charjohncarter
Veteran
I had my Canon Serenar 35mm f3.5 (I think I have the f stop correct) cleaned by Sherry Krauter. this is the difference. Admittedly the first image (my daughter fixing Christmas dinner was shot into the sun, but it was the best of the lens images prior to cleaning) isn't what you would call an inspired image, but the second with the sun at my back after cleaning by Sherry is really fun for me. Here they are. It was very worth the $114.
Attachments
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
Sorry, this KB thing still has me confused, but I think you can see the difference. Boss Man just give us a pixel size!!!!!!
Last edited:
photodog
Well-known
Try using 400x600 pixels.
gb hill
Veteran
John what did the lens look like to the eye before you had it cleaned? Was it hazy?
I see lenses for sale from time to time that says slight haze, but the condition of the lens won't affect picture quality. Just courious?
Greg
I see lenses for sale from time to time that says slight haze, but the condition of the lens won't affect picture quality. Just courious?
Greg
charjohncarter
Veteran
gb hill, the lens really didn't look that bad when I used a flash light through it. But the person I bought it from said it had haze and needed a cleaning. Maybe because it is a 35mm lens that makes it more susceptible to haze showing. I ran the test roll and you saw the difference. The images exposed outside with the sun to my back were even worse; no contrast. Into the sun, horrible. I would say that if it has haze, and you can see it easily with a flashlight and with a little difficulty just looking though the lens, you will have some degree of degradation. The wide angle supposition is just my guess, no data.
Last edited: