November 26, 2014, 10:28:29 AM

Author Topic: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II  (Read 3841 times)

Haydn1971

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« on: October 03, 2013, 12:10:11 PM »
So there I was, walking along with my 6D & 16-35mm II and boom, my knee gave way on some steps, I fell to my knees and the front of the lens hit the ground, sound of glass smashing as I commando rolled over...  I've grazed both my knees, my left arm and dented my pride...  Plus did the attached damage to my 16-35mm II - can't get the filter off at the moment, going to take it into the local independent shop when I get home from holiday, filter is a dead loss, lens looks ok bar the marks on the outer edge and until I get the filter ring detached, I've no idea of the damage to the front filter thread.  Lens appears to work, two scuffs on my 6D are annoying too :-/

So folks - always fit a filter !!!
Regards, Haydn

:: View my photostream on Flickr, Canon EOS 6D, EOS M ,  16-35mm II, 24-70mm II, 70-300mm L, 135mm f2.0 L, 22mm f2.0, Lensbaby, EOS M adaptor, Cosina CT1G film SLR & 50mm f2.0 lens

canon rumors FORUM

UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« on: October 03, 2013, 12:10:11 PM »

chilledXpress

  • Guest
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2013, 12:31:24 PM »
Bummer... and people complain about filters. Easy to sigh and move on when it's not the front element. I use filters because I never use lens caps and could care less if they get scratched or damaged.

I've had this happen too, demolished a 10-Stop. A good pair of tin snips or a rock steady hand with a dremel will take that off quickly. Cut out a piece of cardboard to protect the lens front, then go at the filter ring. Nip just the outer edge, it's soft metal and it should work off pretty easily. I'd make the point of attack the dent itself. Pull  that retainer clip on the inside out first though.

Scuffing the camera body is a sign of everyday use... they are meant to be used and somewhat abused, it means you out taking pictures not here on CR forum too much ;)

Nice Flickr profile BTW!
« Last Edit: October 03, 2013, 11:36:51 PM by chilledXpress »

Kernuak

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2013, 12:40:19 PM »
Having the filter on may actually have caused more damage, as the lens element is recessed.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

chilledXpress

  • Guest
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2013, 12:43:38 PM »
Having the filter on may actually have caused more damage, as the lens element is recessed.

Internal focusing... that's the way they look.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • *********
  • Posts: 9170
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2013, 12:45:09 PM »
Having the filter on may actually have caused more damage, as the lens element is recessed.
I doubt that it caused more damage, but I doubt that it caused less either.  Replacing the front lens element is not always a big expense, depending on the lens, however, the front barrel as well as internal components are likely damaged as well as elements internally needing to be replaced or recentered, which only a Canon authorized repair facility can do properly.  A local Camera shop does not have the tools or software to re-align the lens elements.

chilledXpress

  • Guest
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2013, 01:00:07 PM »
Having the filter on may actually have caused more damage, as the lens element is recessed.
I doubt that it caused more damage, but I doubt that it caused less either.  Replacing the front lens element is not always a big expense, depending on the lens, however, the front barrel as well as internal components are likely damaged as well as elements internally needing to be replaced or recentered, which only a Canon authorized repair facility can do properly.  A local Camera shop does not have the tools or software to re-align the lens elements.

The alignment issue is def a concern... the front elements are not a major deal breaker (usually) but if it saves you from having to send in for a scratch or minor issue. I'll let B+W take the hit.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1897
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2013, 01:07:04 PM »
A lens hood would help a lot in this specific case.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2013, 01:07:04 PM »

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2381
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2013, 01:10:19 PM »
So there I was, walking along with my 6D & 16-35mm II and boom, my knee gave way on some steps, I fell to my knees and the front of the lens hit the ground, sound of glass smashing as I commando rolled over...  I've grazed both my knees, my left arm and dented my pride...  Plus did the attached damage to my 16-35mm II - can't get the filter off at the moment, going to take it into the local independent shop when I get home from holiday, filter is a dead loss, lens looks ok bar the marks on the outer edge and until I get the filter ring detached, I've no idea of the damage to the front filter thread.  Lens appears to work, two scuffs on my 6D are annoying too :-/

So folks - always fit a filter !!!

Dear friend, Mr. Haydn1971.
Welcome to the Club, Senior citizen club, We are not young any more,  Our knees are not strong as 40 years ago , when we were young and strong as the young horse.
Yes, Last year it happened to me too, No, Not my old age, But my eyes following the most beautiful  movie star, and I forget to see the big hole infront of me----Ha, Ha, Ha, But Both my Camera and Lens survive my Stupid mistake.
Have a great day, Sir.
Surapon

Kernuak

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2013, 01:21:24 PM »
Having the filter on may actually have caused more damage, as the lens element is recessed.
I doubt that it caused more damage, but I doubt that it caused less either.  Replacing the front lens element is not always a big expense, depending on the lens, however, the front barrel as well as internal components are likely damaged as well as elements internally needing to be replaced or recentered, which only a Canon authorized repair facility can do properly.  A local Camera shop does not have the tools or software to re-align the lens elements.
Probably not in this case, but unless a sharp object gets in, a filter probably wouldn't offer any additional protection from a fall and the smashing glass of the filter could scratch the lens element, not to mention damage to the filter thread. Damage to the barrel and internal components would be the same with or without a filter. I just hate to see people relying on filters to offer protection on recessed elements, especially when a hood would offer just as much protection as tron mentioned. Anyway, hopefully no internal damage occurred (and hopefully this dodgy connection will let me post :P).
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

Haydn1971

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2013, 01:34:45 PM »
Cheers guys, especially the Flickr one !

