Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
Or you could just click on the little British Flag in the top right corner 
thegman
Veteran
My first 'cron had a pretty ropey front element, beyond "cleaning marks" I'd say, but the results were great unless in strong sun, when it flared quite a lot. That flare effect would probably look great in certain circumstances though.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I once had a Nikkor 25f4 (rf mount lens) with some rather heavy front element scratches and some haze. It did give an interesting look in strong sun - to put it mildly!
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
This is with a Hologon 15mm f8. It had a small accident and two chips were knocked out of the rear element. The damage was quite visible in the negative/print - and fixing it would be virtually impossible. Lens was donated to a friend instead. Occasionally I could find a subject where I could put the "blob" in a solid black or dark grey area and it became less visible. Once the 15f4.5 Heliar came out - no problem anymore. You could focus it, it had aperture settings and considerably less fall-off than the Hologon!
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
"Do you shoot with scratches, cleaning marks or haze?"
nope. i shoot with lens, camera and film.
nope. i shoot with lens, camera and film.
Ben Z
Veteran
I have one lens with a 1/4" hairline cleaning mark aka scratch in the front coating. It's a 28 Elmarit v.4, and the mark is just off the center. The former owner believed three things he undoubtedly read on the internet: that filters degrade the quality of one's photography, that a lens shade is the best means of protecting the front element, and that Leica's coatings are much harder than anyone else's and virtually impossible to scratch unless you're in a sandstorm or clean the lens with Brillo. I'm happy he felt that way, because when he put it up for auction I was the only bidder and got the lens for his reserve price, which was half the going rate for the same lens with pristine glass.
The only other lens I had with front coating marks was a 180mm f/3.4 APO-Telyt-R, and the marks were my fault. Because I read, on the internet of course, that that lens performs poorly with any kind of filter. Although I cleaned it as infrequently as possible, and always with a clean microfiber cloth and after using a rocket blower bulb and applying a drop of ROR, a tiny speck of grit must have clung to the glass and got carried around and around when I wiped it. It was not a pretty sight, and neither was the $950 bill from Leica to replace the front element (60% of the lens' resale value at the time).
All my lenses wear multi-coated UV filters. If the next owner wants to go bare, he has my blessing. But at least he'll have paid me top dollar for mint glass.
The only other lens I had with front coating marks was a 180mm f/3.4 APO-Telyt-R, and the marks were my fault. Because I read, on the internet of course, that that lens performs poorly with any kind of filter. Although I cleaned it as infrequently as possible, and always with a clean microfiber cloth and after using a rocket blower bulb and applying a drop of ROR, a tiny speck of grit must have clung to the glass and got carried around and around when I wiped it. It was not a pretty sight, and neither was the $950 bill from Leica to replace the front element (60% of the lens' resale value at the time).
All my lenses wear multi-coated UV filters. If the next owner wants to go bare, he has my blessing. But at least he'll have paid me top dollar for mint glass.
redisburning
Well-known
I prefer clean glass.
Or a heavy discount. Either is good.
Or a heavy discount. Either is good.
Austerby
Well-known
I have a collapsable Summicron which came with my M3 and which was in a poor condition. I got it cleaned and actually rather regretted it as it did give a certain glow. I later acquired a cheap old Summar with similar haze and treasure it for the images it produces cannot readily be achieved using "better" lenses:
Summar foliage by Vidwatts, on Flickr
Summar foliage by Vidwatts, on Flickr
Monochrom
Well-known
I never use or even buy lenses with mentioned flaws...all those mean extra flare and exploding highlights....shooting goes very bad...I regret not being able to shoot with my foca trois etoiles and teh oplar 50mm f2.8 wich has ehavy clenaing marks wch renders the lens unusable...once i had this crom v1 thta also was a nightmare when used in any kind of direct light....although it was a gem when used in shades...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Used to have a Nikkor 35-70 2.8D with a deep scratch on the front element, albeit off-center. Half an inch length.
Shot it on a D300: never saw any sign of it.
So, yes
EDIT: effective polishing is with Cerium Oxide 1.5-1.8 micron or COFERPOL UG
Shot it on a D300: never saw any sign of it.
So, yes
EDIT: effective polishing is with Cerium Oxide 1.5-1.8 micron or COFERPOL UG
leicapixie
Well-known
Do you shoot with scratches,cleaning marks
Do you shoot with scratches,cleaning marks
The rear element problem varies with focal length! Normal and shorter lenths are heavily influenced by damage, haze, etc.
A friend had the Hasselblad Sonnar 250mm f5.6 with at least 1/3 of the back element missing! He painted the exposed element's side with black paint. The results were sharp, no haze, no problems!
A 50mm f1.4 Nikkor i purchased was very hazy/dusty. Sent in for CLA and informed that the some glued-elements were separating. Not worth repair. I use it with a softar filter for super soft images, as long as i keep to large apertures.
i never clean my 50mm Collapsible-Summicron. Never.
