It's just a scratch...

If my glasses looked like that front element, my eyes would not make a clear image. We take for granted what an amazing bit of technology a camera lens is.
 
Think about shooting with that lens. You'd end up with more than just a scratch... maybe even a fleshwound...
 
Unfortunately the lens is no good for portraiture anymore. All subjects would probably have bugged-out eyes, wrinkled brows, and that "surely you jest" expression if that lens was pointed at them.
 
jmkelly said:
If my glasses looked like that front element, my eyes would not make a clear image. We take for granted what an amazing bit of technology a camera lens is.
Click to expand...

Actually, no.

I had an accident a couple of months ago and woke up in the hospital a bit battered with facial injuries.

They fixed me up, and arranged transport home.

But before I left I needed to sign some papers. They put my glasses back on me so that I could see what I was signing.

When I got home I saw the glasses: they were exactly like that lens (except the breaks were vertical and parallel, not radial), and working fine.
 
I don't use filters to protect any of my lenses.
Why bother unless you buy something just to resell for collectors in "mint" condition.
 
Well... i don't know them but it's for sure a good way to advert their products for free on almost every photo forum of the web.
 
raid said:
I don't use filters to protect any of my lenses.
Why bother unless you buy something just to resell for collectors in "mint" condition.
Click to expand...

Dear Raid,

The first time you smash a filter instead of a front element, you may reconsider this position.

It is hard to convey how sick we felt when Frances tripped in the Himalayas and smashed the filter on the front of her 35/2.8 PC-Nikkor. Or how relieved we were when we unscrewed it and found a pristine lens underneath.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Raid, I "filter" all my lenses precisely because of what Roger said. I never noticed any difference between shots with or without UV filters, but I was glad to have them in dusty, windy conditions. And a camera store employee told me that a filter saved his Canon lens when it took the whole effect of a fall on asphalt.
 
I keep skylight filters on all my lenses.

But they do seem very expensive.

After all they are just a flat piece of glass (with coatings) in a mount.

Whereas a lens is many shaped pieces of glass, with a focussing mechanism, with an aperture mechanism, with communication to the camera, and complex design...

The filters ought to be a lot less expensive.
 
ClaremontPhoto said:
I keep skylight filters on all my lenses.

But they do seem very expensive.

After all they are just a flat piece of glass (with coatings) in a mount.

Whereas a lens is many shaped pieces of glass, with a focussing mechanism, with an aperture mechanism, with communication to the camera, and complex design...

The filters ought to be a lot less expensive.
Click to expand...

Maybe not.
Consider this: any lack of flatness, any heterogeneity in the glass chemical composition, and the light won't pass through straight, meaning that you screw the optical quality.
Put apart the more complicated shape and curvature, I would guess that a good filter takes the same amount of care and precision in production than a lens element. Maybe a little less because whole surfaces can be produced and then cut, but still...It's not just a piece of glass.
 
I'd say the quality of images there is pretty poor, but hard to tell how good the lens was when it was new.
 
Yes, they are, but if you read the blurb it says that the lack of sharpness is probably due to the front element shifting during the impact rather than the actual crack.

There is another good reason to keep your front element clean - I imagine that crud and star cracks will play havoc with contra-lighting and such. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom