cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

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

Jamiefisch7
Apprentice

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? 

image.jpg

23 REPLIES 23

MikeSowsun
Authority
Authority

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 Sowsun

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

“ 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.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."


@Waddizzle wrote:

“ 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.


Great catch! Totally slipped my mind. I have the petals for a couple of L wide lenses and don't even use them, so just didn't think of that case 🙂 I just use the protectors on them.

Newton

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

EOS 1DX M3, 1DX M2, 1DX, 5DS R, M6 Mark II, 1D M2, EOS 650 (film), many lenses, XF400 video


@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.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

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.

~Rick
Bay Area - CA


~R5 C (1.0.7.1) ~RF Trinity, ~RF 100 Macro, ~RF 100~400, ~RF 100~500, +RF 1.4x TC, +Canon Control Ring, BG-R10, 430EX III-RT ~DxO PhotoLab Elite ~DaVinci Resolve ~Windows11 Pro ~ImageClass MF644Cdw/MF656Cdw ~Pixel 8
~CarePaks Are Worth It

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.

--
Ricky

Camera: EOS 5D IV, EF 50mm f/1.2L, EF 135mm f/2L
Lighting: Profoto Lights & Modifiers

deebatman316
Elite
Elite

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. 


-Demetrius

Current Gear: EOS 5D Mark IV, EF F/2.8 Trinity, EF 50mm F/1.8 STM, EF 85mm F/1.8 USM, 470EX-AI & 600EX II-RT

Retired Gear: EOS 40D
Avatar
click here to view the gallery
Announcements