Why I really feel no need for the protective filter

KirkS518 wrote in post #16841859
I'm in the same school as sandpiper - if you want to use filters, great. As I've said though, I don't.

I highlighted the part above because I guess this is where I lose the logic. Image quality aside, and only talking about the fiscal part of filtering your lenses, my thought is this;

Pro-filter guys use them to protect the front element, fair enough. I can only assume they do that so they don't have to go through the 'expense and hassle' of replacing a front element. Yet, the cost of one front element, as we've pretty much determined, is about the cost of 2 quality filters.

Incorrect, Canon quotes me a $800 repair bill to replace the front element for a 24-70mm II, and a local camera repair shop quoted $580.
The prices for this repair are a true rip off as apparently the actual value of the part is about $300. And though it may be an easy repair and possible to do yourself, there is no place that sells front elements as separate spare parts.

Mornnb wrote in post #16841931
Incorrect, Canon quotes me a $800 repair bill to replace the front element for a 24-70mm II, and a local camera repair shop quoted $580.
The prices for this repair are a true rip off as apparently the actual value of the part is about $300. And though it may be an easy repair and possible to do yourself, there is no place that sells front elements as separate spare parts.

That sounds like Canon Australia are taking the ****. I have seen much lower charges mentioned in the USA and the UK.

For me though, even if it is going to cost the same as 6 filters, or 8, I would still be better off replacing an element. Besides, a replacement element is only a potential expense, one that may have to be faced at some point in the future, or may never have to be faced at all. Buying filters for all my lenses is a definite expense, a big wad of cash that I definitely have to spend and may never actually need.

Most of the photographers I know, do not use filters for protection. None of them have ever had any damage to a front element. Of the (very few) I know who do use filters, one has had a front element scratched because the filter broke and the glass scratched his lens. He is now firmly in the NON filter using camp after that. At least four others have broken at least one filter and had to replace it, thus adding to the expense. One of those guys has broken three filters, each time swearing blind that it is lucky he had a filter on, as it "saved the lens from damage", yet in each instance it was a fairly gentle knock of a type that would not damage the element. In one instance he doesn't actually know how it happened, he just opened his camera bag and the filter was already broken. He has now laid out several hundred pounds on filters and replacements, yet it is extremely unlikely that he would have had any damage to any of his lenses had he put that money into some equipment that would actually be useful. Another lens perhaps, or some nice studio lights.

Mornnb wrote in post #16841931
Incorrect, Canon quotes me a $800 repair bill to replace the front element for a 24-70mm II, and a local camera repair shop quoted $580.
The prices for this repair are a true rip off as apparently the actual value of the part is about $300. And though it may be an easy repair and possible to do yourself, there is no place that sells front elements as separate spare parts.

Ok, you made me do a little research. I would say that for the average person, about 70-80% of front elements can be replaced DIY. So let's take the $300 (which I think is about right) for a new front element for a lens with a 77mm diameter (most of the common L lenses), and the cost of a quality UV/Protective filter - Heliopan, B+W, and let's even include Hoya.

Heliopan 77mm Protection Filter - $157.99
Heliopan 77mm UV Haze SH-PMC Filter - $149.00
Hoya 77mm HD2 UV Filter - $127.90
B+W 77mm UV Haze Slim MRC 010M Filter - $116.00

Those are B&H's current prices and links.

So for the best filter, it's 1/2 the cost of the element. Most of the higher quality filters will be $100+. And of course, you would really only want the best, after all, that's why we buy L lenses, because we want the best. Wouldn't want to skimp on the filter.

So I stand by my previous post/guess.

BTW, I think you can buy a front element from Canon Direct, C.R.I.S. in Arizona, and a few other places.

Mornnb wrote in post #16841931
Incorrect, Canon quotes me a $800 repair bill to replace the front element for a 24-70mm II, and a local camera repair shop quoted $580.
The prices for this repair are a true rip off as apparently the actual value of the part is about $300. And though it may be an easy repair and possible to do yourself, there is no place that sells front elements as separate spare parts.

