Should I send this Canon 50/1.8 back

cambolt

cambolt

Green Spotted Nose Turtle
Local time
3:00 AM
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
312
Location
Near Sydney, Australia
View My Gallery
I just bought this Canon 50mm 1.8 - the one in chrome and black. I got a great deal on it so quite happy with that, however there is some haze in the lens. It's nothing ridiculous, but I'm not sure if I should send it back or not. I'm too bothered about Summicron quality, I'm not a lens geek, but I don't want my pics ruined by haze.
Here are some photos: the haze is not easily seen at most angles when held to the light, but when a torch is shone through it looks pretty bad (as does any other lens with a torch shone through)

The first shot: lens just held to the ceiling light:

DSC_2890 by d40monster, on Flickr

And at a different angle:

DSC_2894 by d40monster, on Flickr

With a torch shone through:


DSC_2886 by d40monster, on Flickr


As I said, I'm not looking for an award winner, just want it to be better than my Jupiter 8.

Thanks
 
I don't know what you paid for the lens, but if you thnk you got a good deal I would have it CLA'd and then decide whether to keep it after you've shot w/ it for awhile. This lens is reportedly prone to haze b/c of the lubricants Canon used at the time (my source here is Brian Sweeney). However, they can be cleaned up fairly easily, and a clean 50/1.8 is quite sharp with very smooth bokeh. I have a chrome and black like yours, and had it CLA'd by Sherry Krauter a couple of years ago. It's an outstanding performer. I also know that Essex in New Jersey has done a fine job on these lenses, with a quick turnaround and reasonable price. These are in the US; I don't know what options you have in OZ, but I'd suggest looking into a CLA before sending the lens back.
 
There aren't really any well know camera repairers here, so a CLA is only an option if I send it away. I paid $135 for the lens. Is the haze really a problem if I need to hold it to a bright light then look at an angle to see it?
 
These really are simple to clean assuming the gunk isn't between cemented elements. Any repair place that does lens work should be able to handle it easily. No special tools required to clean most of the elements other than small screwdrivers, appropriate solvents and clothes. Anyone who works on lenses should be able to deal with it; no need for a specialist.

It may have some internal coating loss but that may not be noticeable. I have a Canon 50mm which came in similar condition and cleaned up nicely. Also have a 100mm 3.5 which cleaned up but lost some coating due to the dried lubricant. No effect on images that I've seen so far.
 
cambolt said:
There aren't really any well know camera repairers here, so a CLA is only an option if I send it away. I paid $135 for the lens. Is the haze really a problem if I need to hold it to a bright light then look at an angle to see it?
Click to expand...

That level of haze (and even a little damage to the internal coating) will probably not show up in the photos. Perhaps you could do better for $135 or you can probably get a lens with the same optical condition for less than $135 (there is one with haze being auctioned on the bay right now at $27), but it's ultimately a question of what your time is worth.
 
The only way you can really answer your question is to shoot some film w/ this lens and look at the results. I recommend shooting a roll of color film. If the results look soft, maybe a little blurry, w/ the colors leaning toward the pastel in rendition, then the haze is affecting your photos. If not, maybe you can live w/ the results, although I'd still recommend getting the lens cleaned.

From a clean black and chrome Canon 50/1.8:


The Designer by bingley0522, on Flickr
 
I had a canon 1.8 with haze worse than this.
It is very likely that it is easy to reach it and clean it.
The problem is that part of the coating will also be lost.
So you should wonder if you are ready to pay what you paid for a lens that has significant coating loss on an internal element (and this is before counting in the tech expenses if you don't want to do it yourself).
 
I just shot a roll of Superia 400 with the Canon. Took a photo of each scene with both the Canon and J8, same settings. I'll have to make a 1.5 hour train journey to Sydney tomorrow to get it processed in colour though 🙁
 
So I have the results back from the lab. The photos look fine to me, apart from my M2's shutter leaks, which are slightly inconvenient.
I am not experienced in this area, so I thought I might post the shots to get some opinions.
All settings were kept the same (except for the last one - I think I stuffed up the exposure), and the control lens was Jupiter-8 50/2
I'd appreciate any input whatsoever. Details above each photo.

