September 19, 2014, 08:24:55 PM

Author Topic: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II  (Read 3517 times)

takesome1

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2013, 08:21:46 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.

You may not agree, but if you have the hood reversed you have put the hood on the lens. :)

You are correct about the lenses protecting reversed.

I try and leave the hoods reversed on my lenses and most it is no problem, but the 16-35mm is a special case sometimes. Storage may be at a premium, for instance one case I carry it in if I leave the hood mounted it fits very tightly in the case. I worry that the hood may be crushed so I remove the hood and lay it over the lens the same way it comes packed from the factory. Fits nicely that way.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2013, 08:21:46 PM »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4034
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2013, 09:57:45 PM »
I use filters because I never use lens caps .

+1...my lens caps are in factory boxes. Most of my lenses are proctected with B&W Clear filter(007).
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1544
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2013, 10:45:36 PM »
Hoods offer no protection whatsoever when you drop the lens when you are changing and you haven't put the hood on yet.
Well yes, of course. And seatbelts don't offer protection if you're not buckled up.
Yet overall and in most cases, the presence of hood and filter will reduce damage to the lens.

-pw

Haydn1971

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #18 on: October 05, 2013, 11:46:33 AM »
Local independent has removed the filter frame and as I expected, the front outer edge of the lens is damaged to the degree that a filter could be screwed back in - the good news is that the lens appears otherwise fine, but needs sending off to Canon for replacement of the front outer edge (metal bit).  I'm told that the Canon could could be in the region of £100-200 depending on the work involved, Canon UK apparently charge £90 to look at it these days though...   Fingers crossed for it being just a part swap and and return type repair, rather than anything more serious internally.
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

kbmelb

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2013, 02:09:59 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.

You may not agree, but if you have the hood reversed you have put the hood on the lens. :)

You are correct about the lenses protecting reversed.

I try and leave the hoods reversed on my lenses and most it is no problem, but the 16-35mm is a special case sometimes. Storage may be at a premium, for instance one case I carry it in if I leave the hood mounted it fits very tightly in the case. I worry that the hood may be crushed so I remove the hood and lay it over the lens the same way it comes packed from the factory. Fits nicely that way.

I actually leave the hood on as I'm attaching the lens then flip it once securely locked on the camera. There is never going to be an absolute way of preventing all risk but you can greatly reduce the chances.

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4506
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #20 on: October 05, 2013, 07:13:11 PM »
I agree most hoods offer some protection but the 16-35? really its he most useless hood out there and it takes.  heap of space
APS-H Fanboy

Haydn1971

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2013, 04:14:04 PM »
Bump....   Price back from Canon for repair, check and whatever else they do - £175

Ouch :-/
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

Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2013, 04:14:04 PM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2976
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2013, 04:54:15 PM »
I agree most hoods offer some protection but the 16-35? really its he most useless hood out there and it takes.  heap of space
+1000 on that one.  It's the most annoying thing to pack. Period.  At least it's cheap.  My 400 5.6's built-in hood took not one, but two impacts with concrete and cost over $400 to replace each time.  And now I have a carbon fiber hood on my 300mm 2.8 IS II that costs $400, not to mention the $125 lens cap.  The $150 deductible on my insurance isn't so bad considering the cost of our hobby.

As for the OP, that sucks, but hopefully it will work out okay and you'll just be out the filter.  The threads look a bit damaged, too, but hopefully it's just cosmetic.
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, M 11-22 f/4-5.6 IS | 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III
I only shoot at ISO 100 with perfect technique - should I get a Nikon?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2013, 04:54:15 PM »