Protection: UV filter and/or Mack Warranty

Thanks for the advice in my Canon 17-55mm or Primes thread. I decided to get the zoom, and ordered it

from adorama online. So a saleman calls me today to "very highly recommend" a tiffen filter set, especially

for the uv for lens protection (but also tried to tell me I need the warming filter, which I certainly don't),

and a Mack warranty. So I'm wondering what ya'll have to say about these. My video camera lives with a b

+w mrc, so I've looked those up as well. If I do get a uv, does this lens require a thin one?

This is the reason you should get a UV filter:

 

http://www.planetneil.com/faq/filters.html

 

Of course, the argument against--another layer of glass in between the camera and the subject--makes sense, too!

It's a good idea to put an UV protective filter on the lens all the time. An alternative way to protect the lens is to keep lens hood on all the time. If you choose a lens filter, then buy only one UV filter, not an entire set. Further, I would choose B&W or Hoya instead of Tiffen or Canon.<p>

You don't need Mack warranty. For a lens that is more than $1000, I would send it back to Canon for service rather than Mack who doesn't have good reputation in services.<p>

In general, don't buy any service contract for consummer products and anything that a salesman suggests you to buy.

Hyun Yu wrote: "This is the reason you should get a UV filter:

http://www.planetneil.com/faq/filters.html"

 

This demonstrates a good reason to purchase no-fault camera insurance.

 

Adam,

Your call and recommendation from the Adorama online sales person tells me to stay clear of Adorama. B&H and other online dealers I've dealt with have never called recommending addition cash outlay although their web sites might suggest additional products.

 

As for using a UV filter, I only use one when conditions dictate their use - blowing surf, rain, snow or sand and near splatter sources such as BBQs, workshops and welders. Choose a multi-coated filter such as B+W MRC if you do require one. My guess is that you do need a thin mount filter but others with this lens can confirm this for you.

Keep in mind that Mack (and Adorama) don't sell warranties as an act of charity -- they do it

because they expect to make money on the deal. In general and overall, you'll do better if you

avoid extended warranties and pay for repair costs yourself.

 

On the other hand, if you wouldn't be able to afford to repair the lens in the chance that

something happens, or if peace of mind is worth a great deal to you, you might still want to

buy it.

Hi,

 

They're really pushing those Mack warranties. I don't see what they buy you really. Unless you abuse your gear, it's pretty unlikely that it'll break down during the one year of manufacturer's warranty. Or at least if it makes it through the first year, it'll continue to work for quite a while longer. If you do abuse your gear then it'll not last as long. No warranty covers abuse. Not even the Mack warranty regardless of what the salesman tells you. I would think the main reason for pushing extended warranties is that the salesperson gets higher commission from the sales of these warranties.

 

As far as filters go, I suggest (like others) to look at B+W, Heliopan, Hoya filters. Skip the other brands (and non-brands).

 

There are disadvantages of using a UV protection filter. In low-light situations I've experienced mirror ghosting off of a high-quality, multi-coated filter. A green "ufo" blob of light showed up in the dark blue night sky in my picture. It was the mirror image of a street light that bounced off the film then off the inside of the filter and back to form an image on the film.

 

I have heard of situations where a shattered UV filter caused scratches on the front element of the lens it was supposed to protect.

 

I protect my lenses by keeping the lens cap on the lens until I'm ready to shoot. I also use a lens hood. I have yet to scratch the front element of a lens.

 

But if using a UV filter (and/or getting the Mack warranty) gives you peace of mind and you don't mind shelling out the extra cash, then by all means do it.

 

Tom

<p>Extended warranties are not good deals; the only time you should get one is if you simply could not afford to repair/replace the item in the (relatively unlikely) event that something goes wrong. Think about it: the company offering the warranty has to be charging you more than what the repairs to an average item will cost, or else they'd lose money. Most items will require no repairs; some will require repairs costing less than the cost of the warranty; a few will require repairs costing more than the cost of the warranty. In other words, the majority of people who buy extended warranties end up paying more than they would have without one; only a small fraction get their money's worth. Salespeople, on the other hand, love extended warranties because they get a large margin on them.</p>

 

<p>The issue of whether or not to buy a protective filter has been beaten to death more times than there are lives remaining in a cattery. Salespeople make large margins on filters, too.</p>

"Salespeople, on the other hand, love extended warranties because they get a large margin on them."

