About to purchase a new lens- should I get the UV filter and a warranty?

[WildWolf]

I am about to purchase the 28-135 IS canon lens....should I buy the UV filter ($25.00) and the 5 year parts and labor warranty ($25.00) for the lens? Is it a waste of money? Thx in advance for your comments.

[accord]

I don't think paying maney for insurance is a waste of money.
If it is the money you can afford, why not go for it.

[willg]

if you decide to get a filter, get a quality uv filter if you are picky at all about the fine details of your pictures. i learned the hard way that a lens can be much better without a cheap piece of glass in front of it

[condyk]

I say no to both ... but as willg says get high quality filter if you must.

[LastLine]

I'd say at $25 (around £15 for 5 yearS) it's a good price, especially given what I read about the tempermental nature of some IS lenses. That said - no expert.

[Mohawk]

WildWolf,

I would put the warranty money towards a good filter. I assume you got the New York hard sell? See if they will just let you buy the lens for the stated price and be done with it. I hate outfits that bait you with a good price to only upsell you on what most would say are over priced accessories you could buy elsewhere for pennies on the dollar for what they are asking. One place tried to sell me a $500 Mack warranty, a $300 1gb CF card and a $300 Canon battery for a 1DMKII! And that was just a few months ago!

Save your money. If you feel you need a longer warranty then what Canon offers, those Mack warranties can usually be had on ebay for a better price. And something else to think about, who would you rather have work on your digital gear, Canon, or God only knows? I'll spend a few extra dollars to let Canon do my repairs. And check you Credit Card company, allot of them will extend manufacturers warranties for up to 3 years. And then there is your home owners for accidents and theft.

Mike

[jimchapin468]

Is a hoya UV Filter a good one?

[csnudelman]

No filter unless you expect to be shooting during a sand storm. I buy the extended warranties. Recently my 24-70L cost $1100+ and my 135L $900. I bought the Mack warranties from Adorama. One does not have to buy the lens and warranty from the same source, just within 30 days of each other. Online registration with Mack is a snap and $25-$35 for extended warranty on these lenses seemed prudent to me.

[condyk]

Online registration with Mack is a snap and $25-$35 for extended warranty on these lenses seemed prudent to me.

If that's the going rate then I have definately changed my mind and you might certainly benefit from the warranty, esp. if they can be transfered as it will help resale value a lot!

In the UK, warranty tend to be very expensive and pushed by hard sell to the more feeble minded buyer!!!

[ed2day]

Yes on the uV filter, no on the insurance. Of course insurance is a waste of money. The only way it can be justified is if you can't afford to replace the lens. But many people feel playing the lottery is a good investment too, so I realize there are different opinions than mine.

[wilflee]

Does anyone have experience (good or bad) with extended warranty claims on lenses that they care to share?

I bought extended warranty before on a computer and had a horrible claims experience. Since it's off topic, I won't say more. I've been wary of extended warranties ever since. But wondered if it's better for camera lenses?

[grego]

Well, I haven't dealed with Mack Camera yet on any of my lens, but for my Mp3 player, it was good to have a warranty on it. Replaced my Mp3 player with a completely new one when it went bonkers.

[Longwatcher]

Unless you are hard on your lenses, don't bother with a filter for that lens. I am fairly hard on my equipment and a filter does not seem to be needed for protecting the front optics on that lens and in fact I had to pull the filter off early because it got scratched up too fast. I never put one back on and havn't regretted it with that lens.

On the other hand based on my experience with that lens, getting the 5-year warranty would probably be a good investment in the long term. That is the only lens I have had to send in twice for repairs, but I still love it for light weight travel (which is probably why it has gone in for repair twice).

Just my experience and opinion,

[pturton]

Get a lens hood instead of the UV filter. It adds protection from flare as well as physical damage. I removed a decent quality filter from my 28-135 long ago and only use it when conditions are harsh.

As far a warranty insurance goes, I think it is a toss up. I figure a $25 warranty insurance policy is akin to purchasing a lottery tick for $25 for a payout of $500 and a hassle to collect. All hazard insurance through your home-owners insurance on all your equipment may be a better bet.

I still feel this way after 2 warranty returns to Canon and a couple of out of warranty failures.

Paul

[csnudelman]

I must say that a Mack Warranty purchased from Adorama (they seem to have the best prices on Mack) for between $20-$40 for an ADDITIONAL 3 to 7 years coverage is prudent.

[jfrancho]

My equipment is covered through my homeowner's insurance. Much more economical than buying Individual extended warrantees.

[blue_max]

How many journeys have you made in your car with the seat belt on and nothing happened. Or crossed the road and didn't get run over.

Now if you wear a seatbelt (apart from the fact that it is a legal requirement in many countries), you must consider it a likely bet that you may be involved in an accident. And how many owe our lives to wearing one. Probably not many.

It's all about attitude to risk. Personal opinion, personal choice. No-one can tell you it is a good idea or it isn't. The risks are pretty obvious, it's just how likely they are to happen that is the big question.

