Anyone actually replaces front element of a lens?

C

Cuh5

Suspended / Banned
Messages
19
Edit My Images
Yes
In trying to decide whether to use protective filters, for the decision I want to know if the front element of a Nikkor lens can be replaced in a worst case scenario. Some people have said that the front element of a lens can be replaced, others have said it can't. Has anyone actually done it or had it done?

I use Nikkor lenses.
 
Couldn't comment on all of them...some certainly can, I have had the front element replaced on my 70-200... it got scratched, not whilst actually shooting and through a sequence of events that are unlikely to ever happen again [and I carried on using it for a few months with the 3/4 inch scratch until I could spare the time without it, no detrimental effect on images], but I still wouldn't use a filter, but that my choice not to cover an expensive piece of glass with a relatively cheap one that can deteriorate the images. Others will swear by them.

I also think there is a financial element to it [pun intended ;) ]... the cost of a new front element on some cheaper lenses, when labour is added in, is going to prove too costly compared to buying a new one.
 
I would never use one either, and my lens do suffer a fair bit of abuse, but so far over many years of use I've not have a single mark on the glass.

Used to use special effects filters on my old film camera but never for protection
 
I alway use filters be clear glass UV or whatever, Easier to replace a filter than a lens every time. It only takes a knock to scratch/break a glass.
 
Last edited:
I always wonder how much damage would be done to the front element if you broke a filter. Glass on glass with force would probably do more damage to the lens that whatever hit it.

Best protection in my opinion is a lens hood, it keeps the glass just a bit further out of harms reach.
 
Probably worth firing an e-mail of to Nikon's service department (sorry, not got an address) asking about the lenses you have (and plan on getting).

Personally, I only use protective filters when there's a load of cr@p in the air (water, mud, dust) since they can (and do) cause problems in some situations and can never add to the quality. I used to use daylight filters back in film days but WB adjustment has rendered them (and UV, although that's usually an internal filter rather than WB) obsolete.
 
The videographer in my work chipped the front element of his 24-70 ( hit by debris while filming MTB race). I think he said it would be around £200 to get it fixed, which given the price of the lens ( its a mkii) I thought was pretty reasonable.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
The videographer in my work chipped the front element of his 24-70 ( hit by debris while filming MTB race). I think he said it would be around £200 to get it fixed, which given the price of the lens ( its a mkii) I thought was pretty reasonable.
Click to expand...

Yep... it was 250ish on mine [can't remember exactly as I had a 24-70 service/recalibrated at same time], which on a £1800 lens when new [f2.8 VII], was worth it - other lenses, even if doable, wouldn't be.
 
Cuh5 said:
I want to know if the front element of a Nikkor lens can be replaced in a worst case scenario. Some people have said that the front element of a lens can be replaced, others have said it can't. Has anyone actually done it or had it done?
Click to expand...

I've had the front element of a Nikon 600mm f/4 replaced. If that's possible, anything is. The cost was pretty eye-watering, but that's what insurance is for.
 
StewartR said:
I've had the front element of a Nikon 600mm f/4 replaced. If that's possible, anything is. The cost was pretty eye-watering, but that's what insurance is for.
Click to expand...

Oh come on Steward that's just teasing only telling that much...if its privileged fair do's but if not come one spill :D
 
I THINK i'm correct in saying, of the expensive longer/faster primes, the 300mm F2.8 VR11is the only one you can't replace.
 
OldCarlos said:
I THINK i'm correct in saying, of the expensive longer/faster primes, the 300mm F2.8 VR11is the only one you can't replace.
Click to expand...

I think I'm correct in saying you aren't correct.

The 300mm f/2.8 VR II actually has an optically flat front element. It's specifically designed to be (relatively) easy and cheap to replace.
 
StewartR said:
I think I'm correct in saying you aren't correct.

The 300mm f/2.8 VR II actually has an optically flat front element. It's specifically designed to be (relatively) easy and cheap to replace.
Click to expand...

Oh, ha ha, :lol:
I remember reading something a while ago about it being different & had it in my head it wasn't designed to be able to be changed/replaced

Cheers. :thumbs:
 
I wanted to replace the front element of my Tokina 11-16mm to correct a fault, could I actually get hold of one though? Could I heck!

I also can't get the front element out of my 80-200 2.8 despite it looking really simple, it just doesn't want to come free!

So yeh if you're really worried about damage filter it, replacing elements is undoubtedly going to be hassle IMO.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
So yeh if you're really worried about damage filter it, replacing elements is undoubtedly going to be hassle IMO.
Click to expand...
It's actually pretty straightforward. Just send it off to the service centre (eg Nikon in Kingston, Canon in Elstree, or an authorised independent) and they'll do it. No hassle at all.
 
StewartR said:
I've had the front element of a Nikon 600mm f/4 replaced. If that's possible, anything is. The cost was pretty eye-watering, but that's what insurance is for.
Click to expand...
MWHCVT said:
Oh come on Steward that's just teasing only telling that much...if its privileged fair do's but if not come one spill :D
Click to expand...

Not privileged, but I can't remember and I don't want to go digging through the files.

However, I do have a 600mm lens currently in for repair because the customer dropped it. The estimate for that one is a little over £3,500.
 
The lat time I got involved in a similar debate I concluded that a set of 'top quality' filters for my lenses ran into hundreds of pounds.

That money could be much better spent, particularly given the excess on my insurance.

Of course I could go for cheaper filters, then start a thread about why my image quality has gone downhill. :bonk:
 
Something else worth considering is the chance of damage vs cost.

The purchase of a good quality filter is an up front cost, paid. Consider the cost of buying two filters when doing the filter vs front element debate. Why? Well if your lens does take a critical hit on the front element, and your filter is toast, you need to buy another. And that is assuming you don't get damage to your front element anyway from sharp bits of filter glass...

I take my lenses into some fairly harsh environments were at times chance of stuff happening is pretty high. I don't filter them, but I always use the hood. The chances of damage are significantly reduced with a hood.
 
I used to use "protection" filters but don't now except for my 100L macro which I take to wet boggy places and I've fallen over a few times :D and don't want to get mud on the front glass
 
I also did use filters for protection but not any more. I figured if I smashed the filter then it would probably damage the front element anyway with the broken glass.
However, I did once see a set of front element removal tools on eBay once - basically a set of rubber things that were slightly concave, you put against the element and twist it to loosen it all - bit like those rubber jam jar opener grippy things in a way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top