craig_meddaugh Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>gaffer tape</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>I am sure you would have figured out that this is the time to find out how much it will be to replace the broken part and to have the lens recalibrated. Then, it's up to you as to which direction you will take.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesco48 Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 <p>Please enlighten me! I have not had a chance to take a picture with the lens since I noticed it... Is there a systemic way of checking the lens?</p> <p>Thx</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_nordine Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 <p>About 8 years ago, a lens hood saved one of my lenses from destruction. I always use one. I have never used protective filters and never will.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Is there a systemic way of checking the lens?</p> </blockquote> <p>When I dropped a Nikkor 28-70/2.8 stored inside a bag almost ten years ago, I took the lens into a Nikon authorized repair facility It was around $100 for the recalibration only. The lens wasn't damaged like yours.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonardlow Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 <p>For general use, I think a good quality, thin, multi-coated filter does not significantly contribute to image quality issues - so I would recommend you buy one. In fact, I think a filter can *improve* image quality in a couple of ways:</p> <ol> <li>By allowing you to clean/replace the filter, instead of the front lens element, it prevents the long-term build up of micro-scratches (AND the possibility of bad scratches) on the front element caused by cleaning (especially in the field using contaminated cleaning cloths!)</li> <li>Without a filter, you might be reluctant to risk damaging your front element by cleaning it in the field. Fewer cleans can mean shooting through a dirtier lens - and reduced image quality as a result.</li> </ol> <p>However, I would certainly remove any filter for specific circumstances where flare might be an issue. I've experienced first hand how significantly filters (especially cheap, thick, or uncoated ones) can contribute to serious flare issues.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 <p>My Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM comes from the factory with a plain flat piece of replaceable glass covering the front element. This plain glass is like a filter and also completes the lenses water and dust seal. </p> <p>The huge carbon fibre hood helps in shielding the lens from much dust and crud under normal situations. I normally will have a Don Zeck Lens Cap on when the lens is between shoots. With the exception of my Canon EF 15mm f/2,8 Fisheye, I am in favour of the best filter installed to protect the lenses front element from unforseen jabs of a finger or similar object.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 <p>A previous poster wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>In fact, I think a filter can *improve* image quality in a couple of ways:</em></p> <ol> <li><em>By allowing you to clean/replace the filter, instead of the front lens element, it prevents the long-term build up of micro-scratches (AND the possibility of bad scratches) on the front element caused by cleaning (especially in the field using contaminated cleaning cloths!)</em></li> </ol><ol> <li><em>Without a filter, you might be reluctant to risk damaging your front element by cleaning it in the field. Fewer cleans can mean shooting through a dirtier lens - and reduced image quality as a result.</em></li> </ol></blockquote> <p>Your concerns are largely mythical and are not supported by any evidence. Lens glass is actually extremely hard stuff, and the odds that you will damage it (with "micro-scratches," much less "bad scratches") by cleaning are extraordinarily tiny to the point of being effectively non-existent.</p> <p>In addition, constant lens cleaning is unnecessary and ineffective. A small amount of dust or other "stuff" on the front element (or your filter) is almost certainly not going to be visible in your photograph. If you think otherwise, the next time you clean your lens to this simple experiment: Put your camera on a tripod and make an exposure of a subject before cleaning. Leave the camera on the tripod while you clean the lens. Make a second exposure with your "clean" lens. Ask anyone to pick which one was made with the clean/"dirty" lens. (Recently I held my <em>hand</em> over a lens to protect the sensor from direct sun while shooting a sunset, and the image was largely unaffected even when I had a significant percentage of the lens entirely covered! I haven't tried it myself, but someone once suggested that you could put a pea-sized piece of StickyNote paper on the from element of a typical lens and not see an visible effect.)</p> <p>To the extent that "stuff" on the front element might affect your photograph... stuff on the filter can only have a greater effect since by moving the "stuff" further from the sensor plane you are bringing it more into focus. So, if you still imagine that stuff on the lens will negatively affect your photographs, thus leading you to clean the lens excessively, the stuff on the filter will affect your photos more.