Response from Tiffen received regarding "Lens Protection Against Damage"

[Buckster]

In yet another in the never-ending threads about whether a thin glass filter on the front of the lens serves as protection to the lens itself, we recently had this thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-equipment-products/315928-avoid-uv-filters.html

By the time we got to page 6 and 7 of the thread, BrianV was claiming as "proof" that they DO protect the lens, 'the fact that no class-action suits had been brought against the filter manufacturers for NOT protecting lenses'.

I challenged BrianV to show where filter manufacturers make the bold claim that their filters WOULD protect lenses from any damage to the front element they sit in front of, and got a link back in response from him to a page at Tiffen that STILL DIDN'T make the bold claim, or anything close to it.

Our exchange over that is here: Avoid uv Filters - page 7

Nonetheless, I dug around the Tiffen site starting at the link BrianV provided, found the closest thing to any claim of protection and responsibility that might result in a lawsuit for product failure that I could find, and wrote Tiffen's warranty department the following, including the quote from their site:

On your clear protection filters page, you state, "Protects lens against dirt, grime, fingerprints and damage"

So, if I have one of these filters on, and the lens is dropped, the tripod falls over, or something crashes into/through the filter, and the front element of the lens BEHIND that filter gets damaged, will Tiffen replace the damaged lens?

I promised in the thread that I would be sure to update everyone with the response from Tiffen. Unfortunately, the thread was closed before that response came, which is why I'm updating it here instead.

Here is the response I just received from Tiffen:

Buck, no I am sorry, we are not responsible for that. The filter will help protect it from dust and dirt hitting the front.

So, it turns out that there IS NO GUARANTEE from the filter manufacturers that they will ACTUALLY protect the lens from damage, ESPECIALLY NOT the kind of damage we're always talking about on this issue; The kind of damage suffered when it's enough to break the filter. That damage to the lens is NOT covered by the ACTUAL warranty, and that explains why there are not only NO class-action lawsuits over it, but NO individual lawsuits over it.

I know... What a surprise, eh? :er:

 

[480sparky]

So what does Tiffen's 'guarantee' (or rather, their lack of it) have to do with whether or not a filter can protect a lens from physical damage?

 

[Buckster]

So what does Tiffen's 'guarantee' (or rather, their lack of it) have to do with whether or not a filter can protect a lens from physical damage?

That's a good question for BrianV, who's the one that made the claim that the lack of class-action lawsuits proves that the filters DO protect the lenses from the kinds of actual physical damage we were discussing.

Quite simply, since they state that they DON'T warranty against actual physical damage to the lens, no class-action (or individual) lawsuit for failure to do so can be brought, so it fails as "proof" that filters protect the lenses they're on from actual physical damage.

 

[Solarflare]

I remember seeing pretty nifty (but also quite expensive) Hoya "filters" (they didnt optically filter anything) that simply protect the lens from damage and have been made from some kind of plastic (which can get scratches more easily on it, but wont break so fast) last year. Since the state of Hoya is kind of questionable (I waited for Hoya filter for months last year until I gave up and went for B+W filters instead), I wonder if these offers are still around. The Hoya website clearly no longer lists them: HOYA | The Difference is Clear

Either way, lenses are made from glas. If you let them fall, they might shatter. No matter if you have a filter on it or not. All I would expect from a filter is thus a bit additional protection from getting scratches on the front, and an easier to clean (non-curved / perfectly plane) surface in dirt phrone situations.

Thats btw also why I consider this complaint that flip monitors are easily breakable funny. Cameras break easily. And my flipscreen usually is flipped backwards, unless its in use, so most of the time its actually better protected than other screens.

 

[MitchStrp]

:chatty:

 

[480sparky]

So what does Tiffen's 'guarantee' (or rather, their lack of it) have to do with whether or not a filter can protect a lens from physical damage?

That's a good question for BrianV, who's the one that made the claim that the lack of class-action lawsuits proves that the filters DO protect the lenses from the kinds of actual physical damage we were discussing.

Quite simply, since they state that they DON'T warranty against actual physical damage to the lens, no class-action (or individual) lawsuit for failure to do so can be brought, so it fails as "proof" that filters protect the lenses they're on from actual physical damage.

Ford doesn't cover my medical expenses if I'm in an auto accident either, whether I'm wearing the seat belt they installed in my truck or not. The fact that they don't proves nothing about the safety of seat belts.

 

[MitchStrp]

So what does Tiffen's 'guarantee' (or rather, their lack of it) have to do with whether or not a filter can protect a lens from physical damage?

That's a good question for BrianV, who's the one that made the claim that the lack of class-action lawsuits proves that the filters DO protect the lenses from the kinds of actual physical damage we were discussing.

Quite simply, since they state that they DON'T warranty against actual physical damage to the lens, no class-action (or individual) lawsuit for failure to do so can be brought, so it fails as "proof" that filters protect the lenses they're on from actual physical damage.

Ford doesn't cover my medical expenses if I'm in an auto accident either, whether I'm wearing the seat belt they installed in my truck or not. The fact that they don't proves nothing about the safety of seat belts.

:hail: amen.

 

[amolitor]

Worth noting: The thread Buckster cites was closed, and for good reason.

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[Buckster]

So what does Tiffen's 'guarantee' (or rather, their lack of it) have to do with whether or not a filter can protect a lens from physical damage?

That's a good question for BrianV, who's the one that made the claim that the lack of class-action lawsuits proves that the filters DO protect the lenses from the kinds of actual physical damage we were discussing.

Quite simply, since they state that they DON'T warranty against actual physical damage to the lens, no class-action (or individual) lawsuit for failure to do so can be brought, so it fails as "proof" that filters protect the lenses they're on from actual physical damage.

Ford doesn't cover my medical expenses if I'm in an auto accident either, whether I'm wearing the seat belt they installed in my truck or not. The fact that they don't proves nothing about the safety of seat belts.

Good point. Feel free to point that out to BrianV.

 

[Buckster]

Worth noting: The thread Buckster cites was closed, and for good reason.

Worth noting: amolitor couldn't meet the burden of proof in that thread either.

 

[MitchStrp]

Worth noting: The thread Buckster cites was closed, and for good reason.

Move along, nothing to see here.

:cheers:

 

[runnah]

Can't say I am surprised. That is a lot of risk to take on. If they were crazy enough to promise the safety of your lens you can bet their filters would be more than $20.

 

[Buckster]

Can't say I am surprised. That is a lot of right to take on. If they were crazy enough to promise the safety of your lens you can bet their filters would be more than $20.

Absolutely.

 

[Overread]

When a thread is locked that's it - you move on. It is not an excuse to restart the thread elsewhere.