Home · Forums · My Profile · PM · Buddy list · Search · FAQ · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting · Avatar · Software

	Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell FM Forum Rules Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs Pages: 1 [2]     UV Filters (archived topic)

tailwgn Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Feb 23, 2004 Total Posts: 27 Country: United States $80 per filter ??? If you are paying $80 per filter, you are paying too much. You can get a HOYA 77 SUPER HMC UV FILTER for $40. Smaller ones are much less. Jerry Mar 02, 2004 at 03:40 AM

Ben Horne Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Jan 10, 2002 Total Posts: 7588 Country: United States Re: UV Filters In that case, if you buy filters for 4 lenses, you pay for a lens repair. And each time you drop the lens, it will cost you $80. Seeing the vast majority of people will never harm that front element, you still come out ahead without those filters. Mar 02, 2004 at 05:11 AM

Arhi Esansaari Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Dec 13, 2003 Total Posts: 1209 Country: Finland Re: UV Filters I totally agree with Ben. One shoulnd't say "I have a $2000 lens I want to protect" but insted "I have a $160 front element I want to protect with $80 filter". So, if this makes anyone sense, and you can live with the fact you forget the filter on when shooting light sources and get reflections on your once of a lifetime picture, then go for it. If you know how to take care of your stuff, you wouldn't propably abuse your front element, so there's no sense paying that kind of money. Mar 03, 2004 at 07:09 AM

lordarka Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Jun 13, 2003 Total Posts: 8532 Country: United States Re: UV Filters Point a lens with a UV filter into the sun, and the amount of flare you see will be magnified. It does not degrade image quality measureably in all situations, but in specific situations, it will cost you the shot. I do a some seascape work myself, and after seeing how the UV filters would mangle my sunset shots, I started shooting without, just leaving the hoods on. If you really need to filter, leave it on. But Ben is right about one thing; people will often buy gear that is designed for harsh conditions, and then baby it to the point of utter ridiculousness. It's like when you buy a car, hoping that 20 years from now, it'll look just like it does today. Taking good care of equipment does not mean one must be obsessive; it just requires some common sense. Getting good images with the equipment requires its own measure of common sense. Common sense dictates that the durable glass elements of these lenses are designed for harsh elements, especially weatherproof ''L' series lenses. For some of the big 'L's. you can't even GET filters for the front element. Common sense also dictates that the lenses are designed to take great pictures without an additional piece of glass in front, otherwise Canon would recommend or include it. So why would you put another piece of glass there? Arka C. Mar 03, 2004 at 06:34 PM

TwoBoy Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Jan 10, 2004 Total Posts: 25 Country: South Africa Re: UV Filters Someone making sense at last. :D Mar 09, 2004 at 08:36 PM

jray Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Jan 06, 2002 Total Posts: 1377 Country: United States Re: $80 per filter ??? tailwgn wrote: ... You can get a HOYA 77 SUPER HMC UV FILTER for $40. Ben Horne wrote: In that case, if you buy filters for 4 lenses, you pay for a lens repair. And each time you drop the lens, it will cost you $80. Ben , where did you get your repair figures? Canon's current repair rate for replacing the front glass in large primes, or the front element in most L lenses is based upon damage, and is listed as: LABOR FEES STANDARD $168.00 MAJOR $299.00 EXTENSIVE $600.00 If you have an IS prime with a meniscus lens, the replacement part price is: PROTECTIVE FILTER PARTS PRICING EF300/2.8L IS $140.57 EF400/2.8L IS $315.15 EF500/4.0L IS $261.60 EF600/4.0L IS $366.25 Plus the labor listed above... Ouch!!! Minimum $534.25 to replace the front glass on a 600mm. DON'T DROP IT!!!! Obviously the 4 lenses listed above won't accept screw-on filters, but lenses such as the 70-200 (all three), 100-400mm IS, 300mm F/4, and 400mm f/5.6 will cost a minimum of $168.00 labor plus the cost of the front element. I would imagine the WA lenses carry the same labor rate... Edited by jray on Mar 09, 2004 at 03:10 PM GMT Mar 09, 2004 at 10:35 PM

Ben Horne Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Jan 10, 2002 Total Posts: 7588 Country: United States Re: UV Filters The figure was based on someone who scratched the front element of their 70-200mm. It has been a while, so I don't remember who it was, but the repair was around $160. With regard to the bit primes, the hoods are so big on those suckers that it would be VERY difficult to scratch the protective elements on them. You'd have to take the hood off, then set the lens down on something sharp..... but I don't know who in their right mind would let that happen? Mar 09, 2004 at 11:00 PM

jray Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Jan 06, 2002 Total Posts: 1377 Country: United States Re: UV Filters Agreed on the hoods, I was just thinking about how much it would cost to replace the protective lens if it were cracked from being dropped. They are quite thin. I doubt the $168.00 labor fee would cover that kind of external damage, and I would imagine there would other parts that would need to be replaced as well. Anyway, I partially based my decision to keep UV filters on my lens upon repair costs, and partially upon the fact that I am constantly getting crap on filters from crawling around, runners on the beach, bugs landing on it, sand storm (lost one filter recently to that), etc. Another reason is hearing of a 70-200mm f/2.8 front element replacement that was over $300.00. BTW, I just couldn't go two months between cleanings. Plus, if you get any sea spray in the lens glass or filter, it needs to be removed ASAP IMO. This happens almost every time I shoot the beaches. Keep in mind I always remove the filter temporarily when any bright light source has direct access to the filter, regardless of whether on not it is visible through the viewfinder. I occasionally get surprised by unexpected flair and ghosting on the image which I believe 'may' have been due to leaving the filter on, but not that often... Mar 09, 2004 at 11:29 PM

Protege Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Sep 25, 2003 Total Posts: 262 Country: Canada Re: UV Filters Just to make Ben happy, I removed my normal UV filter off my 200mm. Will be testing it tomorrow at a hockey game and see if it fixes my AF hunting problems. :) Oz Mar 09, 2004 at 11:37 PM

Ben Horne Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Jan 10, 2002 Total Posts: 7588 Country: United States Re: UV Filters jray wrote: BTW, I just couldn't go two months between cleanings. Plus, if you get any sea spray in the lens glass or filter, it needs to be removed ASAP IMO. This happens almost every time I shoot the beaches. Keep in mind I always remove the filter temporarily when any bright light source has direct access to the filter, regardless of whether on not it is visible through the viewfinder. I occasionally get surprised by unexpected flair and ghosting on the image which I believe 'may' have been due to leaving the filter on, but not that often... I used to shoot seascapes all the time with my 17-35mm without a filter. Sea spray was never a problem for me... Mar 09, 2004 at 11:50 PM

spartan123 Offline [ X ] Registered: Nov 09, 2003 Total Posts: 3683 Country: United States Re: UV Filters Funny, Nothing gets photog's going more than the "filter" debate, "smacking" on their favorite lens or having your favorite photo supplier that someone had a bad experience with.... Do what makes you feel the most comfortable. Who cares what the other guy thinks. Mar 09, 2004 at 11:51 PM

	FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs Pages: 1 [2]