Dropped Nikon D700 Camea - Lens saved by a UV filter

[Robin Usagani]

No UV filters here but I always have the hood on, even if I dont need it. The only time I dont have the hood on is when I do macro work.

 

[gkinney]

KmH, these are very good points. Although I had a camera tech remove the filter from the lens, I then looked at how bent the metal was and pretty much assumed that if that did not take the blunt of the force, then the edge of the lens body would have.

I plan to send in the camera and lens in to be checked, so far my focus has been working without problems (As far as I can tell).

I will say that I am impressed with all the comments from one of my first posts on this board. Now to submit a picture for comments... not sure if my skin is thick enough after this tread

 

[Overread19 7]

I haven't stickied it (as we'd have a whole page of stickies if I stickied every good thread we get) but I have added it to the tutorials thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rum-photo-gallery/123160-tutorial-thread.html

 

[Gaerek]

KmH, these are very good points. Although I had a camera tech remove the filter from the lens, I then looked at how bent the metal was and pretty much assumed that if that did not take the blunt of the force, then the edge of the lens body would have.

You make the assumption that the lens is made out of weaker stuff than the filter. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the lens body is tougher than the flimsy metal ring of the filter. Assuming the filter did protect anything, a lens hood would have done as good a job (or better, since you wouldn't be out a filter), or simply being more careful with your stuff (everyone is guilty of getting careless, not coming down on you for not taking care of your stuff, just a lesson learned for everyone here).

Hoods for me, all the time (with certain exceptions, of course), and only filters to give me certain effects. Not really interested in reducing the IQ of my expensive lens by putting a cheap piece of glass in front of it. Buckster hit the nail on the head here.

 

[Dao]

I am not a filter person. I had some filters that I got with the lens I purchased. Some are cheap brand, some other okay brand and some other good brand. But I just sick and tired of removing the filter and put it that on again. (i.e. in situation that without UV filter is better such as a bright object in the frame or I need to use another type of filter.) Too much trouble for nothing. So I stop putting them on.

 

[Pau1]

Consider the source:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/lens_care.html

"Consider using a Skylight or UV filter as full-time protection of your lens, shooting your pictures through it and removing it only when you're using another filter for special effect. And of course, don't forget to use your front and rear lens caps!"

 

[Gaerek]

Consider the source:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/lens_care.html

"Consider using a Skylight or UV filter as full-time protection of your lens, shooting your pictures through it and removing it only when you're using another filter for special effect. And of course, don't forget to use your front and rear lens caps!"

That's what I would say too, if I sold these:

Canon Direct Store- 52mm UV Protector Filter

Up-selling is business 101. Let's put that into a different industry.

"Consider getting a Large fry instead of a medium because of the money you'll save since it's less money per fry. And of course, don't forget to get a warm apple pie!"

Canon has an interest in getting you to purchase that protection filter. Why do you think companies that sell camera bundles always add one? Because they can add an extra $50 to the package price while only tacking on a $15 cheap-o filter. The bottom line here is that, although lenses are designed to be able to mount a filter, they are designed and engineered to work best without them. As soon as you put something new in the lens system, you're changing the dynamics of the lens. Filters WILL increase lens flare, they WILL decrease IQ, and apparently, according to Buckster, they add a nifty rainbow effect also!

Consider this, if the lens companies thought they were such a good idea, why haven't they just mounted user replaceable "protection lenses" on every lens they sell? It's because they know that in the end, they are bad for the image, in general, and only provide marginal (if even that) protection to the lens.

 

[Juice]

They make it because the ignorant public will buy it. Kind of like Bose.

 

[Overread19 7]

Consider this, if the lens companies thought they were such a good idea, why haven't they just mounted user replaceable "protection lenses" on every lens they sell? It's because they know that in the end, they are bad for the image, in general, and only provide marginal (if even that) protection to the lens.

Actually they have - some of the big L super telephoto lenses had a front element that was mostly there just for protection and to provide a cheap section of glass to replace if needed. Interestingly with the new MII lenses this front protector lens has been dropped on some/all.