Do you shoot with scratches,cleaning marks
The rear element problem varies with focal length! Normal and shorter lenths are heavily influenced by damage, haze, etc.
A friend had the Hasselblad Sonnar 250mm f5.6 with at least 1/3 of the back element missing! He painted the exposed element's side with black paint. The results were sharp, no haze, no problems!
A 50mm f1.4 Nikkor i purchased was very hazy/dusty. Sent in for CLA and informed that the some glued-elements were separating. Not worth repair. I use it with a softar filter for super soft images, as long as i keep to large apertures.
i never clean my 50mm Collapsible-Summicron. Never.
Dylan Hope
Established
My first 35cron has a few very light cleaning marks that I wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't done the Rockwell lens test. My second one is totally spotless and the only issues were getting the focus tab replaced and getting the aperture ring back into place (Once I get it back from lacklands).
I thought that my 16-35 had a small gauge on the front element from when the UV filter smashed in, and instead of trying to remove the glass first I went right for trying to remove the filter for the longest time and there was no lack of sharpness. Of course, when I examined it before selling it, I actually couldn't find it. Maybe Canon glass heals or maybe it was a hair, I don't know, but I gave the seller the option to return it within a reasonable amount of time if they weren't happy.
My 55-200 from canon has been absolutely abused - dropped, filter smashed and fine glass all over the front element, some removed, other bits probably rubbed into it, knocked, the barrel is cracked, and the lens is only slightly softer than when I got it. Maybe on a better lens the difference would be noticeable, but...
The kit lens that came with my canon has element separation or something by the front element, and I haven't seen much difference (Actually, when compared to the 16-35, the L lens was only slightly sharper).
I seem to keep my primes in better shape than my zooms, don't I?
I thought that my 16-35 had a small gauge on the front element from when the UV filter smashed in, and instead of trying to remove the glass first I went right for trying to remove the filter for the longest time and there was no lack of sharpness. Of course, when I examined it before selling it, I actually couldn't find it. Maybe Canon glass heals or maybe it was a hair, I don't know, but I gave the seller the option to return it within a reasonable amount of time if they weren't happy.
My 55-200 from canon has been absolutely abused - dropped, filter smashed and fine glass all over the front element, some removed, other bits probably rubbed into it, knocked, the barrel is cracked, and the lens is only slightly softer than when I got it. Maybe on a better lens the difference would be noticeable, but...
The kit lens that came with my canon has element separation or something by the front element, and I haven't seen much difference (Actually, when compared to the 16-35, the L lens was only slightly sharper).
I seem to keep my primes in better shape than my zooms, don't I?
barnwulf
Well-known
I buy as mint as possible. My Summar isn't mint but it's very nice and clean with very minimal cleaning marks and no haze. I would rate it at 9 1/2 out of ten. - Jim
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
A recent "scratched and fogged" shot. One of my SPs is heavily "challenged" as it the 36f2.5 on it. It has a bit of a "glow" in strong sun and reduced contrast.
This was shot a couple of weeks ago in Paris, outside Emporio Armani's Cafe. Bentley Continental - classiest long distance tourer of all time.SP. Nikkor 35f2.5, Arista Premium 400 in Pyrocat HD.
Last edited:
robklurfield
eclipse
If my lenses don't have scratches, my negatives certainly do. And, dust, hair, etc. The lenses are the least of my problems. It's everything after those photons hit the film plane that my real trouble begins (well, that plus focus, exposure, etc.). Life would be boring with challenges. The day that a lens is the principal culprit of badly done image is the day I need to give this up.
robklurfield
eclipse
Tom, I like the flare and I also like the flair of that Bentley, surely, as you say, one of the ultimate grand tourers.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
try to appreciate my Jupiter 3 collection as much as possible and have therefore tried and succeeded until now to get lenses in mint or very near mint condition. My other collection of summicron 35mm lenses have all mint glass. I am one of those that are still happy to pay a premium for mint glass.
raid
Dad Photographer
Each lens may be slightly different. Some lenses are in mint condition while others have cleaning marks.
l.mar
Well-known
This was taken with a 1930 Elmar (from my Grandfather) --- covered with scratches.
Alfasud
Old Toys
Good comments - Good sense
Good comments - Good sense
I think this thread is a fine example of the value of RFF. Because of the many comments on this thread, I will no longer brood over the 'imagined' flaws in and on my collection of Zeiss, Voigtlander, Konica, Nikkor and Olympus lenses. I'll shoot, fiddle with Aperture, delete the duds and enjoy the rest.
Good comments - Good sense
I think this thread is a fine example of the value of RFF. Because of the many comments on this thread, I will no longer brood over the 'imagined' flaws in and on my collection of Zeiss, Voigtlander, Konica, Nikkor and Olympus lenses. I'll shoot, fiddle with Aperture, delete the duds and enjoy the rest.