 

I worked at a Circuit City way back when, over 10 years ago, as a Christmas seasonal help. You could earn three different types of commission for an item: a fixed commission for selling it, a percentage of the value, and finally, if you managed to sell the extended warranty, a percentage of that. For example, if you sold an $80 Sony Walkman, you could earn $4.50 in fixed commission, 0.5% (I forget the exact figure, but it was pretty miniscule) of the sale price, and 19.5% of the extended warranty value.

 

I don't know if the commission scheme has changed significantly since then, industry-wide, but there was a great push among the management to sell the extended warranty.

Regarding Extended Warranties, they typically are a high margin item for a store. Another reason store's like them is that they can book all the revenue up front then have some flexibility in setting aside reserves (amount and timing).

 

And the ability of the warranty company to provide prompt, quality service (and not jerk you around) has to be assessed. I'm curious as to people's experience with Mack warranties.

 

A prior poster's comment that the warranty cost must be greater than the average repair cost is true in the aggregate, but may not be true for your purchase. Many of these warranty's are based on item value or a broad class of items. If the item you are buying has a greater than average defect rate, uses unproven technology, or is particularly complex, it MAY be justified.

 

So I would not buy an extended warranty for a film camera and probably would not for an AF lens. But I would consider it for a digital body that is in the first year of production. Subject, of course, to what is actually covered, the cost, and the reputation of the warranty company.

I bet you got a nice pat on the back if you sold a power strip, extra cables, or mousepad, too. ;-)

Forget TIFFEN filters, and forget Mack warranty. Buy yourself a HOYA HMC SUPER UV(0) if you must, or better, use a hood for protection.

Thanks everyone. I think I'll skip the warranty, and the filter for now and take my chances. Will use the hood though, and will pick up a filter at some point for more risky situations. Oh - and I think I'll skip adorama next time as well.

 

P.S. Can anyone with a 17-55 confirm if a thin filter is required?

I use UV filters mostly to keep the front element from getting dirty. It is easier to clean the filter than the front element. Tiffen is fine, but a bit expensive. (I often remove the filter before shooting, however.)

 

The posted picture of a cracked filter (above) might have resulted from one of the cameras swinging into the other. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine what would have done it without causing a noticeable shock. I have dropped cameras with lenses and filters with no damage, although in one case I had a slightly bent lens barrel that was still usable. The filter was undamaged, for what that's worth.

 

--Lannie

Warranty on a lens doesn't make sense to me.

 

I shoot Hasselblad and Large format--no filters. I have been everywhere with them-

commercially and personally--sure you can drop a lens, that is what insurance is for and if

you aren't a pro, put it on your homeowners at replacement cost--cheap and it doesn't

degrade your photo.

First, that would require you to own a home. Secondly, the deductible would likely be much more than a top-of-the-line UV filter, which will really only degrade your image quality with light shining into your lens.

I really hope you keep in mind that all of this is personal oppinion. If you have never had your digital camera or L series lens break than you do not have a clue how valuable a filter or warranty can be. Yes, it is a gamble. But I would consider it cheap insurance. Do you know how much a digital SLR repair costs? Over $350. and until you are the one who has a camera that breaks right after the one year warranty is up you really have no room to be giving advice. With the new IS system there really is a lot more that can go wrong. How much do they charge for an extended on that lens?

M Barbu wrote: "First, that would require you to own a home. Secondly, the deductible would likely be much more than a top-of-the-line UV filter, which will really only degrade your image quality with light shining into your lens."

 

Many insurance companies that sell home insurance also sell renters insurance. About $200 per year gives an amateur photographer no-fault and no-deductible coverage for ~$20K of camera gear on a home/renter policy. Of course normal wear is not covered by this type of policy nor by extended warrantees.

Nothing gets between my L glass and my subjects. No protective filters. The lens hood is my protection.

 

No expensive 3rd party warranties either. The vendors love to sell those. Very high profit item.

<p><i>Many insurance companies that sell home insurance also sell renters insurance. About $200 per year gives an amateur photographer no-fault and no-deductible coverage for ~$20K of camera gear on a home/renter policy. Of course normal wear is not covered by this type of policy nor by extended warrantees.</i></p>Of course, one should check whether or not said policy covers items that aren't on the premises at the time of the loss (mine does not).