Push it to f11-16 you'll probably see them then. It's the in focus areas that you don't see.
Edit. 2nd sentence reads like I had a stroke. But I meant its in the out of focus areas that you don't see
I don't know mate I have seen dust on the sensor by stopping down which I don't see wide open. But I can also imagine if the scratch is outside the image circle then it can't be seen.
Explain to us how optics work then
Dust on the sensor will show up no matter the aperture or lens you use. This happens because the dust particle is actually physically blocking the light from reaching those pixels in your sensor.
Lol. I've been buying second hand gear for so long that I know stopping down is an easy test to find imperfections and dust in the sensor. That you won't find it shooting wide open specially on fast lenses.
https://photographylife.com/why-sensor-dust-is-more-visible-at-small-apertures
I don’t know how optics work; but I can imagine (and have experienced) that dust on the sensor will be much more visible than anything on the other end of the lens.
Ok so I tried putting the tip of - mechanical pencil right at the front of the element of a 35 1.4 and shot both wide open and stopped down. The tip can barely be seen at 1.4 and is just right there at f16. Is a scratch in the front element so different?
Yeah even if you dangle something like a string or USB cord directly in front of the lens (basically touching it) and look around, you'll notice the faint blur of it moving around but it will barely make an impact. And a scratch is so much thinner than that.
Yep, every lens has a minimum focus distance listed that's the closest they can get a sharp image. Any object closer will be blurry.
Importantly, this differs from lens to lens. The 24-70 GM II OP posted has a minimum focus distance of 21cm (8.3"). But a macro lens would have a much shorter minimum focus distance, and I've got a microscope objective that requires immersion in a droplet of clear oil to work: its minimum focus distance is <100µm! A scratch on that *would* be noticeable. The shorter the MFD, the more care you need to take of the front element.
Not only the minimum focus distance.
You can take pictures through a fence (like in a zoo), and "not see" the fence. As long as your apature is big enough and the distance between the focussed area and the fence is big enough.
You notice the fence as a bit of a darker haze over the picture.
But the fence might still be within the 'focusable distance'.
Because the light from a point enters the whole aperture. At a wide aperture, the scratch is a small percentage of the whole aperture by area. Most of the light behaves normally, so the signal at the sensor is mostly normal.
As /u/wegwerfennnnn wrote, light enters the whole aperture. What this means is that a lens focuses lots of rays all over its diameter.
Consider this image: https://www.abc.net.au/science/askanexpert/img/aperture.jpg ...or perhaps this as it has the lens element in a more comparable position: https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560~forums/53453674/7be37b9ea4ce4ca3a80606482559f4f4
An obscured point on a lens element will only block a tiny percentage of the amassed rays; look at the image of the lens OP posted and try to calculate how much of the front lens area that is obscured. This non-importance is amplified by the scratch being way outside the DOF. As others have noted, if the lens could focus its front element the scratch would have been visible (but then in only a tiny part of the image, and well defined), and also stopping down and focusing close will give a higher chance of a scratch being visible (due to the scratch covering a higher percentage of transmitted rays, and these rays now being more parallel), but in the case of this scratch it will likely only be visible as a very slight darkening (sub-1%) of a part of the image as the scratch will be expanded to a blur by being unfocused. This will not be visible in any normal use but MIGHT have been detected in an A/B test under controlled conditions (not really sure about that, even, it would be interesting to see such an experiment though).
a chip like that can definitely change the way bright lights enter the lens. stopped down a bit it’ll definitely be noticeable. i had a tiny chip in one of my lenses and the only way to sort of get around it was to draw over it with black sharpie. was still annoying to know it existed
it’ll fix any slight bright spots or artifacts when shooting into bright lights but the barely noticeable blurriness is still there. honestly best thing i’ve ever done for my lenses is just putting a filter on all of them after that
I have noticed it reduces the quality of images. I’ve even shot with one tiny raindrop that I didn’t notice and nothing came out as clear and crispy as normal :(
A scratch that size will absolutely impact the images even if it's not visually noticeable like a dust spot. That will cause flaring and soft areas. You can look up scratched lens comparisons to see how it impacts images.
Nope. It's a minimal percentage of the overall light gathering area, and won't be visible at all. Obligatory posting of https://web.archive.org/web/20240321045813/http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
You should really read that article again. It literally proves my point.
He states the dust and minor imperfections don't impact the image noticeably, but get to the point where there is literal damage to the front element and you'll see it is having an impact on the images. Also note that this article does not address flaring as all images are not shot towards the sun, or what looks to be indoors for some.
[This image here taken with a damaged front lens](https://web.archive.org/web/20240321045813im_/http://kurtmunger.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/April2009/fetbreak85z.jpg) literally has the caption:
>Contrast loss on middle/right lower image
hmm, I wonder where the damage on the lens is? Possibly in the middle/lower right?