Graham

[cc10d]

I like the Hoya Super Multi-Coated UV-0 filter for the protective device. I also use a hood. I have broken filters from fall or impact, but never damaged a lens. I do not need to clean the lens much as the filter takes all the dust,dirt, scumy deposits, and splashes. I can replace that filter if I scratch it up cleaning off the scum etc. but the lens, that takes a lot more $. Peace of mind is nice too.

I seldom by extended warranties. If a thing is going to go bad, it usually does under the factory warrenty. Now theft is another story. I try to be carefull where I leave my gear and takes my chances. Don't think Mac covers theft anyway??? or does it? My experience with theft insurance is that when you file a claim, it is hard to show proof of ownership to the satisfaction of the insurance company, and then they want you to replace with lower cost "equivilents" Not too happpy with that stuff.

[csnudelman]

I think there may be apples and oranges here. Mack Warranty is an extended warranty aginst workmanship and materials as well as needed adjustments. Homeowners is protection aginst damage. I don't thing one can have a $150 adjustment repair covered by homeowners.

[jfrancho]

I think there may be apples and oranges here. Mack Warranty is an extended warranty aginst workmanship and materials as well as needed adjustments. Homeowners is protection aginst damage. I don't thing one can have a $150 adjustment repair covered by homeowners.I suppose it would depend on the mitigating circumstances. The lens comes with a warrantee of workmanship. If a lens needed "adjustment" right out of the box, I would return it. I haven't had to have a lens adjusted yet. Would "normal use" put it out of adjustment? Or, an accident? If it was the latter, I would be covered under my homeowners. Furthermore, I am covered for replacement value (as in a new replacement, not current value) should an accident or theft occur.

[csnudelman]

This is the Mack lens warranty. I don't think homeowners would cover the same.


"This warranty is an extension of the manufacturer's normal warranty on the lens for an additional period of 3 (three) or 7 (seven) years. The lens will be guaranteed to operate properly according to manufacturer's specifications or we shall repair lens to operate properly at no charge to you. This warranty does not cover equipment which has been misused, tampered with, modified or damaged as a result of accident, liquid, grit, impact or lack of proper care as indicated in the manual of operations."
In other words, Mack matches the Canon warranty and extends it.

[jfrancho]

My homeowners policy covers accidents, regardless of negligence, or stupidity. Say the camera gets stolen from my car, falls in the river, becomes a dog toy, or I just decide to punt the thing, I can recover the replacement value for it. It isn't exactly inexpensive by itself, but it is part of an extension that includes my camera, computers, musical equipment, Rolex, and wifes jewelry. It is completely seperate different from the manufacturere's warrantee. I suggest anyone interested, speak to their insurance agent. I'm pretty sure this kind coverage can be ammended to renters' insurance as well.

[csnudelman]

Perhaps both types of coverage is prudent. You have a Canon and a Rolex?

[mdclaros]

My two cents...

I would say get a lens cap instead of a UV filter if what you want is protection for the lens.
The more glass you put between your subject and the lens the less quality of the pics - so I have noticed-

And get the insurance if you can afford it.

[jfrancho]

Perhaps both types of coverage is prudent. You have a Canon and a Rolex?LOL! No, I have a Canon, my wife has the Rolex...
Seriously, I think your right with the double coverage, I just don't see a value add in my situation for extending the manu's warrantee. It either works out of the box or doesn't. If not, I take it back. Maybe that's a little too carefree for others, but I'm comfortable with it.

[blue_max]

My two cents...

I would say get a lens cap instead of a UV filter if what you want is protection for the lens.
The more glass you put between your subject and the lens the less quality of the pics - so I have noticed-

And get the insurance if you can afford it.

Sorry to pick you up on this, but I can't help noticing you say 'I have noticed'. Can you clarify if you can demonstrate an actual degradation by using a filter or is it hearsay.

It seems to be a myth that is perpetuated and I really want to see some evidence.

Graham

[jfrancho]

My two cents...

I would say get a lens cap instead of a UV filter if what you want is protection for the lens.
The more glass you put between your subject and the lens the less quality of the pics - so I have noticed-

And get the insurance if you can afford it.My pictures all come out underexposed if I leave the cap on...
There have been many situations that whatever compromises in quality a UV filter contributes, are worth not getting something on the front lens. May I borrow your Green Strip, and take shots of roadkill, at the roadside, with no filter? I just threw out a $60 filter that had animal spatter on it from the last shoot. (Don't ask, don't judge, it's for an animal rights group.)

[jfrancho]

Something to think about:http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=84150

[csnudelman]

Seems to me, after reading the entire thread, that "93" caused some of his own problems by sending the farm. If my TV needed repair and I sent the cable system and TV stand along with it I guess it might cause problems too. What I read, on forums, is that while slow (who is not?) the repair service is very good. I hope I never have to find out.