Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L with cracked filter stuck on lense. Any ideas to remove?

NomadMark wrote:

If you didn't have a filter mounted, that damage would have been done to the front end of the lens. I'd sooner have issue taking a broken filter off, than never being able to get one back on, or worse!!

A lens hood would have absorbed the impact, the lens would not have been damaged.  I have firsthand experience with this.

Mark.

Both is best. The old lens hoods on the 24-70 version 1 was great for protection.

New hoods are not much more then shock dampers.

Depending on the hardness of your front lens, and what you are doing, UV glass is best is most cases.

My macro lens is the best example. Their are all kinds of scratches on the front of the UV filter, and these would have been on the lens element.

My lens hit a rock face one time while hiking, (it was not very hard, the camera was swing as I was hiking next to a rock wall) the UV glass did not shatter, but had a BAD scratch on it..

brightcolours wrote:

NomadMark wrote:

If you didn't have a filter mounted, that damage would have been done to the front end of the lens. I'd sooner have issue taking a broken filter off, than never being able to get one back on, or worse!!

Nonsense. He had no lens hood on. With hood the lens would be fine.

People get to all kinds of odd ideas in order to keep on using thin slabs of glass to "protect" lenses.

Agree, but even the best UV add a little reflect.  I use a $130UV filter on my 24-70 2.8II and the only time I can see UV is in dark churches with lots of candles. Their are an extra reflection.

bruxi wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

NomadMark wrote:

If you didn't have a filter mounted, that damage would have been done to the front end of the lens. I'd sooner have issue taking a broken filter off, than never being able to get one back on, or worse!!

Nonsense. He had no lens hood on. With hood the lens would be fine.

People get to all kinds of odd ideas in order to keep on using thin slabs of glass to "protect" lenses.

I've probably saved 2-3 front elements using filters (especially out in the field) and done every kind of IQ test and there is no difference.  I could post photos from every one of my lens tests and you could never pick the shots with the filter on.  It's all in your head.

ME TOO. and the UV was scratched BAD.

We can debate this ALL DAY, but it comes down to this. In certain shooting situation, UV is better then no UV. For drops, lens hoods are better. I use BOTH.

Some lenses are harder coatings on the front.

My old digital camera screen had tons of scratches on it. My 5DIII has NONE. Beating coatings.

For my hiking where the camera is on my neck, no lens caps (So I can catch a bear or deer, really fast) I do not use a lens cap, so the UV saves me all the time.

bruxi wrote:

Austin_Luker wrote:

I don't drop lenses, but have had many front elements poked going through the woods and saved by a filter, so I guess to each his own.

bruxi wrote:

I could post photos from every one of my lens tests and you could never pick the shots with the filter on.  It's all in your head.

Here's a quick test with a good quality filter.  Notice the green flare and reduction in contrast.

Which filters are those?

tim73 wrote:

bruxi wrote:

I could post photos from every one of my lens tests and you could never pick the shots with the filter on.  It's all in your head.

Here's a quick test with a good quality filter.  Notice the green flare and reduction in contrast.

MASTERPPA wrote:

Both is best. The old lens hoods on the 24-70 version 1 was great for protection.

New hoods are not much more then shock dampers.

Depending on the hardness of your front lens, and what you are doing, UV glass is best is most cases.

My macro lens is the best example. Their are all kinds of scratches on the front of the UV filter, and these would have been on the lens element.

You have all kinds of "examples", don't you? So yeah, for someone with your odd track record of not protecting your lenses with sensible lens hood and lens cap and love to just beat your camera through bushes and rocks, and who oddly enough does have lenses with "soft coatings", sure. You should put on thin slabs of flat glass on all your lenses all the time.

And sure, you will never get extra lens flares introduced and will never get ghost lights. Sure.

Funny thing is that the only filter I ever use may be a pol. filter.

Now for some TRUE stories:

I go hiking through the forest often. I bike/walk through forest, urban areas. I have dropped a certain lens twice. One time it tumbled a few stairs down till it hit a concrete floor, the lens hood broke its fall (it split on the side), the lens was fine. I dropped it on concrete side walk tiles from about a meter when switching lenses, its lens cap got a tiny mark and a tiny chip of white paint on the zoom ring is missing. Lens is fine. No filter to tray and pry off on both occasions, no broken thin slab of glass wanting to put scratches on the front element either. Since I do not protect stuff with... thin slabs of glass.

I have about 14 lenses. None of them I "protect" with UV filters. None of them have scratches on front or back elements, none of them have ever broken a front element.

Of course, there are situations thinkable where you CAN use a UV filter for protection where it actually makes sense. When sand is flying around. Or when it creates weather sealing during conditions where that is a good idea.

My lens hit a rock face one time while hiking, (it was not very hard, the camera was swing as I was hiking next to a rock wall) the UV glass did not shatter, but had a BAD scratch on it..

brightcolours wrote:

NomadMark wrote:

If you didn't have a filter mounted, that damage would have been done to the front end of the lens. I'd sooner have issue taking a broken filter off, than never being able to get one back on, or worse!!

Nonsense. He had no lens hood on. With hood the lens would be fine.

People get to all kinds of odd ideas in order to keep on using thin slabs of glass to "protect" lenses.

MASTERPPA wrote:

Which filters are those?

Heliopan UV on a EF 28-135mm lens (the only filter-lens combination I still posses).  This was just a quick test with a desk-lamp as a light source. Notice that the un-filtered shot has no ghost reflections, which shows that my lighting was far from extreme.  With a stronger narrower light source - such as the sun - the reflections would be even more objectionable.

I stopped using UV filters about 15 years ago, reasoning that good-quality filters would cost more than any lens repairs I was likely to require.  Moreover the filter is more fragile than the front-element on the lens.  Should the filter take a heavy blow it would be likely to send shards of glass onto the lens's front element, turning a point-impact into a deluge of scratches.

Since then none of my lenses have received any damage to the glass.  I'm careful, but I do a lot of hiking and travelling and I don't like carrying bulky padded camera bags - so my gear does take knocks.  If I do scratch the front surface of a lens it probably won't affect the image.  It won't make a pattern or shape on the focal plane, and most of the scattered light will be directed away from the image sensor.  So I don't worry about it.

Try to put it to a fridge for some time, if the thread is plastic it will do.