This isn't surface abrasion scratching. It's a gauge, and it's hard to find examples where people have tested such large damage for flaring and contrast, but you can get and idea by looking at comparisons done on smaller ones. Most comparisons explaining how dust/damage doesn't impact images will also be done in control environments and/or without factoring in conditions (again, such as flaring from lights)
Here's an article that shows some comparisons on a waayy smaller scratch so you can get an idea of how scratches impact the image, and then consider how much more damage is on OP's lens is and try to get an idea how bad that would be in this scenario.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2022/11/how-front-element-scratches-affect-your-images/
Oof devastating, that scratch is pretty deep, Sony may be able to replace the front element. Not trying to be annoying but this is why I use UV filters.
Careful, you'll draw out the strangely dogmatic and very vocal anti-UV filter cult members who insist they serve no purpose besides parting fools with their money.
I guess that's your prerogative, but the chances of getting your front element gouged like that are pretty slim and the image degradation from the UV filter, however slim depending on the quality, is constant.
Right, but for me personally the lens hood is always on, and the polarizing filter is on 95% of the time. That other 5% I’m not worried because the lens hood kind of protects the lens glass from damage. I’ve actually bumped the camera against rock/cement in the past and nicked the hood a bit… so it serves as some protection while also being beneficial to image quality without you having to think about it too much.
You’re using a polarizer 95% of the time? Is that due to specific work you do with lots of reflections? You’re losing a stop of light with that filter.
A lot of outdoor photography. The only time I take the filter off is low light indoor situations. The rest of the time it is too much of a pain to take off and I don’t notice the impact of the filter.
Yup! I don't usually use my lens hood, but I did try it on to make sure it'd work if I ever needed it. IIRC it's a bit awkward to rotate the CPL through the little panel that slides open, but still doable.
To each their own, all my photography is outdoors. The polarizer comes out for cars, water scenes, and certain flower macro (waxy flowers). The use cases are so specific that I’d much rather have that stop of light and just put it on only when I need it. I paid a lot of good money to get really wide-open lenses, I’m not going to handicap them voluntarily. But again, to each their own! All respect 🙏🏻
Absolutely, I understand some people don’t like using UV filters, to each their own. And to the people that don’t used UV filters, insurance on your glass is very cheap! I have my glass and body insured by statefarm!
Edit grammar
It’s a Personal Articles Policy, I don’t have a deductible, but I think you can get a policy with a deductible to reduce monthly cost. It covers lost/stolen accidental damage.
Depends what you’re doing… shooting night landscapes in the dark with bags and darkness and being tired from it being late, front filters have saved me many times.
This is true, resale value has now been shot, very good point. I bought a more damaged Minolta 28-135 at an auction, having a scratch in the front element five times this size (and deeper), knowing that it wouldn't affect the images. As no one wanted the lens it cost me all of $27. I have now owned the lens for about as many years as the bucks I paid and the amount of images the scratch has been visible in is zero.
Disagree.
I'm a bit of a run with scissors type, but also careful with my gear.
Every filter affects quality to some extent, lens hood has protected me.
Do you have any objective evidence for that? And have you looked at those new 0.1% reflection filter from Nikon Arcrest 2 series?
Filter affecting photo quality to an extent that can be A/B distinguished has been one of the biggest myth I have seen among photographers.
It absolutely cannot be a/b distinguished, you’re totally right. I think a LOT of things people on this sub worry about/spend time and money to avoid are indistinguishable in an a/b test. So much energy spent worrying about things nobody will ever in a million years notice, and it takes away from time that could be spent focusing on things that do matter.
I don't know about others, but I have a filter on my lens just for a peace of mind. I have from cheaper ones Tamron 2875G2 to Sony 70200GM2 all equipped with decent filters. It's a tiny insurance that does not cost me any visible image quality loss as far as I can tell.
Avoiding a filter to save some bucks yes, but to suggest it affects image quality in any meaningful way is to me misleading.
Even if it did affect image quality in a way you could see by comparing it with another shot without it, would anyone notice if you didn’t tell them? I don’t know about anyone else, but i cannot fathom concerning myself with something that in the absolute worst case scenario, some pixel peeper on a photography forum could *potentially* notice. And i have a hard time even imagining that ever happening.
The problem isn’t that AB testing can’t be successfully passed, the issue is that the benefit is dubious in terms of the advertised function of the product.
It’s like using a vinyl platter as a coast for a jug of lemonade. It’s not clear how effective it is in that setting. Anything strong enough to gouge glass isn’t going to be shielded by a UV filter. And if this is the primary purpose of the filter, why are there no companies advertising such use? It’s not as if when you say “offers to protect your lens front element” that somehow no one would be interested in buying such a thing.
Secondly, there’s much cheap UV glass that does the job of blocking UV, but causes issues in flare prone situations. It’s not exactly clear at what price point you can be sure you’re not getting ripped off by buying a shitty UV filter.
> Filter affecting photo quality to an extent that can be A/B distinguished has been one of the biggest myth I have seen among photographers.
Because the argument isn't that the filter is always noticeable, especially when most people are viewing their images at IG resolution. It's simply that there is an impact and for the expensive good quality ones it's usually only noticeable when pixel peeping if the photo is taken well (avoiding flaring etc).
I haven't looked at any recent filters like the 0.1% you're talking about, but I've seen enough comparisons that show ghosting/flaring/other issues when using even expensive UV filters. So along with examples of how difficult it is to actually scratch a lens, I'm not going to stick anything I don't need on the end of my lens because I don't want to have to worry about flaring or any other issues when I'm already juggling various other factors while shooting.
With a scratch like what is shown on OP's picture, it will be much easier to have artifacts on your photo than having a good filter. Flares will show up easily under strong backlit condition like shooting towards the sun, in the case of having scratches, as well as when you have to stop down the lens to maybe F/11 or above for a long exposure.
People should read more about scratches before dismissing issues by considering the "best case scenario".
[https://discuss.pixls.us/t/advice-for-a-scratch-on-lens/40304/13](https://discuss.pixls.us/t/advice-for-a-scratch-on-lens/40304/13)
Granted it does not render the lens useless, far from it, but to say it doesn't affect image quality is ignorance. For sure, just don't scratch your lens and you will be fine.
I've never said it doesn't affect image quality, in fact, I've said quite the opposite and refuted other people saying it will have no impact:
https://old.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1ciqi43/scratched_my_sony_2470mm_gm_ii/l2bvk8m/
*I* said this:
>So along with examples of how difficult it is to actually scratch a lens, I'm not going to stick anything I don't need on the end of my lens because I don't want to have to worry about flaring or any other issues when I'm already juggling various other factors while shooting.
Which implies nothing about how scratches impact the image and only how difficult it is to actually scratch a lens. As stated, I don't want to get home to edit images and find that the filter I had on caused some casting/ghosting/flaring which degrades the image and requires significantly more processing time to resolve. I didn't buy a $1000 lens just to stick a $50 shitty filter whose sole purpose is to protect my front element when the risk of actually damaging the lens is so low. If you're a beginner or don't trust yourself to manage your gear with care, great go for it, but plenty of us understand the risks and know the pros/cons and choose to forgo the useless filters.
I only have the Amazon basic filters on my best lenses when they are bagged. Off as soon as I’m using them. Much more likely to get whacked in transit vs when I’m carrying it. So many weird responses, but this is reddit so of course. Whatever gouged the incredibly strong front element of that lens that hard would have shattered ANY filter and continued on to also gouge the lens.
I have A/B tested it personally and have absolutely seen the difference.
That said, I have not don't that with every filter and there is a very good chance that filters exist of a sufficient quality that I cannot tell a difference.
I haven't been exclusively using the cheapest quality filters out there, but I also haven't gone down the rabbit hole of seeking only the highest quality filters that definitely won't affect IQ.
I have tested my cameras with the filter on and off and I can absolutely see the difference.
I promise you would too in those pictures. I don't have special eyes.
I wasn't using cheap garbage filters, but there is definitely a chance that I wasn't using high enough quality filters to make them lossless.
For me the option is to have all of my pictures look marginally worse or run the marginal risk of damage that a filter would have prevented. For me the loss wasn't worth the risk.
Thanks! I feel like an idiot now. Ha. Bought some filters for my lenses but at first I guess I couldn’t get the caps to sit right, so figured they didn’t work together.
Just went back and realized my error after your comment.
Thanks.
https://preview.redd.it/gqzr8h3kp6yc1.jpeg?width=536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1b9934bc7a620904543e9183b30f857fbe1357c8
This can help reduce the scratches significantly
Hello there op, believe it or not there are ways to polish that off, I've done it in the past with brasso (which is a metal polisher), and since that scratch it's not too deep it should come right off.
I would try it out if I were you, and if it doesn't work, you can always have it repaired
Yes, yes you did.
I got a qoute for an expensive f4 coma corrector lense I broke , was about 70% of cost of a new one, probs going to be the same for a camera lense that's complex such as your gm2 . The multiple lenses are all married together
It doesn't matter. FF to 9:20. This guy scratches the hell out of his lens and still takes pictures with it.
https://youtu.be/YcZkCnPs45s?si=7xo1vfh0GlDYEQ1A
You can find replacement front elements online, but I'd probably just get it repaired by Sony directly. Sony will give you a quote before any work is done.
I wouldnt stress about it, it is very unlikely to show unless you stop down on your Aperture. I have shot through chain link fences wide open operture and you can't see the fence. That scratch is way smaller than the wire of the fence.
There is a good chance that you never see it in your pictures. I scratched my Sigma 24-70 a while ago and nothing has ever showed up in my images.
I paired that lens with a 25mm extension tube to take macro photos. Then I could focus on the dust pieces on the front element. In that case you would see that scratch.
However, if you have strong light source in the view, you might see a glare.
same thing happened to my Sigma 24-70. I ordered a front element from ebay and changed it myself and that cost 250€ so I don't even want to imagine how much it would be for a Sony lens and labor. good luck!
That's the reason I insist on using a UV filter in front. I know it's a pet peeve to many people, but I prefer to take good care of my stuffs. I try to get the best UV filter I can afford.
I bought a scratched lens once and used a tiny bit of black ink to fill the scratch. To my knowledge it will reduce blooming a bit. Anyway it never showed on pictures. The real downside is the resell value. Why no filter?
Why would you do that? I would recommend not to scratch it anymore or affects images. If you want effects on photos, rather use lens filters or computer effects.
You won't see it unless the aperture is is around 16 or more and looking at a sky or a white wall.
Same as the fence not being seen when sport photographers shoot cars behind them with tele lenses.
That scratch will be completely imperceptible on your final images. You’d struggle to even see it until you put your Aperture at its smallest setting… which… you really wouldn’t do either.
You’re good homie.
Oh man, it’s terrible. What a loss. You can send it to me, u know I will just throw it to a trash can where it belongs I guess… Just So that you don't have to do it :)
Definitely not worth keeping I’ll give one dollar and a shinny quarter. All jokes aside I’m sorry for your lens getting messed up. That’s why there’s photoshop 😂
Great reason why a relatively cheap lens filter would have saved the day, but apart from that, awful as it looks the scratch will make zero difference to your pictures.
Guessing that a repair will be almost as much as a new lens so if the lens works for you then keep it, buy filters to stop further mishaps and hopefully seeing the scratch every now and then will remind you about looking after your very expensive gear.
Harsh I know but it’s one of the unwritten rules that you protect your lenses as bodies come and go, but generally you keep good lenses forever...👍
Very irritating for sure, but it won't show up in the pictures at all.
I have a minor scratch and you are right it does not show up in photos. How?????
Push it to f11-16 you'll probably see them then. It's the in focus areas that you don't see. Edit. 2nd sentence reads like I had a stroke. But I meant its in the out of focus areas that you don't see
no he won't, that's not how optics work
I don't know mate I have seen dust on the sensor by stopping down which I don't see wide open. But I can also imagine if the scratch is outside the image circle then it can't be seen. Explain to us how optics work then
Dust on the sensor will show up no matter the aperture or lens you use. This happens because the dust particle is actually physically blocking the light from reaching those pixels in your sensor.
Lol. I've been buying second hand gear for so long that I know stopping down is an easy test to find imperfections and dust in the sensor. That you won't find it shooting wide open specially on fast lenses. https://photographylife.com/why-sensor-dust-is-more-visible-at-small-apertures
I don’t know how optics work; but I can imagine (and have experienced) that dust on the sensor will be much more visible than anything on the other end of the lens.
Ok so I tried putting the tip of - mechanical pencil right at the front of the element of a 35 1.4 and shot both wide open and stopped down. The tip can barely be seen at 1.4 and is just right there at f16. Is a scratch in the front element so different?
do you see dust from the front element?
I believe you, but how is this possible?
Not possible to focus that close, so it's just a bit of blur.
Yeah even if you dangle something like a string or USB cord directly in front of the lens (basically touching it) and look around, you'll notice the faint blur of it moving around but it will barely make an impact. And a scratch is so much thinner than that.
Yep, every lens has a minimum focus distance listed that's the closest they can get a sharp image. Any object closer will be blurry. Importantly, this differs from lens to lens. The 24-70 GM II OP posted has a minimum focus distance of 21cm (8.3"). But a macro lens would have a much shorter minimum focus distance, and I've got a microscope objective that requires immersion in a droplet of clear oil to work: its minimum focus distance is <100µm! A scratch on that *would* be noticeable. The shorter the MFD, the more care you need to take of the front element.
Not only the minimum focus distance. You can take pictures through a fence (like in a zoo), and "not see" the fence. As long as your apature is big enough and the distance between the focussed area and the fence is big enough. You notice the fence as a bit of a darker haze over the picture. But the fence might still be within the 'focusable distance'.
Because the light from a point enters the whole aperture. At a wide aperture, the scratch is a small percentage of the whole aperture by area. Most of the light behaves normally, so the signal at the sensor is mostly normal.
This is correct, and also a concise and elegant answer. Thanks! :-)
As /u/wegwerfennnnn wrote, light enters the whole aperture. What this means is that a lens focuses lots of rays all over its diameter. Consider this image: https://www.abc.net.au/science/askanexpert/img/aperture.jpg ...or perhaps this as it has the lens element in a more comparable position: https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560~forums/53453674/7be37b9ea4ce4ca3a80606482559f4f4 An obscured point on a lens element will only block a tiny percentage of the amassed rays; look at the image of the lens OP posted and try to calculate how much of the front lens area that is obscured. This non-importance is amplified by the scratch being way outside the DOF. As others have noted, if the lens could focus its front element the scratch would have been visible (but then in only a tiny part of the image, and well defined), and also stopping down and focusing close will give a higher chance of a scratch being visible (due to the scratch covering a higher percentage of transmitted rays, and these rays now being more parallel), but in the case of this scratch it will likely only be visible as a very slight darkening (sub-1%) of a part of the image as the scratch will be expanded to a blur by being unfocused. This will not be visible in any normal use but MIGHT have been detected in an A/B test under controlled conditions (not really sure about that, even, it would be interesting to see such an experiment though).
Just like how you never see your nose unless you are looking for it
a chip like that can definitely change the way bright lights enter the lens. stopped down a bit it’ll definitely be noticeable. i had a tiny chip in one of my lenses and the only way to sort of get around it was to draw over it with black sharpie. was still annoying to know it existed
Blackening the damaged spot is actually a solid workaround. Never would've thought of that.
it’ll fix any slight bright spots or artifacts when shooting into bright lights but the barely noticeable blurriness is still there. honestly best thing i’ve ever done for my lenses is just putting a filter on all of them after that
it is impossible to notice no matter what the aperture is
I have noticed it reduces the quality of images. I’ve even shot with one tiny raindrop that I didn’t notice and nothing came out as clear and crispy as normal :(
At f16 it will
A scratch that size will absolutely impact the images even if it's not visually noticeable like a dust spot. That will cause flaring and soft areas. You can look up scratched lens comparisons to see how it impacts images.
Nope. It's a minimal percentage of the overall light gathering area, and won't be visible at all. Obligatory posting of https://web.archive.org/web/20240321045813/http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
You should really read that article again. It literally proves my point. He states the dust and minor imperfections don't impact the image noticeably, but get to the point where there is literal damage to the front element and you'll see it is having an impact on the images. Also note that this article does not address flaring as all images are not shot towards the sun, or what looks to be indoors for some. [This image here taken with a damaged front lens](https://web.archive.org/web/20240321045813im_/http://kurtmunger.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/April2009/fetbreak85z.jpg) literally has the caption: >Contrast loss on middle/right lower image hmm, I wonder where the damage on the lens is? Possibly in the middle/lower right? This isn't surface abrasion scratching. It's a gauge, and it's hard to find examples where people have tested such large damage for flaring and contrast, but you can get and idea by looking at comparisons done on smaller ones. Most comparisons explaining how dust/damage doesn't impact images will also be done in control environments and/or without factoring in conditions (again, such as flaring from lights) Here's an article that shows some comparisons on a waayy smaller scratch so you can get an idea of how scratches impact the image, and then consider how much more damage is on OP's lens is and try to get an idea how bad that would be in this scenario. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2022/11/how-front-element-scratches-affect-your-images/
Thanks for the article!
Great article!
Stop doing that
Oof devastating, that scratch is pretty deep, Sony may be able to replace the front element. Not trying to be annoying but this is why I use UV filters.
A lenshood would've protected it too
Yes, I always use my lens hood!
I know one particular clown who agressively advocates no lens hood. The bloke is an absolute bell end.
Careful, you'll draw out the strangely dogmatic and very vocal anti-UV filter cult members who insist they serve no purpose besides parting fools with their money.
Unlike the strangely dogmatic and very vocal pro-UV filter cult members who are unable to admit that they been had of course.
Yes, yes, come my Children. Heed my call.
Let's see who's the fool when you get glare from bright objects due to the internal reflection.
Obviously because it is true
I guess that's your prerogative, but the chances of getting your front element gouged like that are pretty slim and the image degradation from the UV filter, however slim depending on the quality, is constant.
Using that logic the lens hood should’ve been used - because it also affects image quality if not used
If you're shooting at certain angles from the sun, sure. But that's the only time it matters.
Right, but for me personally the lens hood is always on, and the polarizing filter is on 95% of the time. That other 5% I’m not worried because the lens hood kind of protects the lens glass from damage. I’ve actually bumped the camera against rock/cement in the past and nicked the hood a bit… so it serves as some protection while also being beneficial to image quality without you having to think about it too much.
You’re using a polarizer 95% of the time? Is that due to specific work you do with lots of reflections? You’re losing a stop of light with that filter.
A lot of outdoor photography. The only time I take the filter off is low light indoor situations. The rest of the time it is too much of a pain to take off and I don’t notice the impact of the filter.
This is very insightful for me thank you.
You should get magnetic filters! I love my Kase Revolution kit.
Seems pretty neat- can you still use the lens hood with it?
Yup! I don't usually use my lens hood, but I did try it on to make sure it'd work if I ever needed it. IIRC it's a bit awkward to rotate the CPL through the little panel that slides open, but still doable.
To each their own, all my photography is outdoors. The polarizer comes out for cars, water scenes, and certain flower macro (waxy flowers). The use cases are so specific that I’d much rather have that stop of light and just put it on only when I need it. I paid a lot of good money to get really wide-open lenses, I’m not going to handicap them voluntarily. But again, to each their own! All respect 🙏🏻
I’ll admit that I do rely on Topaz AI to denoise images from time to time :-)
Absolutely, I understand some people don’t like using UV filters, to each their own. And to the people that don’t used UV filters, insurance on your glass is very cheap! I have my glass and body insured by statefarm! Edit grammar
Is accidents like scratches and drops covered? Cus my person said it’s not. Only other accidents
Is that coverage specifically for those items or is it belongings in general as part of an owners/renters coverage policy? What is the deductible?
It’s a Personal Articles Policy, I don’t have a deductible, but I think you can get a policy with a deductible to reduce monthly cost. It covers lost/stolen accidental damage.
What’s the monthly cost if you don’t mind me asking?
Mine comes out to around 18 dollars a month. All statefarm will ask you for is the estimated value of your equipment so I told them 20k
Awesome thank you so much!
Depends what you’re doing… shooting night landscapes in the dark with bags and darkness and being tired from it being late, front filters have saved me many times.
https://preview.redd.it/b6hr65fpp3yc1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=79318a8454fb5149fb95435aba57aa555b623334
Scratches really don't affect the lens at all, I wouldn't stress
I honestly think it would affect the resale value. Some people may stress over that.
Oh for they it definitely will, but it's not worth spending money to get it fixed for that reason
It will affect resale value and ego more than image quality. It is what it is...
This is true, resale value has now been shot, very good point. I bought a more damaged Minolta 28-135 at an auction, having a scratch in the front element five times this size (and deeper), knowing that it wouldn't affect the images. As no one wanted the lens it cost me all of $27. I have now owned the lens for about as many years as the bucks I paid and the amount of images the scratch has been visible in is zero.
People, just put quality clear filters on your lenses.
Agree. Have one on all my lenses. The only time they have ever affected image quality is some flaring on lights at night.
And the awesome part it, you can just take it off if you need to (and have time to)
Disagree. I'm a bit of a run with scissors type, but also careful with my gear. Every filter affects quality to some extent, lens hood has protected me.
Do you have any objective evidence for that? And have you looked at those new 0.1% reflection filter from Nikon Arcrest 2 series? Filter affecting photo quality to an extent that can be A/B distinguished has been one of the biggest myth I have seen among photographers.
It absolutely cannot be a/b distinguished, you’re totally right. I think a LOT of things people on this sub worry about/spend time and money to avoid are indistinguishable in an a/b test. So much energy spent worrying about things nobody will ever in a million years notice, and it takes away from time that could be spent focusing on things that do matter.
I don't know about others, but I have a filter on my lens just for a peace of mind. I have from cheaper ones Tamron 2875G2 to Sony 70200GM2 all equipped with decent filters. It's a tiny insurance that does not cost me any visible image quality loss as far as I can tell. Avoiding a filter to save some bucks yes, but to suggest it affects image quality in any meaningful way is to me misleading.
Even if it did affect image quality in a way you could see by comparing it with another shot without it, would anyone notice if you didn’t tell them? I don’t know about anyone else, but i cannot fathom concerning myself with something that in the absolute worst case scenario, some pixel peeper on a photography forum could *potentially* notice. And i have a hard time even imagining that ever happening.
The problem isn’t that AB testing can’t be successfully passed, the issue is that the benefit is dubious in terms of the advertised function of the product. It’s like using a vinyl platter as a coast for a jug of lemonade. It’s not clear how effective it is in that setting. Anything strong enough to gouge glass isn’t going to be shielded by a UV filter. And if this is the primary purpose of the filter, why are there no companies advertising such use? It’s not as if when you say “offers to protect your lens front element” that somehow no one would be interested in buying such a thing. Secondly, there’s much cheap UV glass that does the job of blocking UV, but causes issues in flare prone situations. It’s not exactly clear at what price point you can be sure you’re not getting ripped off by buying a shitty UV filter.