#1: Canon: 1/250 f/11

File0077 by d40monster, on Flickr

#2 Ditto with J8

File0078 by d40monster, on Flickr

#3 J8 1/250 f/8

File0079 by d40monster, on Flickr

#4 Ditto with canon

File0080 by d40monster, on Flickr

#5 Canon 1/125 f/2

File0081 by d40monster, on Flickr

#6 Ditto with J8

File0082 by d40monster, on Flickr

#7 J8 1/250 f/8 - shot into sun, hence the light leak

File0083 by d40monster, on Flickr

#8 Ditto with canon

File0084 by d40monster, on Flickr

#9 Canon 1/250 f/4, another light leak

File0085 by d40monster, on Flickr

#10 Ditto with J8

File0086 by d40monster, on Flickr

#11 J8 1/250 f/11 - another light leak

File0087 by d40monster, on Flickr

#12 Ditto with canon

File0088 by d40monster, on Flickr

#13 Canon 1/250 f/11

File0089 by d40monster, on Flickr

#14 Ditto J8

File0090 by d40monster, on Flickr
 
They look fine to me, I'd be happy with those results. The colours are slightly cooler than the J8, but that's a feature, not an issue.

Looks sharper than the J8, and bokeh is less harsh. I just put my Canon f1.8 back on my camera for a roll or two. It is a little cleaner but not much, and how has a little wobble thanks to my home CLA. Yours looks better than my example at f2.

Personally, I'd keep shooting and stop shining torches through the back 🙂
Any minor differences in contrast or colour rendering can be easily tweaked in post processing.

Objectively, there are instructions around this forum on how to strip and clean these, if you're careful you can make a good job of it. If you're not, you could wreck the lens.

good luck! keep shooting and post more.

Alex
 
I'm not a fan of shining torches through lenses, I usually discourage it. Then I found myself doing it with this lens 😀 .
I think I might keep the lens, maybe a cla further down the track.

Still, I'd love some more opinions.
 
I agree w/ Alex. Your Canon lens looks fine. Getting it cleaned might give the colors a little more pop, but I think you could happily put that off and enjoy the lens in its present condition.
 
the shots look great to me. if you liked the results with the lens in the actual shape, consider it would get even better after a CLA, shoot with it for a while and if you feel it should be cleaned then go for it.

this lens is a true gem, i really love mine. delivers some gorgeous colour tones, it's sharp, and has low contrast, which I like for post processing. in fact I took a few comparision shots using the canon 1.8, my dr cron (which has 30% haze according to the local leica tech) and a 1.5 nokton. from the raw pics, nokton had a lot of contrast, dr cron just a tad less and 1.8 canon A LOT less contrasty. the canon is also more prone to flare than the the other 2 lenses i was comparing it to. still, it was the one i've kept.
 
Problem is, if you don't clean the haze, over time it will etch the coating.

Looks like haze on the element surfaces next to the aperture. There are two ways to disassemble CANON LTM 50s: from the back (Johan wrote a long article on the 50/1.2 which is very similar, mechanically http://portretteur.nl/index.php?opt...12-rangefinder-lens&catid=37:lenses&Itemid=58), or from the front. For your case from the front should be enough and it's much easier, all you need is a small screw driver:

Just in front of the aperture ring is a tiny screw. Unscrew this, and you will be able to unscrew the entire front half of the lens block. You clean the two element surfaces behind and before the aperture, screw the lens back together, and you are done.
 
Thanks all for your replies. I only shoot B&W (the roll above was the first colour film I ever had developed in colour) so it shouldn't matter as much anyway. I think I'll keep the lens, and have it CLAd in maybe a year or so. I'm going nowhere near that thing with a screwdriver or similar implement. I think I need to concentrate on getting funds for a CLA for the M2 instead, although the light leaks have never ruined one of my better photos. It only seems to happen when shooting into light or with bright light going into the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Voigtlander COLOR-SKOPAR 35mm F2.5 - Hazy or Not?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Archiver
A
Mark240590
Repaired serenar 50/1.8
Replies
6
Views
710
Mark240590
Mark240590
M
Worth polishing flat element in Serenar 35 3.5 ?
Replies
5
Views
494
Phil_F_NM
Phil_F_NM
B
50mm f1.4 & f1.5 Max Aperture tests - Summarit, Summilux v2, Nikkor f1.4, Summilux ASPH
Replies
13
Views
1K
brusby
B
C
Who to send my Canon P’s to for shutter overhaul
Replies
6
Views
533
Dralowid
Dralowid
Back
Top Bottom