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? 

[Stephen]

🤣😂🤣

[ebiggs1]

"I'm in precisely the opposite camp!   And I see several down sides."

First off here is where you go wrong or astary. People often think something, protecto filters in this case, has to be 100% effective to work. Well, my friend, not being 100% protective doesn't mean they are not useful. However to say they off no protection is just ignorant and short sighted. Actually no different than putting the lens cap back on. Why would you bother putting the lens cap back on if it offered no protection? Of course there is added protection impossible not to be and the same reasoning goes to protecto filters.

Also the thought that a hood offers protection is again not a 100% guarantee item. That, too, does not confirm them nor negate them as protection devices.

Some Canon L lenses require, that is REQUIRE, a filter to be completely weather resistant. If the filter offers no protection why in the world would Canon advise this? You put a $50-$60 dollar filter on a $1000-$2000+ dollar lens what down side can there be? Perhaps it saves something and again perhaps it never saves anything. It's a $50 dollar investment in a very expensive lens. It is less than a rounding point in the cost. And, my friend, if it ever does cause a concern in a photographic situation it comes off as easily as it goes on. No big difference than putting that lens cap on when you are through shooting. Which brings up the fact that if there ever is a place or situation where a lens doesn't need protection is when you put it back in its case where you so diligently put the lens cap back on!

[ebiggs1]

"While I have high quality, multi-coated UV filters available to fit my lenses ... I ONLY install them when the filter is actually needed... "

This responder is correct you know.

"UV filters are obsolete hardware when it comes to digital cameras.  They’re never needed."

[wq9nsc]

I would add to this discussion that the protectors for the back LCD screen are also useful in reducing the odds of damage.  Several years ago, I took a brand new 5DS-R on a geode hunting trip with my daughter and a small rock falling down from a cliff face cracked the LCD protector but the screen underneath was fine.

Everything smaller than my large telephoto primes always has a high quality clear glass piece in place.  They offer some additional impact protection but primarily they are there because when I am shooting soccer/football/lacrosse in the rain, I don't mind using the sleeve of my jacket or whatever is handy to wipe the glass protector 🙂

And to add support to Ernie's comments: as someone who spent a lot of his career in enterprise risk management, pretty much nothing offers absolute protection.  The value of a protective measure is decided in how much it reduces the probability and extent of loss from an event versus the cost of the protective measure(s) (both dollars and loss of convenience/functionality).  Quality clear glass protection is a strong winner for any lens of value.

Rodger