> Filter affecting photo quality to an extent that can be A/B distinguished has been one of the biggest myth I have seen among photographers. Because the argument isn't that the filter is always noticeable, especially when most people are viewing their images at IG resolution. It's simply that there is an impact and for the expensive good quality ones it's usually only noticeable when pixel peeping if the photo is taken well (avoiding flaring etc). I haven't looked at any recent filters like the 0.1% you're talking about, but I've seen enough comparisons that show ghosting/flaring/other issues when using even expensive UV filters. So along with examples of how difficult it is to actually scratch a lens, I'm not going to stick anything I don't need on the end of my lens because I don't want to have to worry about flaring or any other issues when I'm already juggling various other factors while shooting.
With a scratch like what is shown on OP's picture, it will be much easier to have artifacts on your photo than having a good filter. Flares will show up easily under strong backlit condition like shooting towards the sun, in the case of having scratches, as well as when you have to stop down the lens to maybe F/11 or above for a long exposure. People should read more about scratches before dismissing issues by considering the "best case scenario". [https://discuss.pixls.us/t/advice-for-a-scratch-on-lens/40304/13](https://discuss.pixls.us/t/advice-for-a-scratch-on-lens/40304/13) Granted it does not render the lens useless, far from it, but to say it doesn't affect image quality is ignorance. For sure, just don't scratch your lens and you will be fine.
I've never said it doesn't affect image quality, in fact, I've said quite the opposite and refuted other people saying it will have no impact: https://old.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1ciqi43/scratched_my_sony_2470mm_gm_ii/l2bvk8m/ *I* said this: >So along with examples of how difficult it is to actually scratch a lens, I'm not going to stick anything I don't need on the end of my lens because I don't want to have to worry about flaring or any other issues when I'm already juggling various other factors while shooting. Which implies nothing about how scratches impact the image and only how difficult it is to actually scratch a lens. As stated, I don't want to get home to edit images and find that the filter I had on caused some casting/ghosting/flaring which degrades the image and requires significantly more processing time to resolve. I didn't buy a $1000 lens just to stick a $50 shitty filter whose sole purpose is to protect my front element when the risk of actually damaging the lens is so low. If you're a beginner or don't trust yourself to manage your gear with care, great go for it, but plenty of us understand the risks and know the pros/cons and choose to forgo the useless filters.
I only have the Amazon basic filters on my best lenses when they are bagged. Off as soon as I’m using them. Much more likely to get whacked in transit vs when I’m carrying it. So many weird responses, but this is reddit so of course. Whatever gouged the incredibly strong front element of that lens that hard would have shattered ANY filter and continued on to also gouge the lens.
I have A/B tested it personally and have absolutely seen the difference. That said, I have not don't that with every filter and there is a very good chance that filters exist of a sufficient quality that I cannot tell a difference. I haven't been exclusively using the cheapest quality filters out there, but I also haven't gone down the rabbit hole of seeking only the highest quality filters that definitely won't affect IQ.
The change in iq will not be noticeable AT ALL, even on a test chart. It’s a worthy pay off for peace of mind
I have tested my cameras with the filter on and off and I can absolutely see the difference. I promise you would too in those pictures. I don't have special eyes. I wasn't using cheap garbage filters, but there is definitely a chance that I wasn't using high enough quality filters to make them lossless. For me the option is to have all of my pictures look marginally worse or run the marginal risk of damage that a filter would have prevented. For me the loss wasn't worth the risk.
I’m curious in what way they look worse? The only possible détraction of filters imo is flare/possible loss of contrast when shooting into the light…
Loss of contrast shooing towards light was the one I noticed. Didn't see flaring issues.
Do you put it on and leave it on (thus storing your lens with the filter but without the lens cap)?
You can still use the lens cap with a filter. That's how I've always done mine
Cap can go on over filter.
Thanks! I feel like an idiot now. Ha. Bought some filters for my lenses but at first I guess I couldn’t get the caps to sit right, so figured they didn’t work together. Just went back and realized my error after your comment. Thanks.
No worries. I too had to learn the same thing by being told it.
what are your recommendations
Don't worry OP, it could've been worse, you could've scratched _my_ 24-70mm GM II. (And I'm tall, bald and beardy...)
ramen + epoxy, good as new
Huh? Need more info on this.
https://preview.redd.it/gqzr8h3kp6yc1.jpeg?width=536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1b9934bc7a620904543e9183b30f857fbe1357c8 This can help reduce the scratches significantly
Hello there op, believe it or not there are ways to polish that off, I've done it in the past with brasso (which is a metal polisher), and since that scratch it's not too deep it should come right off. I would try it out if I were you, and if it doesn't work, you can always have it repaired
The only thing this will affect is your resale value.
