Ballpark price to replace front element on lens

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Bruce Chang, Jan 17, 2005.

  1. Bruce Chang

    Bruce Chang Guest

    I found a Canon 70-200 2.8 for cheap but the reason it's going for so cheap
    is because it's not in the best of shape. The thing that bothers me most is
    the front element on the lens has some noticable scratches on it.

    My idea is to buy it for cheap and get the front element replaced but not
    knowing how much taht front element costs and how much it might cost me to
    get it replaced worries me. Anyone have an idea off hand how much something
    like that might cost?

    Thanks in advance.

    Bruce Chang, Jan 17, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bruce Chang

    RSD99 Guest

    Scratches on the front element sometimes do not make any difference in the
    lens' overall performance. The usual symptom is reduced contrast. One trick
    is to paint the scratches with a black marker pen ... to fill them up so
    that they do not refract the light ... and go take pictures.

    However ...I'd guess that if it is *not* a Canon "L" series lens ... it
    might cost more than the cost of a new lens to replace the front element.

    IMHO: The bottom line is take your pick. I'd save my money ... for a
    genuine Canon "L" series lens without the problem(s).
    RSD99, Jan 17, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce Chang

    chrlz Guest

    RSD99 is absolutely right - it takes a fair bit of damage to cause a
    problem, and then it is usually only a slight loss of contrast and
    extra flare when shooting into the light. But of course scratches on a
    lens also give you a fair indication of how the lens was treated.
    (Also, if you are a `pro`, it doesn't look good to your clients!) I
    would be far more concerned about wear or damage to moving parts,
    whether it had been dropped and `bent`, etc. I honestly don't know if
    Canon or anyone else sells front elements, but generally nowadays,
    spare parts are priced to reflect how much the manufacturer wants you
    to repair their they would much prefer you tossed it and
    bought a new one, so they charge like a wounded bull!
    chrlz, Jan 18, 2005
    uraniumcommittee, Jan 18, 2005
  5. Bruce Chang

    DJ Guest

    DJ, Jan 18, 2005
  6. Bruce Chang

    grol Guest

    Ah excellent. My killfile is working. I now only see replies to uraniums posts.
    grol, Jan 18, 2005
  7. Bruce Chang

    me Guest

    The cost may be prohibitive to fix the lens. If you could try it out first
    then go for it. If not then keep looking, you can do better.
    Good Luck,
    me, Jan 18, 2005
  8. Bruce Chang

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Yup. Now if folks would only stop responding to the trolls, we can get back
    to photography! :)
    Mike Kohary, Jan 19, 2005
  9. Bruce Chang

    Hunt Guest

    Yes, it is surprising how little effect some noticeable flaws will cause to
    the photograph. I have a very old Sigma 16mm fisheye, that has had the front
    two elements separate. The glue and the air bubbles are very visible, but,
    other than some contrast loss, the lens works fine. Since it is used for "
    artsy" shots to begin with, it fills its niche, regardless of apparent flaw to
    the backside of the front element.

    Hunt, Jan 19, 2005
  10. Bruce Chang

    chrlz Guest

    For the record, but not to be seen in any way as supporting a certain
    It's one of the rarest, and therefore stupidest, acronyms going..
    here's a hint -
    There Is A Sucker....

    (He tries sooooooo hard to be clever..)
    chrlz, Jan 19, 2005
  11. Bruce Chang

    me Guest

    <awkward noises deleted>

    How do I own you chrlz? Let me count the ways!

    wrote in "WARNING! GANG",
    what's your definition of 'own'?
    Why don't you post examples of your work?
    Why don't you ever answer questions?
    Is there ANY point to your life whatsoever, except light, brainless,
    entertainment (and all of us appreciate a bit of that every now and

    Thank you chrlz for making my point for me and yes I agree, I do own you.
    Have a Nice Day!
    me, Jan 19, 2005
  12. Bruce Chang

    chrlz Guest

    Given that even a CURSORY clance will show that my reply was not aimed
    at you (unless of course you are uraniumcommit...), you have just shown
    yourself, AGAIN to be a dickhead.

    So if you want to claim ownership, who gives a toss. You're just
    peeing upwind again.

    Given you have no supporters whatsoever, and you spend a VERY
    significant amount of your time (much more than I do, as an individual)
    responding to all the little teases thrown your way from the MANY
    people that find you annoying and stupid.. again, what is your
    definition of `own`?

    Methinks you have it ass-backwards, and don't even arse-know-it.

    chrlz, Jan 20, 2005
  13. Bruce Chang

    chrlz Guest

    And DO feel free to explain WHY you thought I was talking to you...???

    (Another question that will be too hard for you? Or just too
    chrlz, Jan 20, 2005
  14. Bruce Chang

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Better pull that hook out of your mouth, it's making you drool. ;)
    Mike Kohary, Jan 20, 2005
  15. Bruce Chang

    chrlz Guest

    My attitude is that all boring responses makes for a boring group - as
    long as he doesn't spam too much, I find it just a little light

    I would point out in my defense that my information posts versus
    troll-response ratio is still quite high..

    chrlz, Jan 20, 2005
  16. Bruce Chang

    Guest Guest

    I had one replaced on a Canon 70-200 2.8L for £110
    Guest, Jan 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.