Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Scratch on front element of EF17-40mm L  (Read 6305 times)
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2005, 02:51:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The insurance paid to have it "fixed" with a glue like filler. Couldn't see the scratch anymore.

Please don't. You want to block light from the defect being seen by the sensor/film. The surface shape from the glue is certainly not the same as the surface grind of the lens and will just dump out of focus light onto the sensor/film.

bob
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2005, 07:56:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Will the scratch affect my image quality? Should I have the front element replaced and would it be covered under warranty repairs?
In order:

Yes. How much depends on lighting and the magnitude of the scratch.

Probably yes.

Probably not. Warranties typically do not cover self-inflicted damage.
Logged

Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2005, 12:36:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Any scratches I've encountered are only a problem if light falls directly on the front element.  Using a lens shade and/or shading the front of the lens with your hand should prevent it if the shooting circumstances allow.
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2005, 07:11:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do not judge my character based on a thread I have posted here. I gave an option that most would explore as lenses cost a lot of money.

Also, it would go back to Canon for a new front lens and be sold as new again.

I has the same reaction to your post.

If I scratched the lens, it is not the responsibility of the camera store nor the manufacture. It is mine. It is fundamentally dishonest to pass it on to anyone else whether they could better afford it or not.

Whoever handles the damages will sink cost into handeling the repair and loss of value of the lens.

And no I dont believe "most" would handle it this way. Certainly not most of the folks I communicate on or off line.

Where are your ethics man!!
Logged
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2005, 09:31:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How would ARD feel if he bought a lens and discovered it was scratvhed, and the dealer and Canon refused to take it back. Ripped off I would guess. Why should the retailer and Canon feel any different.

I've never had a dealer refuse to take back a defective product. I even had Canon and Nikon both cover product outside of the warranty period.

If this happened, as you describe your scenario, I could understand feeling ripped off. I just don't think it happens very often, if at all.

Thats not what we're talking about.

Bob
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2005, 11:42:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Ard, your response to my post affirms your lack of character.
Logged

Dean Erger
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2005, 12:39:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The sneaky way would be to go and buy another lens, then take your scratched one back in it's place, complain to the store that they sold you a scratched lens and ask for a refund.

or is that dishonest  :angry:
Yes, it would be sneaky.  Yes, it would be dishonest. Yes, it would show a lack of personal responsibility.  If you wrote this in jest, it isn't funny.  This type of comment stinks of immaturity.  I seriously hope that you wouldn't do anything like this.

Before taking up photography full-time, I worked in retail as a corporate buyer, assistant manager, and a sales person for a 22 store chain, which had one of the best return policies in the nation.  We took back everything from dog beds that were torn to shreds from a dog biting, chewing, and roughing it up, to tents that worked just fine but came back moldy because the customer failed to dry the tent before storage.  Many times, we would be able to get refunded from the manufacture or distributor, but often that item would find its way into the dumpster.  Sometimes, I couldn't believe some of the clothing that was returned, shoes worn for a year, clothing ripped by thorns, dresses worn out for a night.  Jerseys stinking of bar.  Hiking boots obviously worn until they couldn't be worn anymore.  Several kayaks and canoes that were beaten up and returned because they got scratches, baseball bats that got dented, skis that got a scratch from skiing over rocks, inline skates that needed new wheels, arrows that bent, fishing rods that broke from abuse, don't even get me started on the bikes, and some of the exercise equipment, torn coats, dirty sleeping bags, and I could fill up this forum with more and more examples.

Sometimes, it was a honest defect, but most of the time, it was abuse and the customer was just trying to get a deal or a new item for something they had obviously done.  And you know what, after seven years of seeing, at least, two to three dishonest returns everyday, you get to know what is a honest return and what isn't.  All in all at a $25 million a year store in a $300 million chain, the dishonest returns put a very little dent in overall profit margins.  And you want to know why they do?

Because, we ran the stores shooting for a specific margin goal for each store, and rewarded greatly the managers and assistant managers when they hit this goal.  Guess who paid for the dishonest returns?  The customers.  We passed the cost onto them.  The manufactors do the same (How do I know?  I've worked with 100s of them.)  So, if you think it doesn't cost the customer in the long run, listen to experience, it does.

It's ideas like these that really show the state of personal responsibility or lack there of.

Bryan
Logged

LesGirrior
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2005, 02:20:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Cool, good to know, thanks Bob.

Any opinions about the necessity of a "protective" UV filter in regards to lens scratch visibility?  For/Against?
Logged
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2005, 02:43:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Cool, good to know, thanks Bob.

Any opinions about the necessity of a "protective" UV filter in regards to lens scratch visibility? For/Against?

I do not.

I agree they can help protect the front lens element, but then I paid beau-coup bucks for the best lenses I can buy. I just can't see adding an additional glass element with two air/glass surfaces to the optical formula.

I know coatings have gotten better, but is it hard to grind glass "perfectly" plano. I don't know but it used to be. I would be OK with a filter on a tele, but wary on a superwide.

I have to admit, I've been real lucky and never damaged a lens front element, but I'm anal about keeping the caps and a hard shade on when I'm not pulling the trigger.

bob
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad