Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 22 Oct 2011 (Saturday) 16:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 16-35mm Protection filter vs Repair Cost

 
PaulB
Goldmember
1,543 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Leeds, Yorkshire
     
Oct 23, 2011 05:23 as a reply to  @ post 13292347 |  #16

It isn't just a case of front element damage as the 16-35/2.8L isn't weathersealed properly unless there is a front filter fitted - so you can end up with dust and moisture getting in the front of the lens, note how (on the Mk1 anyway) the front element moves slightly as the lens is zoomed; no sealing there without a filter as Canon do point out in the lens information.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MOkoFOko
nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
Avatar
19,889 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Michigan, home of the Zombie plague
     
Oct 23, 2011 05:31 |  #17

pvaz wrote in post #13290623 (external link)
Thanks all.

It does seam like an unlikely event even with my short amateur experience. :)

I'll just keep the hood at all time, try to be careful (as I been doing with the cheaper lenses) and accept the risk that comes with it.

Another concern is that the 16-35L weather sealing (both mark1 and mark2) is incomplete without a filter. No filter, not weather sealed. Water/moisture will get in from the front. Take my advice and keep a GOOD filter on that lens. Don't settle for a junk filter.


My Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pvaz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
6 posts
Joined Oct 2011
     
Oct 23, 2011 11:31 |  #18

I wasn't aware of that, it does change things. Seams like I'll get a filter to get the front end weather sealed.

At present I own the 60D which is not weather sealed but am planing to move to full frame in the near future so I'm gathering my full frame lens kit while Canon doesn't get the 5D mk III out (or whatever they end up calling it).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pvaz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
6 posts
Joined Oct 2011
     
Oct 23, 2011 11:55 |  #19

B+W MRC 82mm UV filter just ordered.

I'll give it a go. If I don't see a diference it will stay on at all times, otherwise I'll use it only when shooting seascapes to avoid sea spray on the lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 158
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Oct 23, 2011 12:31 |  #20

pvaz wrote in post #13293430 (external link)
B+W MRC 82mm UV filter just ordered.

I'll give it a go. If I don't see a diference it will stay on at all times, otherwise I'll use it only when shooting seascapes to avoid sea spray on the lens.

Test for the bad effects that a filter can produce by doing some strongly back-lit shots. That's typically the worst condition for filter-induced flare in images.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdx_btk78
Member
81 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Pdx
     
Oct 24, 2011 10:28 |  #21

MOkoFOko wrote in post #13292512 (external link)
Another concern is that the 16-35L weather sealing (both mark1 and mark2) is incomplete without a filter. No filter, not weather sealed. Water/moisture will get in from the front. Take my advice and keep a GOOD filter on that lens. Don't settle for a junk filter.

This exactly.

I don't typically use filters.. but for the 16-35 mk2, if I'm out door, I full time my Heliopan SH-PMC. The only time I ever take it off is when I'm shooting indoors.

Now on to figuring out how to properly use a Circular Polarizer..


5D Mk III & 7D | 430 EX II
Canon 50mm f1.2L | 16-35mm f2.8L Mk II | 24-105mm f4L IS | 70-200mm f2.8L IS Mk II | Σ 150-500mm
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
William ­ C. ­ Montgomery
Hatchling
8 posts
Joined Sep 2011
     
Oct 24, 2011 11:00 |  #22

I allowed myself to get talked into not using a protection filter. It worked great until I got a scratch across the front of my favorite lens. After that sad and unnecessary (i.e. stupid) experience I use high quality protection filters on all of my lenses. I agree with the others that say to leave the protection filter on for general use and take it off if you think flare is going to be a problem or as the circumstance demands.


Montgomery Wedding Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Purplecow
Member
178 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Southern California
     
Oct 24, 2011 11:37 |  #23

I was coming back from yosemite and had my camera in the bag with the zipper unzipped. Just in case I wanted to shoot something scenic, I wanted quick access to the camera. Well, my wife was unloading the car and she pulled out the camera bag not knowing that it was unzipped. My 5D II came crashing down with my 16-35mm II attached to it. It landed on the filter and the ring was smashed in. It took away the majority of energy from the fall. It also bent in the filter thread ring on the lens. I took the lens to Canon Service Center and was charged a little more than $250 to get the filter ring replaced on the lens. Canon charges flat fee for the labor. In my case, I believe it was $150 which includes disassembly, reassembly, cleaning, and re-calibration. The filter ring was a little more than $100.

If I didn't use a filter, the lens would have seen more damage for sure. I use Hoya HD UV filter. If you are using a cheap filter, don't use it at all. If you are using a high quality filter, it won't make much difference expect when shooting into the sun.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 158
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Oct 24, 2011 12:22 |  #24

William C. Montgomery wrote in post #13297769 (external link)
I allowed myself to get talked into not using a protection filter. It worked great until I got a scratch across the front of my favorite lens. After that sad and unnecessary (i.e. stupid) experience I use high quality protection filters on all of my lenses. I agree with the others that say to leave the protection filter on for general use and take it off if you think flare is going to be a problem or as the circumstance demands.

Did you have a lens hood on the lens when you scratched it?


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
c_henry
Member
124 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Jul 2011
Location: London, UK
     
Oct 25, 2011 01:33 |  #25

I bought a 16-35 II with a scratch on the lens, got a good price for it too. Doesn't seem to affect the IQ at all.

Colin




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Oct 25, 2011 07:28 |  #26

Had a 135L fall out of a bag when I snatched the bag off the floor to my shoulder. The thing bounced 3 times on the tile floor and rolled hard into a wall. I heard it before I saw it. It must have been +2 feet off the ground on the first bounce. Had the hood on and the rear cap. The rear lens mount needed to be replaced. No dis-assembly of the lens was required. It worked and continues to work fine. No elements were knocked out of alignment.

With a filter, and no hood, I know this would have turned out to be an expensive repair. The lens bounced because the hood absorbed all the energy (no damage to any part of the front of the lens, no internal damage) then released the energy, hence the big bounce.

btw. Canon replaced the mount for free :-)


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
v35skyline
Goldmember
3,572 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Apr 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Oct 25, 2011 07:49 |  #27

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #13290524 (external link)
replacing front element is around 200~250,

labor is $150 for sure

then it depends on how much is the front element.

So that's $150 + len + tax, it's usually $200+ but not over $300.
However the back element usually costs more, I think what I heard was $500~600 for the back element replacement.

Anyways, as long as you keep your hood on, it is VERY less likely to get it damage.

Taking the low end of your estimate for the front element ($200) + your guess for labor ($150) , and add tax...you're already over $300 ($350 + tax). ;)

I choose not to use any protection filters. The hood is fine for me.


X100s | X-Pro1 | X-T1 | XF 14 | XF 18 | XF 35 | XF 56 | XF 60 | XF 10-24
Gear List & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nikmar08
Goldmember
Avatar
1,852 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 17
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Bangalore, India
     
Oct 25, 2011 13:26 |  #28

I started off with cheapo filters with my cheapo lenses and then I realized that a thin piece of glass would hardly provide any better physical protection other than avoiding scratches and such. I also realized that the image quality gets a hit far more with filters on than the lens itself unless you put it through reckless abusive use. So I let go of the idea of using filters for protection. Now that I have better glass, I take care of it by using a hood when in use and caps when not. I only use CPL and ND filters for specific purposes.


____O
__( \ \_
((_)/ ((_)
Nikhil | Gear List & Market Feedback | Flickr (external link)
Support POTN by donating here: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
irishman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,098 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
     
Oct 25, 2011 13:51 |  #29

ed rader wrote in post #13290653 (external link)
replacing front element is around 200~250,

labor is $150 for sure

i just had my 24-105L cleaned and calibrated. no parts were required. canon charged me $296. i'll bet a replaced front element on the 16-35L II will cost around $500. it would probably be cheaper to sell the lens (with full disclosure) and buy another used lens. hopefully the seller won't be dumping a lens that needs to be calibrated :D.

ed rader

Really? Ouch! My AF mechanism broke in my 70-200 2.8 IS about a year ago. They replaced the AF unit, cleaned and calibrated the lens for $177. It came back far better than new.


6D, G9, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 15mm Fisheye, Sigma 50 2.8 macro, Nikon 14-24G 2.8, Canon 16-35 2.8 II, Canon 24-105 f/4 IS, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, tripod, lights, other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdemetreos
Member
Avatar
148 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Los Angeles Lens Repair/Purchase
     
Oct 30, 2011 23:16 as a reply to  @ post 13292347 |  #30

I rebuild lenses for a living. The front element to a 16-35 version one is 335.00 from canon parts and the labor is very high because the lens has to recalibrated after installation. Do yourself a favor and slap a cheap hoya UV filter on it. The name ring that has the filter threads on it costs about 60 bucks and takes 5 mins to replace.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,012 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 16-35mm Protection filter vs Repair Cost
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Naturographers
1104 guests, 340 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.