I'll weigh in with my own experience and a slightly different angle. I agree that replacing the front optic is going to be expensive. But I always have protective filters for another reason: I'm able to sell my lens for within $100 of what I buy them for, or I make a profit when I sell my lenses. Why? Because when I list my lenses, I include the UV filter and the glass on my equipment is in impeccable condition. That's enough to make a buyer pay extra to the point where my upgrade cost is an average of $0.

Case in point. I bought a 50mm f/1.4 about 3 years ago for $329.00. I just sold it last weekend for $350.00. I made a $20.00 profit on that lens after 3 years of use, because I took care of the lens and threw in the UV filter I had always had on the lens for the guy.

So to me it's a business decision of trying to never lose money when I sell equipment. And I've never really noticed a difference in the quality of images with the filter on or the filter off. I use all Hoya filters for UV.

catclaw wrote in post #16842080
....... Case in point. I bought a 50mm f/1.4 about 3 years ago for $329.00. I just sold it last weekend for $350.00. I made a $20.00 profit on that lens after 3 years of use, because I took care of the lens and threw in the UV filter I had always had on the lens for the guy.

So to me it's a business decision of trying to never lose money when I sell equipment. And I've never really noticed a difference in the quality of images with the filter on or the filter off. I use all Hoya filters for UV.

Wow! I just can't fathom who would spend that much for a 3-year old lens, when they can get a brand new one for $50 more! Am I missing something?

catclaw wrote in post #16842080
Case in point. I bought a 50mm f/1.4 about 3 years ago for $329.00. I just sold it last weekend for $350.00. I made a $20.00 profit on that lens after 3 years of use, because I took care of the lens and threw in the UV filter I had always had on the lens for the guy.

So to me it's a business decision of trying to never lose money when I sell equipment. And I've never really noticed a difference in the quality of images with the filter on or the filter off. I use all Hoya filters for UV.

Actually, you forgot to add in the cost of the UV filter you had on there, and I have to assume (yeah, yeah, I know what assume means), you had one of the best filters on it, so that cost you roughly $75, which now nets you a (monetary) loss of $55, not to mention the IQ loss of those 3 years of photos (j/k). So you sold it for a net of $295, and I recently sold the same lens which was 5 years old and never had a filter on it, for $300.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16842017
Ok, you made me do a little research. I would say that for the average person, about 70-80% of front elements can be replaced DIY. So let's take the $300 (which I think is about right) for a new front element for a lens with a 77mm diameter (most of the common L lenses), and the cost of a quality UV/Protective filter - Heliopan, B+W, and let's even include Hoya.

Where are you going to get the front element from? There are no shops, online or otherwise, that sell front element parts.

Read the very last line of that post. You can also occasionally find lenses for parts on certain auction sites.

snerd wrote in post #16842095
Wow! I just can't fathom who would spend that much for a 3-year old lens, when they can get a brand new one for $50 more! Am I missing something?

People want to save money. The same reason that when I sell my 400mm f/2.8 IS II, I'll make a profit on it the same way I did when I sold the 400mm f/2.8 IS I and upgraded to the version II. You might think this is crazy, but it's easier to make a profit on selling the extremely expensive equipment than it is on the cheap equipment. I see no possible way to break even or make a profit on the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. For the 50mm f/1.4, I saw the opportunity to sell when Canon increased their prices this month. I'll be upgrading to the 50mm f/1.2 when the prices come back down in 6 months.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16842120
Actually, you forgot to add in the cost of the UV filter you had on there, and I have to assume (yeah, yeah, I know what assume means), you had one of the best filters on it, so that cost you roughly $75, which now nets you a (monetary) loss of $55, not to mention the IQ loss of those 3 years of photos (j/k). So you sold it for a net of $295, and I recently sold the same lens which was 5 years old and never had a filter on it, for $300.

No way. I would never give away a $75 filter. What kind of business would I run if I was sinking away cost like that? I included this exact Hoya UV lens with that sale of the 50mm f/1.4.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ltraviolet_UV_0​_Haze.html

It is a well performing multi coated UV filter. Customer was happy. I was happy. And everyone wins.