Front element protection on super telephoto lenses

I’m getting closer to buying a canon 300 f2.8. I rented the sigma 150-600 and was impressed but alas I’m a purist and not spending $12k on the beautiful 200-400. I’m renting the 300 this week.

Anyway what protection beside the lens hood is available for this huge front element lenses? How much of a deal is it to have the front lens replaced if damaged? I have canon FD lens that are mint condition that I bought 100 years ago in Highschool. Those have clear filters. But even so not a scratch. If I scratch the lens after spending $6000 I will cry more than a scratch on my M5 would evoke.

Thank you,

Mike

Go fund me page for new lens?? LOL.

My solution:

Photo from Choderboy's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1024112)

Of course, I jest.

Let's say you did scratch the front element somehow, why would you replace it?
It would be a huge cost to replace. Canon super teles used to have protective front elements, but no more.

Buy lens, use it, be happy.

Perhaps coincidentally, the first Canon super telephoto I owned eventually was shipped across the ocean to Australia to Choderboy posting above.

That 500mm f/4L IS (gen 1) has been all over the world. I don't know much of it's history before I bought it in 2005, but it came to me with a cracked hood, and a damaged mount preventing it from being mounted to any camera. Needless to say, it had been many places and taken many photos, and been owned by at least two people before me. After I replaced the mount, ($25.00 part and 15 minutes of my time) that lens came with me to Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Galapagos Islands, Northern Quebec, many trips to Maine, and all around New England,.. it endured salt spray on boats off the Mass coast and up Penobscot bay, and all over the Pacific between the islands of the Galapagos, wind driven sands on Horseneck beach getting shots of Piping Plovers, the driving salt filled winds off the "coast" of the Etosha pan,. and eventually shipped to Australia where I am sure it also saw more intense service life.

It left me with a crystal clear front element despite all that torturous duty.

And of course, no option to "protect" the front element with a screw on filter, other than the cracked hood.

Don't sweat it.
And now that your most expensive investment in glass is teaching you that front "protection" filters are a moot point, remove all the ones you have on your lessor lenses and finally enjoy the superior image quality and AF performance that your lenses were always capable of.

This is the Etosha Salt Pan, dried up salt bottomed inland sea as far as the eye can see;

IMAGE LINK: https://jakehegnauer.z​enfolio.com/p326415976​/e4957b5ed

IMAGE LINK: https://jakehegnauer.z​enfolio.com/p326415976​/e495747ef

IMAGE LINK: https://jakehegnauer.z​enfolio.com/p326415976​/e54cb0796

When I bought my Canon 300 f2.8 IS II a few years ago, it came with a protective cloth lens cap.
That will offer some protection when the lens is being carried and not used. I don't use mine, I just leave the
lens hood on all the time.

I think most damage to the front element comes from improper cleaning, and damaging the coating.

A deep hood is a bit of a shield of the lens from from wet noses and curious toddler hands, and offers a slight bit of deflection if you swing the front of the lens into an adjacent tree. But I fail to see where a filter provides 'better' protection for the lens than a hood!

Jake's description of the 500mm with cracked hood seems to be indication of the hood crashing into something while mounted.

excellent input thank you.....

(I'm not taking the clear filter off my other lens LOL, insert chicken clucking sounds here)

My rented 300 is due this Friday.

Mike

Some lenses require a filter to complete a bit of their weather resistance. Also a filter can cut down on internal dust on some lenses due to how the zoom pulls and pushes air through the groups.

So there are cases where a filter is superior to a hood. There isn’t a wrong answer here, except to only use quality filters when they are indeed used on a lens, and don’t cheap out.

Never used protective filters on any of my lenses. No scratched element after a few decades. (Did suffer fungus on one, another went under water, a third was dropped causing a slight dent in the mount...)

I have been looking for an answer to this issue as well (in a separate post). I am interested to learn if spending $250 on a 95mm Canon filter is really any better than a $70 filter made by another company.

clueless1960 wrote in post #19296481
I have been looking for an answer to this issue as well (in a separate post). I am interested to learn if spending $250 on a 95mm Canon filter is really any better than a $70 filter made by another company.

The Canon 77mm filters I once used a few decades ago were junk.

I've never understood the concept of putting a $100 piece of glass in front of my $6,000 + lens. To me it is counter intuitive. The one lens I did have that got scratched was because it did have a filter in front of it that did get hit and the spraying glass is what scratched the lens. I'm not saying don't do it... but to me its like buying a super car then putting cheap tires on it.

Additionally, most lenses don't see scratches. Unless it is really bad. Just like shooting a baseball game or tennis match through a fence, the netting/fencing goes away when you shoot through it at a subject behind it a ways. I would be sick if I damaged the front element...but I am not sure even with the most expensive filter up there, you are not going to be hurting the optic performance as much as you do with a small abrasion on the lens.

That said.. I am not a purist nor perfectionist.. so my bar may be a long ways below yours.... so your milage may very greatly.

The only time I would ever put a 'protective' filter on a lens is if I was in a salt spray area, so as to make it easier to remove the filter to clean off accumulated salt spray, or if I were somewhere where blowing sand could sand blast the front of my lens when driven by strong winds!

The other question was if the front element is damaged how expensive is a replacement?

Mike

Croasdail wrote in post #19296673
I've never understood the concept of putting a $100 piece of glass in front of my $6,000 + lens. To me it is counter intuitive. The one lens I did have that got scratched was because it did have a filter in front of it that did get hit and the spraying glass is what scratched the lens. I'm not saying don't do it... but to me its like buying a super car then putting cheap tires on it.

Additionally, most lenses don't see scratches. Unless it is really bad. Just like shooting a baseball game or tennis match through a fence, the netting/fencing goes away when you shoot through it at a subject behind it a ways. I would be sick if I damaged the front element...but I am not sure even with the most expensive filter up there, you are not going to be hurting the optic performance as much as you do with a small abrasion on the lens.

That said.. I am not a purist nor perfectionist.. so my bar may be a long ways below yours.... so your milage may very greatly.

I guess I don’t see a 2% warranty as being all that expensive, and if it helps with dust reduction inside the lens, or helps keep debris off the outer lens, or helps the lens generally be a bit more weather resistant, then why not?

And that filter is transferable to other lenses, unlike some warranty purchases. it is a personal preference, much like extra insurance on gear, or a CPS membership, or an extended warranty.