UV Filters - an example of one in used up: I have always used UV filters on all my lenses, primarily for protection. They usually protect my lenses from scratches-esp when I am at the...

BermBuster Loc: Hi Desert S.Cal

I have always used UV filters on all my lenses, primarily for protection. They usually protect my lenses from scratches-esp when I am at the beach.
But this one went beyond the call of dutyMy camera fell off a hutch onto a tile floor.
Maybe I should name this "Another view on fall colors"

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Glad your lens is safe!

BermBuster Loc: Hi Desert S.Cal

Not completely home free, It seemed just fine when I tested it out, But while wandering around disneyland it started having focus problems at 24-50mm, looks a drive to Canon Service is coming up next.

Peter Boyd Loc: Blyth nr. Newcastle U.K.

BermBuster wrote:

I have always used UV filters on all my lenses, primarily for protection. They usually protect my lenses from scratches-esp when I am at the beach.
But this one went beyond the call of dutyMy camera fell off a hutch onto a tile floor.
Maybe I should name this "Another view on fall colors"

Ouch!! Sorry about your lens, but hopefully Canon will be able to fix it for a reasonable price. Good luck!

Pete.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

BermBuster wrote:

I have always used UV filters on all my lenses, primarily for protection. They usually protect my lenses from scratches-esp when I am at the beach.
But this one went beyond the call of dutyMy camera fell off a hutch onto a tile floor.
Maybe I should name this "Another view on fall colors"

You got lucky!

BermBuster Loc: Hi Desert S.Cal

Dlevon wrote:

You got lucky!

Yes I was :)
If that filter wasn't on there I'd have bent the lens and broke the front element.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I wouldn't consider that "lucky" as the lens is damaged as it is. Doesn't matter that the front element isn't "broken"... I'm assuming this is a relatively new lens & thus made of Polycarbonate & thus unable to be "bent"... If you would have had the hood on it, it would have absorbed more of the impact & maybe the lens wouldn't need to be sent in for service...

BermBuster wrote:

Yes I was :)
If that filter wasn't on there I'd have bent the lens and broke the front element.

BermBuster Loc: Hi Desert S.Cal

Screamin Scott wrote:

I wouldn't consider that "lucky" as the lens is damaged as it is. Doesn't matter that the front element isn't "broken"... I'm assuming this is a relatively new lens & thus made of Polycarbonate & thus unable to be "bent"... If you would have had the hood on it, it would have absorbed more of the impact & maybe the lens wouldn't need to be sent in for service

NopeCanon 24-70mm /2.8L USM, No plastic, Which makes it more $$ to fix if bent. Canon service says its common to have what they call "shock damage" from hard bumps(maybe due to the weight of this thing??).
But your right on the lens hood. Although, once it smacked the ground, the camera would have been at a higher point to falland it may have been damaged. But I was very lucky it seems to have survived.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Do you have an insurance policy or will they cover it under warranty ? Shock damage really isn't a factor of weight. When auto focus lenses started coming out, the electronics needed for the AF just made for a weak point, in other words, just another thing that could get damaged...

BermBuster wrote:

NopeCanon 24-70mm /2.8L USM, No plastic, Which makes it more $$ to fix if bent. Canon service says its common to have what they call "shock damage" from hard bumps(maybe due to the weight of this thing??).
But your right on the lens hood. Although, once it smacked the ground, the camera would have been at a higher point to falland it may have been damaged. But I was very lucky it seems to have survived.

BermBuster Loc: Hi Desert S.Cal

Yes I'm insured, Canon says it will 'probly' be in the $100 range..but it will be a couple days before they know for sure.