i'm sure glad i used protection...,.

ed rader wrote in post #18036962

IMAGE LINK: http://erader.zenfolio​.com/img/s11/v29/p2033​110904-4.jpg on zenfolio

just got back from a week in british Columbia shooting grizzly bears and killer whales from various boats. hit a deer with the rental the first night but luckily I was able to slow down and the deer survived and we almost hit a surfacing humpback on the second day headed out to glendale cove to shoot grizzlies. a pretty rough environment for photography but much of my stuff is.

I've already replaced the front element on one 24-70L II and I was happy to see the filter protected my newer copy from another $500 repair. now I know the AFJ will have a field day with this one because they hate your filters. i'm so glad that I use protective filters as a default

But you haven't told us what the filter protected the lens from.

Warning: Sarcasm follows:

Well, since I am the first one here, please allow me to start the (perpetual) feud. The hit did not totally destroy your entire lens, so it was really insignificant, and would not have damaged your bare front element. Real photographers don't use 'protection' filters. A hood would have deflected the projectile, or otherwise safeguarded your lens. The filter only broke because you didn't buy a really good one. How am I doing? Let the silly-ness begin!

END OF SARCASM

Ed, I'm glad your lens is OK.

EDIT:
OH, NO! I'm too late. It started without me.

Bassat wrote in post #18036981
Warning: Sarcasm follows:

Well, since I am the first one here, please allow me to start the (perpetual) feud. The hit did not totally destroy your entire lens, so it was really insignificant, and would not have damaged your bare front element. Real photographers don't use 'protection' filters. A hood would have deflected the projectile, or otherwise safeguarded your lens. The filter only broke because you didn't buy a really good one. How am I doing? Let the silly-ness begin!

END OF SARCASM

Ed, I'm glad your lens is OK.

EDIT:
OH, NO! I'm too late. It started without me.

Oh,Oh! let me start. I read this one somewhere awhile back. I wouldn't take a chance shooting through a cheap piece of glass when replacing a front element is "only" $450!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn, I better go remove my filters right now. Chump change to replace a front element after all.

The real question that isn't asked or answered in the thread so far is: What cracked the filter that's shown in the first post?

john crossley wrote in post #18036980
But you haven't told us what the filter protected the lens from.

I am also curious at what caused this.

jlt23 wrote in post #18037839
I am also curious at what caused this.

Me, too. But the facts of the case are totally and completely irrelevant. Some will see the damage as proof that filters protect lenses. Some will see it as evidence that the hit would not have damaged the much stronger front element. Add this one to the list of never-ending debate:

filters or not
ff vs crop
death penalty
Cubs vs Sox
Ginger or Mary Ann
abortion

In the end, there are no 'true' answer. Well, except that Mary Ann was just plain HOT!

SkipD wrote in post #18037838
The real question that isn't asked or answered in the thread so far is: What cracked the filter that's shown in the first post?

Obviously you didn't read post No. 2

john crossley wrote in post #18037916
Obviously you didn't read post No. 2

OK - the question has not been answered.

john crossley wrote in post #18037916
Obviously you didn't read post No. 2

I don't understand why you think that Skip didn't read post #2.

If someone asks an OP a question, and the OP hasn't answered the question yet, then I would never hesitate to ask it again. There's nothing at all wrong with the same question being asked over and over again. In fact, it might just help to show the OP that more information would have been helpful when starting a post.

I, too, would like to know what caused the filter to crack. So, Ed, how'd it break?

.

Personally, I think Ed took the filter off his lens, intentionally smashed it with a hammer, and posted that photo just get this dead horse walking again.

Circumstances of the damage are irrelevant. Some people will never use filters for protection. Some people would rather be on the CBS Nightly News naked than go without a filter. (walks off whistling and glancing about furtively...)

You guys are not asking the most important question -- why is Ed using a 24-70 f/2.8 to shoot grizzly bears and whales?!

This may in fact answer the question of what happened to the filter. Grizzly bears do not believe in protective filters.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18038019
I don't understand why you think that Skip didn't read post #2.


.

Skip said it hadn't been "asked or answered" when it was for sure asked already, specifically in post #2, but all agree it hasn't been answered.

travisvwright wrote in post #18038140
Skip said it hadn't been "asked or answered" when it was for sure asked already, specifically in post #2, but all agree it hasn't been answered.

Ahhhhh...I see. So, obviously, I didn't read the 6th word of Skip's post.
Actually, I did read it....I just didn't remember it.

.

Bassat wrote in post #18037911
Me, too. But the facts of the case are totally and completely irrelevant. Some will see the damage as proof that filters protect lenses. Some will see it as evidence that the hit would not have damaged the much stronger front element. Add this one to the list of never-ending debate:

filters or not
ff vs crop
death penalty
Cubs vs Sox
Ginger or Mary Ann
abortion

In the end, there are no 'true' answer. Well, except that Mary Ann was just plain HOT!

Or that Ginger hot!!! ߘܰߘ