</p> <p>Bottom line(s): Don't hesitate to clean a lens <em>when it is necessary</em>, don't become obsessive about a perfectly clean lens since a bit of <em>stuff on the lens is entirely invisible</em>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonardlow Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Your concerns are largely mythical and are not supported by any evidence. Lens glass is actually extremely hard stuff, and the odds that you will damage it (with "micro-scratches," much less "bad scratches") by cleaning are extraordinarily tiny to the point of being effectively non-existent.</p> </blockquote> <p>Your confidence is <em>also</em> largely "mythical" and not supported by any evidence. Good lenses have optical coatings, which I have personally seen ["primary evidence"] damaged significantly from improper cleaning and/or handling. The result is scratches in the coatings leading to fine diffraction patterns, or even large patches being removed from the outer lens coating. This can only harm image quality, else why bother coating the lenses in the first place?<br /><br />Furthermore, claiming that "lens glass is actually extremely hard stuff" is a generalisation. Lenses are made of a variety of different kinds of glass, depending on their required refractive index, and can have a Moh's scale hardness of about 5-7 out of 10 (diamond). This means that a large variety of materials can scratch not only the coating, but the glass itself, such as fine grains of sand or dirt (that may be trapped in a cleaning cloth), various minerals (e.g. gemstones set into a ring), ceramics, or even the rhodium plating on some jewelery. </p> <blockquote> <p>Bottom line(s): Don't hesitate to clean a lens <em>when it is necessary</em>, don't become obsessive about a perfectly clean lens since a bit of <em>stuff on the lens is entirely invisible</em>.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'd be interested to see 100% crops of images with crud on the lens compared with clean lenses, and clean lenses with a filter. Until then, I have to be skeptical about claims that dirty lenses capture equivalent images to clean ones!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 <p>Leonard,</p> <p><em>"I'd be interested to see 100% crops of images with crud on the lens "</em><br> <em><br /></em>You might find<a href="I'd%20be%20interested%20to%20see%20100%%20crops%20of%20images%20with%20crud%20on%20the%20lens%20"> this link</a> interesting.<br> <em><br /></em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith reeder Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Good lenses have optical coatings, which I have personally seen ["primary evidence"] damaged significantly from improper cleaning and/or handling.</p> </blockquote> <p>For which the obvious solution is careful cleaning, not more glass on the font of the lens. </p> <p>Let's be honest - anyone who can't figure out how to use a rocket blower and a clean micro-fibre cloth, has no business owning a decent lens. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Your confidence is <em>also</em> largely "mythical" and not supported by any evidence. Good lenses have optical coatings, which I have personally seen ["primary evidence"] damaged significantly from improper cleaning and/or handling. The result is scratches in the coatings leading to fine diffraction patterns, or even large patches being removed from the outer lens coating</p> </blockquote> <p>You really ought to stop cleaning your lenses with sandpaper... ;-)</p> <p>And, by the way, how is <em>your</em> "primary evidence" is more legitimate than <em>mine</em>? </p> <p>Funny.</p> <p>Dan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonardlow Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <blockquote> <p>You really ought to stop cleaning your lenses with sandpaper... ;-)<br> And, by the way, how is <em>your</em> "primary evidence" is more legitimate than <em>mine</em>?<br> Funny.<br> Dan</p> </blockquote> <p>1. Not. My. Lens. :p<br> 2. Something is only "mythical" until it has been seen. After that, it's real. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip s cheng Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 <p>I just did a comparison of a Tiffen vs B+W vs no filter if you're interested. I never considered a Canon filter. Maybe next time I'm up for a filter purchase.<br> <a href="http://kloudvine.com/?q=node/327">http://kloudvine.com/?q=node/327</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesco48 Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 <p>Well, got news back from Canon Pro Services in Germany and they want $1,900 to replace the optic system in the 28-300mm IS... Damn... <br> The reason I sent it in is because when i zoom out from 300mm to 299mm the resistance is high and causes the camera to jerk a bit...</p> <p>What do you guys think?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 <p>Personally, if the image IQ is fine I'd live with it as it is. If you can't live with it then be honest about your description and sell it on eBay as is, damaged equipment often gets very high prices, put that towards a new one, the difference will be much less than the repair cost.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 <p>I agree with Scott. Sell it on eBay with full disclosure. You'd be surprised. Here is a lens that was water damaged and it still got the seller a nice sum of cash ($1026.00 US).</p> <p>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trkparms=algo%3DPI.WATCH%26its%3DC%252BS%26itu%3DUCC%26otn%3D15%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D7173465376605910779&_trksid=p4340.l2557&item=170805890943&nma=true&rt=nc&si=BkBsn8n1RPQqgGotL2JlfEAQ2ZI%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now