Forest_rain
Well-known
I recently purchased this LTM 100mm 3.5. It's quite compact, exterior is in good condition. Front and rear elements look pristine. However looking into harsh light there are tiny cleaning marks somewhere in the interior. Will this affect image quality? Seller offers free returns - should I return it or negotiate lower price? I paid $90 + shipping for it.
This is probably the worst possibly picture I could have taken of the scratches. Second picture doesn't look as bad. They don't look quite as bad in person but when you look into harsh light, they are there.
Haven't had great luck with rangefinder lenses yet
All my SLR lenses always looked pristine, even when bought for fairly cheap.
This is probably the worst possibly picture I could have taken of the scratches. Second picture doesn't look as bad. They don't look quite as bad in person but when you look into harsh light, they are there.
Haven't had great luck with rangefinder lenses yet
All my SLR lenses always looked pristine, even when bought for fairly cheap.
Scrambler
Well-known
The Canon 100/3.5 is a bad lens to buy if you want to use it. I have heard of intact glass on them, but that's unusual or maybe even exceptional. Nearly all are marked by damage to the internal coatings.
Mine is worse than yours. I use it as a kaleidoscope (with some mirrors and glitter). As a lens its not really good for anything else.
The test is: does it do what you want?
As a portrait lens, haze isn't necessarily a problem. Do you get a good enough picture? You could be saving on vaseline, or a Thambar
Mine is worse than yours. I use it as a kaleidoscope (with some mirrors and glitter). As a lens its not really good for anything else.
The test is: does it do what you want?
As a portrait lens, haze isn't necessarily a problem. Do you get a good enough picture? You could be saving on vaseline, or a Thambar
peterm1
Veteran
Scratches generally make remarkably little difference except in limited circumstances (strong backlighting etc.) Give it a try and if it produces nice images do not worry about it. My guess is that it will perform surprisingly well in most instances with an occasional reminder that there are some scratches internally in the way of flare or lowered contrast. Mine has some quite bad looking internal haze which I have been unable to clean. It still shoots well.
newst
Well-known
My experience has been that the Canon 3.5/100 is an over-achiever that punches way above its weight. I doubt that those minor interior marks will have any noticeable impact on your images. Take it out and shoot it, give it a decent test.
These images were taken with a 3.5/100 on an A7II.
2019-10-28 Stage A7II Canon 100-35 DSC04238 8x10 by newst54, on Flickr
2019-10-28 Stage A7II Canon 100-35 DSC04225 8x10 by newst54, on Flickr
These images were taken with a 3.5/100 on an A7II.
2019-10-28 Stage A7II Canon 100-35 DSC04238 8x10 by newst54, on Flickr2019-10-28 Stage A7II Canon 100-35 DSC04225 8x10 by newst54, on Flickr02Pilot
Malcontent
Put a hood on it (34mm threads; I use a 34-37 step-up and a 37mm hood - no vignetting) and use it. It will be fine.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Don't worry about the marks. Just shoot.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
Peter Jennings
Well-known
I had one of these with internal haze worse than the scratches on yours. It still made fine pictures. I, however, always saw the lens as flawed despite its good performance. I later found a clean copy and sold the hazy one. So, it may not affect the images very much, but it may affect your perception of the lens.
David Murphy
Veteran
My camera tech told me internal scratches on a lens are an indication that a ham-handed amateur in the past disassembled it in an attempt to clean fungus on internal glass surfaces, but glass and coating damage was the result. He sees this often with old lenses.
Forest_rain
Well-known
Yes, I've got a micro 4/3 adapter on the way and going to test it on a digital camera. Mail is slow these days though. I've also got a 135mm 3.5 on the way as well, that was very cheap despite having pristine glass on it.
Pictures and comparison will be the ultimate test, but I'm starting to accumulate too much camera clutter, so a clearing out might be order soon anyway. I'm starting to get frustrated rather than excited about having more equipment, and losing track of stuff.
Maybe specializing and mastering existing equipment is soon to come. Just a short time ago I felt limited by my options and hampered by the quality of my existing gear, but I've also gotten more busy recently and simplicity now seems like a virtue.
Pictures and comparison will be the ultimate test, but I'm starting to accumulate too much camera clutter, so a clearing out might be order soon anyway. I'm starting to get frustrated rather than excited about having more equipment, and losing track of stuff.
Maybe specializing and mastering existing equipment is soon to come. Just a short time ago I felt limited by my options and hampered by the quality of my existing gear, but I've also gotten more busy recently and simplicity now seems like a virtue.
peterm1
Veteran
If you are referring to the Canon LTM 135mm f3.5 (and I am sure you are) it is a super lens too. The black one is considerably lighter but apart from this the chrome one leaves nothing to be desired. Both versions are superb lenses and have to my eye a surprisingly modern rendering. Unlike the 100mm f3.5 neither of these seem prone to haze either.
Perhaps if I were to nit pick it would be to say only that the focus throw is rather long, making focusing somewhat slowish and the front of the lenses rotate as you focus, though this is more a matter of aesthetics and preference rather than function as in practice it works fine.
sillo
Newbie
I have some minor scratches on inner elements of mine and they don't seem to affect the image much at all. The front and rear elements are mint though.
hilltime
Well-known
I also had a silver and chrome version of this lens and the interior element was typically hazy and marked... most are. It didn't seem to greatly effect image quality although in my mind, I was always suspect. I found a much later all black version with pristine glass which really made me happy and I sold the earlier version( with complete accurate description) to someone who wanted a bargain. The black version is a super sharp optic and fits in the smallest spaces of a pocket or bag and the perfect compliment to the 35/F2 Canon.
Forest_rain
Well-known
Yes the compact form factor is really nice. I might ask for a discount and just keep it. Probably won't be too bad. Thanks for the feedback guys.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Forest, unless your goal is to use it on a digital camera, put it on your LTM camera and take some photographs.. the results will give you your answer.
Forest_rain
Well-known
In case anyone's curious, the pictures came out well, so I'll be keeping it. Performs surprisingly well despite the scratches, hard to tell. Wide open it's a little bit soft up close, but not too bad.
For landscapes, I'm really liking this lens, as it seems to perform pretty well from border to border, and shows details well.
It flares pretty badly, so I'll definitely be picking up a hood.
Overall a great compact little lens with great reach, and way cheaper than the 85mm.
For landscapes, I'm really liking this lens, as it seems to perform pretty well from border to border, and shows details well.
It flares pretty badly, so I'll definitely be picking up a hood.
Overall a great compact little lens with great reach, and way cheaper than the 85mm.