Can I fix this?

It's painfull to see that...
Good luck with it!

Wilt wrote in post #8368354
I meant the two halves of the fractured optical element, not the whole lens

How do you know he didn't as well?

I doubt my 1998 Camry is worth much more than that broken element.

mbellot wrote in post #8368716
How do you know he didn't as well?

I doubt my 1998 Camry is worth much more than that broken element.

Exactly my point

like most everyone else has said, it'd be worth it just to send it off to canon for repairs.

Check out this link and good luck!

http://www.tapplastics​.com …?vid=15&format=​quicktime&

This is acrylic and this is easy,
i have never worked with "glass" so I dont know about any similarities.

This thread follows the basic principle of a "Hey guys! I just whacked a finger off with a kitchen knife. Should I go to the doctor?"-WTFness.

dont try and fix it dodgey, its a freakin expensive lens should be fixed properly imo.

Terjay wrote in post #8371379
This thread follows the basic principle of a "Hey guys! I just whacked a finger off with a kitchen knife. Should I go to the doctor?"-WTFness.

Come on, you can't compare a lens with a body part. If it's going to be too expensive to fix by canon then why not try to fix it yourself. What have you got to lose at that point? Besides, fixing it might be a mute point since I think he was missing some glass.

justaf IREMAN wrote in post #8371794
Come on, you can't compare a lens with a body part. If it's going to be too expensive to fix by canon then why not try to fix it yourself. What have you got to lose at that point? Besides, fixing it might be a mute point since I think he was missing some glass.

Uhhhh.... But here's the problem: What exactly is "too expensive?" The lens is worth several thousand dollars. It's not going to cost more to repair than to buy a new one. So above what percentage of the current purchase price would it be too much to pay to repair it? 20%? 40%? 50%?

Say you could even decide on an answer without sending it in to Canon for an estimate. Then why is the lens NOT INSURED? If someone is able to pay that much money for a single lens but isn't willing to insure it, then clearly the percentage they have chosen as their answer is 100%. As someone who works in insurance pricing, "no insurance" = "self-insured." The risk of loss doesn't magically go away if you don't insure it. Once damaged, the value of the lens is a sunk cost. To say that it is "too expensive" to repair is misleading because if that were the case, one would not have absorbed the entire risk of loss in the first place.

There is NEVER any point to trying to self-repair something that expensive if the glass is damaged. If it were just a scratch, you wouldn't bother trying at all. If the meniscus were damaged, replacement is cheap, that's why Canon designed it the way it did. If the damage is any worse, you would always need to send it in because there's no way you can fix it yourself. You don't have a lens production facility in your basement.

I hope this guy is joking...

joeyjoeyjoey wrote in post #8339328
This looks like a clean break and is easily fixable. Hold both pieces together and rub them back and forth like you're trying to start a fire. After about 4 minutes both pieces should start melding together.

Because you are working at the molecule level the bond will be strong and seamless. The trick here however is to make sure you are rubbing the pieces the way you want them to bond. If you are off they will bond unevenly. Rubbing them on a level surface will help greatly.

Best of luck and let us know how it turns out!

Send it to Canon. What can I say? Should have been wearing a neck strap. Time to pay the stupid tax.

I think this is a fake thread :/

OP prove me wrong.

any updates?

there goes half my car.

I think you'll find that this is all a figment of your imagination and that your lens is really okay.

With that established, make sure your equipment is properly insured just in case you have an accident with your lens and break it, maybe in a few weeks' time or thereabouts.

If the 400 2.8L without a front element is like the EF 35-80mm without a front element, you might have a decent macro lens now.