EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Cracked lens

[Jamiefisch7]

Hi guys, it looks like the first outer layer of my lens has been cracked, does anyone know how much this will cost to fix? It’s just the most outer glass layer. Does canon provide repair options for something like this? 

[MikeSowsun]

That is just a “protection” filter. Just remove it and throw it away. 

I am one of those who does not believe in “protection” filters. They don’t do a very good job of protecting because they are fragile and easily broken. In my opinion a lens hood does a much better job of protecting your lens. 

If you do want to replace it, a good 72mm “protection” filter will cost you about $60-$100.

[deebatman316]

It looks like the clear filter is broken. Just remove it and see if the lens has damage. If the lens isn't damaged it's safe to use. If the lens is damaged. You can buy that lens used cheaply. It was used a kit lens for years. Canon discontinued that lens in 2016. I also don't believe Canon repairs it anymore. Just toss the filter. 

[FloridaDrafter]

Mike, I totally agree that a hood is more protection. But in the OP's case, that impact could very well have, at the very least, scratched or put a divot in the front element. Not everyone uses hoods, although they should, IMO. All of my lenses have hoods but also high quality protecto filters. I use the protector's to save the coatings on my front element while cleaning and not so much from impacts. It's my understanding that these coatings are fairly fragile. I try not to overclean, even the protector because the ones I buy also have coatings, but in my area it is quite dusty and temperature changes and high humidity often fog my lenses. But I find it cheaper to replace a filter than a lens when the coatings degrade 🙂

Newton

[Waddizzle]

---

@MikeSowsun wrote:

That is just a “protection” filter. Just remove it and throw it away. 

I am one of those who does not believe in “protection” filters. They don’t do a very good job of protecting because they are fragile and easily broken. In my opinion a lens hood does a much better job of protecting your lens. 

If you do want to replace it, a good 72mm “protection” filter will cost you about $60-$100.

---

Mike, I do not subscribe to the idea of “protection filters” to protect the lens front element from bumps and bangs, either.  I find that line of argument to justify never using a filter to be narrow and rather short sighted.

Some Canon lenses require the use of a front filter to complete the weather sealing.  I use Clear filters on my lenses to keep the front element clean.  There is a lot airborne dust and pollen when I am “in the wild” photographing wildlife.

[Waddizzle]

“ Mike, I totally agree that a hood is more protection. “

That argument falls flat on its face when it comes to wide angle lenses.  The petal shaped lens hood for my EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM is no more useful protection against bumps and bangs than a filter.

The best protection against bumps and bangs is common sense, IMHO.

[wq9nsc]

Newton,

I also use high quality clear glass protector's on all of my smaller lenses, primarily because when shooting in the field I don't mind doing a quick cleaning (including wiping rain off with anything handy while shooting sports) which I wouldn't want to do to the actual front element. 

My "great white" primes (200, 300, 400, and 800) can't use a protective "filter" since they have very large front elements with a drop in rear filter mount but the hoods on those are highly protective both from shock and rain and Canon uses a different coating on the front element of those lenses.

Rodger

[shadowsports]

I'm a little different then.  Even though the optics and coatings are pretty tough, I would rather sacrifice a clear filter over the primary objective if it came down to it.  It looks like that's what happened in this case.  To complete weather sealing is a is a bonus indeed.  When used, I always ensure the filter does not impede light transmissions, etc.

[rs-eos]

Correct; it's the main reason I started to use the B+W clear filters with my EF 50mm f/1.2L.  A filter was required to achieve complete weather sealing.

Though I now do the same for other lenses.  I'm still as careful as I can be with my gear, but the filters just add that extra bit.

[ebiggs1]

This argument has gone on as long as there have been lenses. To use a protecto filter or not. I am in the camp of using them on every lens that can use them. There really is no downside. However most of the time folks forget that a filter screws off as easily as it screws on. If there is a certain situation where the protecto filter could interfere with the shot simply remove it. Replace when done.

A lens hood is good. But the thought that a lens hood comes anywhere near as close to the protection a filter gives is just silly. The  fact that some Canon L lenses require a filter to achieve full protection should tell you something. They don't require a hood!

"Even though the optics and coatings are pretty tough, I would rather sacrifice a clear filter over the primary objective if it came down to it."

I don't know if I subscribe to the lens coating being "pretty tough" but this is just common sense advice. Keep in mind if the lens coating is damaged for whatever reason it can not be replaced or repaired. And the lens coating is a key part of any lens.

Now here is the deal would I put a protecto filter on a $100 dollar 50mm nifty-fifty lens? Probably not but would I put a $50-$60 dollar protecto filter on a $1000 or $2000+ dollar L lens? Darn right but it's your choice makes no difference to me. Now the next argument you will get is, "I've has my super Canon L lens for 20 years and never had a problem with the front element getting hit or cracked or damaged in any way."  Yeah well, you're lucky or you don't use your gear very often and you wound up saving a bout $2.50 per year on not buying that extra protection. Do you apply that same theory to life, fire or auto, etc., insurance? Hopefully none of us ever need any of those either.