere
29-09-2010, 9:15pm
To clarify, no need for UV filter (and yes I did read the other thread listed above) There was a mention that some lenses needed the filter as part of the weatherproofing- can anyone elaborate on that please? Would that include the 70-220 f2.8 L? If it does what type/brand filter would you recommend/suggest?
Xenedis
30-09-2010, 4:09am
To clarify, no need for UV filter (and yes I did read the other thread listed above) There was a mention that some lenses needed the filter as part of the weatherproofing- can anyone elaborate on that please? Would that include the 70-220 f2.8 L? If it does what type/brand filter would you recommend/suggest?
Some lenses do require some kind of filter to complete the weather sealing, but this isn't the case with any of the Canon 70-200s.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.