BrianO wrote:
The lens may also be damaged, but it is not definitely so.
Okay so maybe the filter ring won't be bent 100% of the time the filter is bent, but you'd have to pretty lucky because it's very easy to bend the filter ring.
BrianO wrote:
What; you think the most expensive filter on the planet wouldn't have suffered the same fate?
Who cares? You and I will not agree on much, but if you want to play I'll play. So, ae you just playing obtuse, or is it for real?
Since you don't get it, compare this to a front element.. Yeah, I call that cheap, just as I do to all my $120+ B+W filters..You on the other hand, can make your own assessment and do as you please, just don't tell me about it.
I use "filters" in situations where harsh conditions such as sand/salt water/or similar might affect the front element or subject it to less than optimal conditions.
And the chance of a "cheap" filter causing more problems in a drop are well documented...
BrianO wrote:
And, of course, the actor Jeroen Krabbé, who has been in a number of American films.
You might also have heard of Rutger Hauer (actor in Blade Runner, Sin City, etc.) and Paul Verhoeven (director of Robocop, Total Recall, Basic Instinct, Showgirls, ...).
jamesf99 wrote:
Who cares? You and I will not agree on much, but if you want to play I'll play. So, ae you just playing obtuse, or is it for real?
Since you don't get it, compare this to a front element.. Yeah, I call that cheap, just as I do to all my $120+ B+W filters..You on the other hand, can make your own assessment and do as you please, just don't tell me about it.
I use "filters" in situations where harsh conditions such as sand/salt water/or similar might affect the front element or subject it to less than optimal conditions.
And the chance of a "cheap" filter causing more problems in a drop are well documented... ...Show more →
So are you saying that one should use more expensive filters, or no filters at all if the situation doesn't call for it? If the former, then which expensive filter would have stood a better chance of preventing a mishap such as the OP's? If the latter, then a similar problem could still occur when using a filter for a specific purpose. I've had several brass B+W CP's ending up stuck on a lens for no other reason than me screwing them on a smidgen too tightly.
rvdw wrote:
So are you saying that one should use more expensive filters, or no filters at all if the situation doesn't call for it? If the former, then which expensive filter would have stood a better chance of preventing a mishap such as the OP's? If the latter, then a similar problem could still occur when using a filter for a specific purpose. I've had several brass B+W CP's ending up stuck on a lens for no other reason than me screwing them on a smidgen too tightly.
Actually, I was suggesting no filter. My reply was to the Brian guy; he wore thin last week and I've had enough.
This debate rages all the time, but if anyone cares they can start to search for problems due to dropping a lens with a filter on it. The chance of doing real damage to the front element increases as the glass shards may come in contact directly or slide between the damaged filter and the FE. If you want to protect your lenses against drops, use a HOOD. The hood may/will break, but except for the large whites, the replacement cost is small, the damage is transferred away from the FE, you never impair your lens with inferior glass, etc. etc.
Anyway, many of us used to use filters all the time in the film days because we were told to by the store where we bought our cameras. I guess that was OK in the 70's-80's and maybe even part of the 90's, but for the last decade - at least - it's not the wisest thing to do.
The front element on Canon lenses is optically superior to what you buy from B+W for even $150 US, and much stronger. B+W loves to sell inexpensive glass for lots of money, and so do retailers, but if you get an honest rep with brains they'll tell you the truth.
jamesf99 wrote:
...Actually, I was suggesting no filter. My reply was to the Brian guy; he wore thin last week and I've had enough.
Ah, okay. "No filter" wasn't clear from your original "cheap filter" statement. Since I'm not the only one who seems not to have understood your comment, I guess I can stop worrying that I'm "obtuse."
As for last week, I don't usually look at the avatar of posters; I just read the post and comment on it, without much regard to who posted it. So my question was without baggage. It's too bad your reply wasn't equally unencumbered by prejudice. However, I just reviewed several of your posts from last week, and didn't see any involving me; so I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.
jamesf99 wrote:
If you want to protect your lenses against drops, use a HOOD. The hood may/will break, but except for the large whites, the replacement cost is small, the damage is transferred away from the FE, you never impair your lens with inferior glass, etc. etc.
Agreed. Most of my lenses came with hoods anyway, so if nothing else, it's the cheapest solution to protect them. Also, with just a skylight/UV filter, I'd still worry about bumping into people when moving around in crowds and ending up with smudges, scratches or worse. A hood gives me more peace of mind.
Still, "legitimate" use of filters poses the same risk of getting one jammed.
jamesf99 wrote:
The front element on Canon lenses is optically superior to what you buy from B+W for even $150 US, and much stronger. B+W loves to sell inexpensive glass for lots of money, and so do retailers, but if you get an honest rep with brains they'll tell you the truth.
I've always been pretty satisfied with B+W filters (mostly ND's and CP's) and never noticed any ill effects from using them. Which brand would you recommend that is either the same quality as B+W but significantly cheaper, or the same price as B+W but of significantly higher quality? I figured that for most practical purposes, there is not a whole lot of difference between the offerings from major contenders (Hoya, Lee, Tiffen, B+W, Singh-Ray).
Have yet to see any evidence of image degradation with an expensive (thin) filter. Would sure rather clean gunk off a filter than the front element of an 85L.
Then...when all is settled....You can ask HIM for a favor to REALLY clean the slate...such as borrowing his Ferrari for a nice weekend drive in the country....or something like that.
On difficult to remove filters try one more tactic. When trying to unscrew, the first thought is to squeeze the filter for force. Try gently gripping the filter in different points on the filter rim and turning lightly. I've used this technique several times with difficult to remove filters.
Of course yours is a little different issue but worth a try.
Just a thought.
sometimes you need the filter. the 16-35L II isn't completely weathersealed unless you put a filter on the front of it. also glass shards from a broken filter already have eaten most of the kinetic energy, so even if they do hit the front glass element it's a lot less likely that you'll have any damage.
h_rearden wrote:
So, in your case the lens would have ended up with severe filter ring damage.
How would that be better than a damaged/stuck filter?
In MY case the filter ring was damaged as well. Sent it to Canon and they need to replace the front part of the lens barrel, otherwise I won't be able to attach a filter anymore. They will also check the lens for sharpness.
Personally speaking there isn't a single human being on the planet I would ever lend any of my photo kit to. Now my car I would lend, a computer sure, a house no problem, but a DSLR or lens? Absolutely out of the question.
It happened on my trip to Asia few years ago, that my 100mm lens fell on the concrete floor and shatter the UV filter. Before I break the remain glass on the filter, I used the gaffer tape to cover it (so the broken pieces won't scratch the lens) , then used the plumber's pliers to slowly collapse the ring and twist it out.