The 16-35mm is the only lens I don't use a good on to be fair, because it's so cumbersome in my particular bag - I don't use the lens much but thankful I'd changed from my 24-70mm 2.8 II about 3 minutes before !

It's the thread that concerned me first, but now with some time to consider, also the possibility of damage or misalignment comes to mind - I'll see what the weekend brings when I return from holiday and make a judgement on making an insurance claim - I've full specific gear insurance.
Regards, Haydn

:: View my photostream on Flickr, Canon EOS 6D, EOS M ,  16-35mm II, 24-70mm II, 70-300mm L, 135mm f2.0 L, 22mm f2.0, Lensbaby, EOS M adaptor, Cosina CT1G film SLR & 50mm f2.0 lens

takesome1

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2013, 01:55:01 PM »
Having the filter on may actually have caused more damage, as the lens element is recessed.
I doubt that it caused more damage, but I doubt that it caused less either.  Replacing the front lens element is not always a big expense, depending on the lens, however, the front barrel as well as internal components are likely damaged as well as elements internally needing to be replaced or recentered, which only a Canon authorized repair facility can do properly.  A local Camera shop does not have the tools or software to re-align the lens elements.
Probably not in this case, but unless a sharp object gets in, a filter probably wouldn't offer any additional protection from a fall and the smashing glass of the filter could scratch the lens element, not to mention damage to the filter thread. Damage to the barrel and internal components would be the same with or without a filter. I just hate to see people relying on filters to offer protection on recessed elements, especially when a hood would offer just as much protection as tron mentioned. Anyway, hopefully no internal damage occurred (and hopefully this dodgy connection will let me post :P).

Hoods offer no protection whatsoever when you drop the lens when you are changing and you haven't put the hood on yet.

I dropped my 16-35mm about a year ago. Changing lenses, dropped it from about chest high on the concrete road I was standing on. No broken glass, but beat up the casing very bad and when you would MF it would stick. I didn't have a filter or a lens cap on. I would have had to buy a new filter, good thing I had taken it off. A UPS package and about $300 and CPS fixed it up good as new.

kbmelb

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2013, 03:42:36 PM »

"Hoods offer no protection whatsoever when you drop the lens when you are changing and you haven't put the hood on yet."



I beg to differ. On two occasions I have dropped unattached lenses out of poorly fastened backpacks with the hoods reversed and they absorbed most, if not all, of the shock and neither lens was damaged. So I'd never say don't use a filter but I will say use the darn hood they gave you FREE! (L lenses anyway).

My hoods are all pretty beat but my lenses look (almost) brand new. If I didn't use hoods, my lenses would look pretty rough. It just makes sense.

I have even dropped bodies with lenses (and hoods) attached and have never damaged glass. I've broken internal stuff but am positive a filter won't save internals from shock.

ThatChinaman

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2013, 03:56:41 PM »
Have you considered a filter wrench? I have a 24-105 that "ejected" itself out of my camera bag when I removed it from my trunk in a parking lot once because someone had forgotten to zip the bag and it landed on the front corner of the filter. There was a B+W filter on and it and the lens filter threads dented slightly, but no broken glass. I was unable to remove the filter and found a cheap filter wrench set on B&H. It was pretty wobbly and took some getting used to but I was able to remove it and now filters can thread on and off the lens with slight friction.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2013, 03:56:41 PM »

michi

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2013, 06:15:11 PM »
Never dropped a lens while changing it.  I'll take the risk.  I don't use filters but do religiously use lens shades.  Bashed quite a few lenses around and the lens shades always saved the day.  By there's no need to argue, we do what we feel is best...

BozillaNZ

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 161
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2013, 06:58:06 PM »
Lift and remove the rubber ring on the focus ring, remove the tape.

Rotate the focus ring, you will see through the hole on the ring that there are 3 small screws that are not holding a white washer. Remove those 3 screws.

Gently pull the front filter ring part, it will pop up, along with the plastic name tag on the front element.

Now you can use a pair of pliers to bend the filter inward from a point to make it a heart shape. Then it can be removed easily. DO NOT SCREW the filter out, it will damage the filter mount on the lens.

Follow reverse step to put the filter mount back onto lens.
Look ma, me cameraz can push shadow 10 stoops w/o noizes, OMGWTFBBQChickenwingHaxorz!!!11
www.flickr.com/photos/bozillanz/

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2013, 06:58:06 PM »