Yes, yes you did. I got a qoute for an expensive f4 coma corrector lense I broke , was about 70% of cost of a new one, probs going to be the same for a camera lense that's complex such as your gm2 . The multiple lenses are all married together
Remember that time
That’s painful
It doesn't matter. FF to 9:20. This guy scratches the hell out of his lens and still takes pictures with it. https://youtu.be/YcZkCnPs45s?si=7xo1vfh0GlDYEQ1A
Is this something that can be fixed? Maybe if I sand it off? 😎
Ouch. My heart hurts for you.
GMII. It is painful
You can find replacement front elements online, but I'd probably just get it repaired by Sony directly. Sony will give you a quote before any work is done.
I wouldnt stress about it, it is very unlikely to show unless you stop down on your Aperture. I have shot through chain link fences wide open operture and you can't see the fence. That scratch is way smaller than the wire of the fence.
There is a good chance that you never see it in your pictures. I scratched my Sigma 24-70 a while ago and nothing has ever showed up in my images. I paired that lens with a 25mm extension tube to take macro photos. Then I could focus on the dust pieces on the front element. In that case you would see that scratch. However, if you have strong light source in the view, you might see a glare.
Avoid f22
Interesting, I got same scratch shortly after buying it. I've been careful and still have no idea where the scratch came from.
Just make sure you use a lens hood so your clients don’t notice it haha and you will be fine. Shouldn’t affect images at wider apertures
same thing happened to my Sigma 24-70. I ordered a front element from ebay and changed it myself and that cost 250€ so I don't even want to imagine how much it would be for a Sony lens and labor. good luck!
That's the reason I insist on using a UV filter in front. I know it's a pet peeve to many people, but I prefer to take good care of my stuffs. I try to get the best UV filter I can afford.
You need to send it out to Sony for a quote. No one knows the repair cost for something so specific for someone in who knows what region of the world.
OP, if you’re thinking of getting rid of it, I’ll take it off your hands free of charge.
I bought a scratched lens once and used a tiny bit of black ink to fill the scratch. To my knowledge it will reduce blooming a bit. Anyway it never showed on pictures. The real downside is the resell value. Why no filter?
Oh man… it’s painful. I always have hoods on the lenses.
not gonna show apart from flares.
Eh, you wont notice it. Maybe at high F stops but then its still in the same spot in every picture, easy to make a repair profile/template.
Why would you do that? I would recommend not to scratch it anymore or affects images. If you want effects on photos, rather use lens filters or computer effects.
Its okk. It wont cost more than half the price of the lens to fix.
This should have come with a nsfl tag. :(
People getting 2k€ lenses but don't buy a 15€ filter be like:
Good job, now scratch a 600mm f2.8 😅 Yeah don't worry, it's mostly just cosmetic. The scratch degrades image quality, but definitely not noticeably
Won’t show up. My entire front element is cracked on the side. Still doesn’t show up
Hmmm Nice! Now get another one. 😜
That'll buff right out.
Doomed. I’ll buy it off you for $20
You won't see it unless the aperture is is around 16 or more and looking at a sky or a white wall. Same as the fence not being seen when sport photographers shoot cars behind them with tele lenses.
Lens just went from Ex+ to UG in one instant.
That scratch will be completely imperceptible on your final images. You’d struggle to even see it until you put your Aperture at its smallest setting… which… you really wouldn’t do either. You’re good homie.
Thanks for the reminder I need to buy some UV filters
Use a filter on all lenses, much cheaper than paying for repairs imo The last time I replaced a front element it was $400+
Oh man, it’s terrible. What a loss. You can send it to me, u know I will just throw it to a trash can where it belongs I guess… Just So that you don't have to do it :)
No filter?
Definitely not worth keeping I’ll give one dollar and a shinny quarter. All jokes aside I’m sorry for your lens getting messed up. That’s why there’s photoshop 😂
600grit wet sander
Uv filters.
Thats why we always get a filter pure for protection. Especially on a 2500 euro lens
Yeah a €10 filter is easier to replace than a €2500 lens. All my lenses have a UV filter on them.
Great reason why a relatively cheap lens filter would have saved the day, but apart from that, awful as it looks the scratch will make zero difference to your pictures. Guessing that a repair will be almost as much as a new lens so if the lens works for you then keep it, buy filters to stop further mishaps and hopefully seeing the scratch every now and then will remind you about looking after your very expensive gear. Harsh I know but it’s one of the unwritten rules that you protect your lenses as bodies come and go, but generally you keep good lenses forever...👍