Oops - got that damage protection handy?

[OBie]

So there I was at my daughter's swim meet, going to take pictures (because I don't ever seem to have enough you know), and find out that the battery is dead. OK fine - I didn't have a backup as I'm never in the position where it's that important to get the shot (however I purchased a backup today!). I start putting the camera away, which involved removing the Sigma 70-200 2.8 from the body because that's the only way it fits into my old bag. Somehow, (and here's where things get fuzzy ) while I had the lens a few inches above the ground - which was concrete - I dropped it. Smack on the 'corner' of the lens. Looks horrible - but the good news is that the UV filter saved it. Had to take it into the store to remove it as I couldn't get it to budge, but once the filter was removed, all was well. Who knew that a $30 filter could protect an $800 lens?? :thumbsup:

[poker]

Alright! Score one for protective filters!

I left my shoe mount flash on my DREBEL and threw it in a backpack just for a short walk. The Flash broke the hot shoe off the camera. Fortunately, I got the Best Buy extended warranty and they fixed it.....they even replaced the missing rubber from the eye piece which I have lost again.

I dropped my 30D and Tamron 17-50 from waite level thinking my camera bad was zipped up. Both items have ugly scratches but all still work. I'm thinking about getting the camera body armor I'm seeing advertised for like $50.

We have to be more careful....this ain't a cheap hobby (or profession).

[walterick]

Wee! This story and image are the reasons we used to sell UV filters to people when I was working at a camera store. "A $20 filter can save your $300 lens!" we would advertise. This picture really is worth a thousand words.

I have to tell you though, when i saw your headline and saw the picture at first glance, I thought you had destroyed your lens! :blush2:

At least your lens is safe, and all is well that ends well!

Rick

[Old Timer]

I know a lot of people don't believe in keeping UV filters on all their lens, but I do. I'll put up with a very small amount of image quality erosion. UV filters have saved two expensive lens for me over the years. I think they are worth every penny it takes to buy a good one and I'll continue to keep them on my expensive glass. Sure glad your story had a happy ending.

[MJS]

Been there, done that with my first camera. I just picked up a Hoya multicoat for my 100mm macro, its worth the green, nice filter.

[yogestee]

OBie,,,this has happened to me countless times during my 27 years in photography..When I purchase a new lens I always buy a UV filter for it and mount it on the spot before I leave the camera store..

Jurgen

[OBie]

So I'm not the only one . . .

Unfortunately it will now take me forever to change lenses as I'm going to be so extra careful - I'm still trying to get used to the weight of the Sigma. And a new bag that better fits my gear (little that I have) is most definitely in order.

[Ronnoco]

OBie,,,this has happened to me countless times during my 27 years in photography.

Jurgen

Gee, only 27 years, eh? The only thing I ever dropped was a television tripod on my foot....broke it...my foot that is.

Ronnoco

[Old Timer]

Gee, only 27 years, eh? The only thing I ever dropped was a television tripod on my foot....broke it...my foot that is.

Ronnoco

That's funny. I've saved a couple of pieces of equipment that way by catching it with my foot before the ground took the full blow but I sure never broke my foot doing it.

[another view]

I'm guessing that you weren't using a lens hood due to the scratches on the filter ring. If you were, the hood would have (probably) absorbed the impact and not even broken the filter. Glad it worked out for you though. One tip - if a filter gets stuck, put a big rubber band around it and grab around it with your thumb and index finger (make a "C" shape). It'll take a little effort but the filter will come off.

[Rivman]

Wee! This story and image are the reasons we used to sell UV filters to people when I was working at a camera store. "A $20 filter can save your $300 lens!" we would advertise. This picture really is worth a thousand words.

