Was wondering if anyone had any advice on where/how to get ones lenses cleaned? My kit lens (currently my only one) has a hair in it. I'm in Toronto Canada for any locals who know, of if anyone knows a multinational company to recommend that would be great too. Thanks!
TheCustomTs wrote: Was wondering if anyone had any advice on where/how to get ones lenses cleaned? My kit lens (currently my only one) has a hair in it. I'm in Toronto Canada for any locals who know, of if anyone knows a multinational company to recommend that would be great too. Thanks!
How big is the hair? Eyelash? Inch or two? In any event, it's unlikely to show up on your images, so don't worry about it.
If you insist, Canon and Nikon both have service centers in Mississauga. What make is your lens?
Azimuth Arts
Posts: 1,133
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Marin Photography wrote: If it doesn't show in your photos, leave it there...
If it is not moving at all then this is the correct advice. But if it shifts around inside the lens then you never know when it will make its way into a spot where it does show, and you may not notice it on the view screen. Do you want to wait until it ruins a shoot to have this happen?
If it is not moving at all then this is the correct advice. But if it shifts around inside the lens then you never know when it will make its way into a spot where it does show, and you may not notice it on the view screen. Do you want to wait until it ruins a shoot to have this happen?
Umm, it doesn't matter where in the lens a hair is, it isn't ever going to show up in a picture.
RKD Photographic
Posts: 2,989
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
WR Photographics wrote:
Umm, it doesn't matter where in the lens a hair is, it isn't ever going to show up in a picture.
Correct.
A basic understanding of how lenses work will reassure you of this.
Just leave it if it isn't moving - I have a 135mm DC-Nikkor with a noticable bit of crud - I think it's a paint-fleck from one of the inner barrels - sat towards the rear of the lens-groups... Pissed me off when i noticed it, but as the lens was bought 2nd hand, all the dealer would do was offer my money back if I returned the lens - after testing I decided to keep it - there's no noticable effect on the images and it remains my favourite (and sharpest) lens...
The only possible worry is if it migrates into the diaphragm and causes a jam - but it'll only do that if it's adjacent to it.
TheCustomTs wrote: Was wondering if anyone had any advice on where/how to get ones lenses cleaned? My kit lens (currently my only one) has a hair in it.
Buying a new kit lens similar to the one you use may be cheaper than having the current lens cleaned.
Viator-Defessus Photos wrote: If you shoot Canon, it might be time to buy a 50mm f/1.8.
It is Canon, I can't even recall what it is as it's definitely not my fav. I am planning to buy a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 (not sure if the cost is really worth it to go with the 1.4) as I want to be able to create a more cropped/close up portrait look.
Dragos Codita
Posts: 76
Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
The EF 50mm f/1.4 has more robust construction.
EF 50mm f/1.8 is all plastic except lenses itself, more fragile, but to be onest i am shooting below f/1.8 in very-very few ocasions. It will get sharper as you close it down, but the value for the money is exceptional.
A lens which is nearby as value is the newer 40mm f/2.8 STM.
TheCustomTs wrote: I want to be able to create a more cropped/close up portrait look.
Can you link to an example? 50mm on a 1.6 crop body is still only 80mm. If you are close enough to full frame a face at 80mm it will be noticeably distorted. You might want a much longer lens like the 70-200mm f4 as a minimum if you shoot tight headshots.
If you are talking about a 3/4 crop 40mm is probably adequate to avoid obvious distortion of features.
get a 85 1.8 very good and i have the 50mm 1.4 you will never shoot at 1.4 but overall sharp lens and you wont be dissipointed .. i picked up 40mm 2.8 very good lens and got rid of plastic fantastic ..
Paul Best wrote: get a 85 1.8 very good and i have the 50mm 1.4 you will never shoot at 1.4 but overall sharp lens and you wont be dissipointed .. i picked up 40mm 2.8 very good lens and got rid of plastic fantastic ..
My problem with the f/1.4 is the reputation for repeated autofocus motor failures with that lens. If I had the money, I'd love to get the 50mm f/1.2.
Viator-Defessus Photos wrote: My problem with the f/1.4 is the reputation for repeated autofocus motor failures with that lens. If I had the money, I'd love to get the 50mm f/1.2.
Get a shade, put it on the lens, leave it on the lens permanently.
The failures are due to cheap gearing and seemingly minor bumps to the extended lens cause the failure.
If you prefer not to have a shade on the lens you can reduce the length of the shade to about 1/3 of original and still protect the lens. I did this by grinding mine on a section of concrete then neatening it up a bit with an emery board.
That said I highly prefer the 85 to the 50. But, I shoot full frame.
Doesn't matter if you buy prime lenses- dirt and other matter still gets in. I know because it has happen to me on two primes that were brand new and I took care not to take them to dusty environments. Its better to leave the hair there like mentioned. Taking it somewhere to get it out might cost what the lens is worth on that kit.
Andrew Somers
Posts: 1,018
Los Angeles, California, US
Canon kit lenses are mainly useful for keeping dirt out of the camera body. They are not something that would make sense to spend $100+ on a internal cleaning.
Buy a *decent* lens and see what you've been missing....
Andrew Somers wrote: Canon kit lenses are mainly useful for keeping dirt out of the camera body. They are not something that would make sense to spend $100+ on a internal cleaning.
Buy a *decent* lens and see what you've been missing....
Do you have some examples of what would be compatible with a canon?
| 
| 
| edu