I've heard that advice several times, and never had occasion to prove it,
but I did buy the UV filters, and the picture most certainly says it all.
Not unlike wrist straps on compact digitals - wish I had put it on,
before I accidently threw the camera into the lake !
. . . oh well, live 'n learn :thumbsup:

[JSPhoto]

Well I have told people in the sports forum this since I joined here because I have had damaged filters but saved the lens.
If you want less photo degredation use the Hoya UV (0), and it won't affect the color. Any number over zero will affect color.
The UV (0) filters cost a bit more $46 for 77mm but are well woth the price.:thumbsup:

JS

[OBie]

I'm guessing that you weren't using a lens hood due to the scratches on the filter ring. If you were, the hood would have (probably) absorbed the impact and not even broken the filter.

As a matter of fact, I was wondering about using the lens hood that morning. It is a new thing to me, and I wasn't sure whether I needed it at an indoor pool - thought it was mostly for brightly lit areas. So I left it off. And since this occurred when I was putting the lens away - and it only fits in my bag with the lens hood reversed - it wouldn't have done much. So do I use the lens hood at all times?

One tip - if a filter gets stuck, put a big rubber band around it and grab around it with your thumb and index finger (make a "C" shape). It'll take a little effort but the filter will come off.

I tried using a rubber jar lid grabber thing - didn't work. Husband tried using his workshop vice (I didn't watch) - didn't work. Tried a combination of rubber jar lid thing and pliers - didn't work. It took two guys at Wolf with special pliers and several minutes. By the time they got it off, the filter was shaped like a clover. Said they'd never seen one stuck so well.
But I think I'm going to throw a rubber band into my bag for future use. Great tip.

[another view]

I've never had a filter that stuck before, so I'm sure it was a lot of work to get that one off. Glad they got it for you! The trick is to spread the pressure of your hand along as much of the filter ring as you can. If you use the tips of your thumb and forefinger at two places along the ring (at 180 degrees), you're distorting it's shape and making it bind in the threads. Grabbing it from the side helps spread out the pressure so it'll loosen up. Well, sometimes...

A lens hood will never cause any problem with your images. A hood blocks stray light from hitting the front element of your lens which will cause flare. You can still get flare with a hood, but it's not anywhere near as likely. The best hood is the one made specifically for that lens, not a generic and especially not a rubber one. Hard plastic or metal hoods also give the lens some physical protection by basically recessing the front element a ways. I always use them.

UV filters get a bad name because inexpensive uncoated ones can reflect light back off the front of the lens and cause ghosting and flare - more than you would have without the filter. This isn't going to happen in a lot of situations (like flare with a hood) but if you have strongly backlit subject, look out... If you do use a UV filter, get a good one (Hoya HMC is one) and make sure to keep it clean.

Completely off topic, but I saw the Napoleon Dynamite reference... I picked my wife up at the bus stop last week, waiting for her with a LaFawnduh sign like Kip's...

[walterick]

and especially not a rubber one.

Now I'm curious, why not a rubber one?

[JSPhoto]

AnotherView,

Two issues with your comments below:

1: RE: Lens hood, you wrote: A lens hood will never cause any problem with your images

Actually in poorly lit areas it CAN affect the photos. There are some gyms I cannot use the lens hood as it blocks the little light there is. One pool I shoot at I cannot use the lens hood either.

2: you wrote: not a generic and especially not a rubber one

In some cases the rules REQUIRE rubber hoods. This is especially true with the NBA and all front row photogs to avoid injuring the players. There are times I use them at kids games. In addition using them can lower your liability in case of injury, not too mention lessening injuries to whoever runs into it.

****************************
I have a thread somewhere in the sports forum where I show how to make a really cheap rubber hood with a 3" rubber adaptor for PVC pipe and using one of the clamps that comes with them. This fits a 77mm lens perfectly and it costs less than $5.:thumbsup:

JS

[Skyman]

i was running after the olympic torch during the relay in 2000 when one of my flashes decided it didn't want to stay on the camera anymore. since i still had another camera and flash and the light was improving (it was about 5am) i scooped up the pieces threw them in my camera bag and kept running getting a few more shots that i sold for more than the flash was worth. when i had time to survey the damage the plastic ir cover was off and the mounting for the circuit board was loose. the battery door had flung open but was undamaged. i still have that flash somewhere and it still works ok!!

[OBie]

I picked my wife up at the bus stop last week, waiting for her with a LaFawnduh sign like Kip's...

:cornut: Hysterical! Hope she appreciated it!

Great tips all around. Interesting about lens hoods and the requirements for soft vs. hard at certain events.

When the store removed the old UV filter, I immediately bought a new one - a quantaray. Will I notice the difference in color/photo quality? (THAT'S my problem! I've been using the wrong filter!!) Should I go dig the box out of the garbage and return it for a Hoya? Or is it more like HD vs. old TV?

[JSPhoto]

:cornut: Hysterical! Hope she appreciated it!

Great tips all around. Interesting about lens hoods and the requirements for soft vs. hard at certain events.

When the store removed the old UV filter, I immediately bought a new one - a quantaray. Will I notice the difference in color/photo quality? (THAT'S my problem! I've been using the wrong filter!!) Should I go dig the box out of the garbage and return it for a Hoya? Or is it more like HD vs. old TV?

Take some photos with and without the filter, if you notice a difference return it and get the Hoya UV(0) and make certain it's the UV(0).

JS

[another view]

AnotherView,

Two issues with your comments below:

1: RE: Lens hood, you wrote: A lens hood will never cause any problem with your images

Actually in poorly lit areas it CAN affect the photos. There are some gyms I cannot use the lens hood as it blocks the little light there is. One pool I shoot at I cannot use the lens hood either.

2: you wrote: not a generic and especially not a rubber one

In some cases the rules REQUIRE rubber hoods. This is especially true with the NBA and all front row photogs to avoid injuring the players. There are times I use them at kids games. In addition using them can lower your liability in case of injury, not too mention lessening injuries to whoever runs into it.

Not doubting you, but I've never run into a situation where a hood has caused a problem. In most low light situations (that I've been in, at least) the light is pretty contrasty. I don't shoot pro sports, so you've got me on that one!

[JSPhoto]

AnotherView

Time for you to try some sports shooting

JS

[Speed]

I do, on all my lenses, expect one, and that's because I haven't bought one for it yet. That will be remedied in the near future.

Indoors or outdoors, I use my lens hoods to prevent extraneous light from getting onto/into my lens. Even if you don't think you need it (say indoors) you can get direct sunlight coming through windows, sunlight reflecting off car windows, and even other folks flash that can add unwanted glare to your photo's. So I always use my lens hoods.

I use rubber lens hoods on my lenses, because they are more compact. As a bonus, since they screw onto the lens ( like a filter) I have a little something extra there to protect the lens.

My two cents worth.

[OBie]

This has been so interesting. It will clearly influence my next bag purchase. I think I need to get one that the D50 body, with 70-200, and lens hood in place for shooting needs to fit in. I hate having to reverse the hood constantly to put it away or change lenses. Unless this puts me in a position of purchasing a bag that is so unwieldy that it's impractical, that is what I will be looking for.

[another view]

Takes a big bag to fit an 80-200 f2.8 with the hood attached... I don't like the center-pinch style lens caps because they don't seem to stay on as well as the older type where you have to push the buttons at the edges of the cap. You would need one of those center-pinch caps to leave the hood on though - but it only takes a second to unlock it, flip it around and lock it in place.

Depending on the hood, you could be adding about 2 - 4" to the height of the bag to fit the lens with hood in place. It would be pretty to arrange a backpack this way but it will limit your choice of shoulder bags.

[PhotoGirl]

I have to tell you though, when i saw your headline and saw the picture at first glance, I thought you had destroyed your lens!

LOL, me too!

I'm glad everything worked out well in the end.

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who uses a UV filter on my lens. Before I began putting a filter over my lens, many people advised against it. But in my mind it certainly gives me a lot more peace of mind considering how expensive lens can be.