Clean lenses work better.

[merciful]

Having got the haze out of my Canon 50/1.2, I can confirm that it makes a significantly better photo now.

In order, the apertures are 1.2, 1.4, and 5.6.

I think I'd like a Noctilux, so if any of you are rich enough to spot one to a talented but underpaid photog, just drop me a PM.

 

[jlw]

Very nice effect!

Where was the haze? At the center, or behind the rear element, or what?

Were you the one asking what type of lens spanner would be needed to disassemble it?

Just curious...

 

[merciful]

Thanks, JLW. Yeah, that was me asking: fortunately, it turned out that just loosening a set-screw and unscrewing the front element got me right to the haze; in the middle. Thanks again to mackinaw for that tip.

Usually I'm not one to go on at all about lenses: the one that gets me the expression I wanted is good enough, usually. But I really dig the way stuff goes OOF with this lens wide-open.

EDIT: to be more precise, the haze was behind the aperture blades.

 

[scottgee1]

This is always a tough one for me.

In order to make an objective comparison, it's necessary to shoot the same subject in the same light and control every other parameter while shooting with the same lens before and after it's cleaned.

I don't know that I've ever seen a test like that.

OTOH, it seems obvious that a lens with haze on some elements will not transmit as much light and therefore not deliver all the quality of which it is capable. FS adverts that say "slight haze -- does not affect photos" aggravate me because the seller probably can't know that for sure.

If I had to choose between a lens that was scratched and one that had haze, I'd pick the former because it should still have good contrast and it should be possible to test and predict those situations where the scratch would impact images. Haze affects every pic.

And very nice portaits BTW!

my two lux worth/ScottGee1

 

[Goodyear]

Bot the point of the thread, but merciful those are some wonderful portraits, especially the second one.

 

[merciful]

Thanks, Mark. That corner could make me a living, if my folks didn't mind people trooping into their condo every day.

I like that shot a lot, but the first one really does it for me: I like the plane of focus from eyes to finger.

Bot the point of the thread, but merciful those are some wonderful portraits, especially the second one.

 

[Goodyear]

In a technical/imaging/art/whatever-way-you-cut-it they are both superb, but it's the hint of introspection in the child's face and posture that make the second one for me.

Kudos.

 

[xabi]

Nicely done. What film? Tri-X @ 12800? =)

 

[merciful]

Thanks again, guys.

TX at 3200 only: nothing too bleeding-edge this time.

 

[Davor]

What did you soup it in?

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Paul Connet]

cleaning marks

cleaning marks

<Snip>
OTOH, it seems obvious that a lens with haze on some elements will not transmit as much light and therefore not deliver all the quality of which it is capable. FS adverts that say "slight haze -- does not affect photos" aggravate me because the seller probably can't know that for sure.

If I had to choose between a lens that was scratched and one that had haze, I'd pick the former because it should still have good contrast and it should be possible to test and predict those situations where the scratch would impact images. Haze affects every pic. <snip>

I used to not care much if a lens had some "cleaning marks" on the front element and the seller said "does not affect photos", but no more!

The attached shot was taken with a M3 on which I had mounted a J8 that came from one of the several Zorki's that clutter my house. I don't recall ever having used this particular lens before and had no reason to suspect a problem with it on the M3. Boy, what a surprise. The roll was used for general family snaps, both indoors and out, and the results were very soft and flare prone. On close inspection of the lens using a flashlight looking through it from back to front and front to back and at angles it was covered with fine scratches in all directions. These had gone unnoticed before shooting the photos. Needless to say that lens has been forthwith retired.

Regards, Paul C.

 

[merciful]

What did you soup it in?

Rodinal 1+50.

 

[RicardoD]

Wow,

Great potraits, very nice. Special pictures like this increase in value over time as the little ones grow. Now why did I see my bessa-R? oh yeah to get my Rolleiflex, must resist GAS attack.....

 

[merciful]

Thanks, Ricardo. I'm very glad I took up photography just before she came along.

 

[MCTuomey]

I think I'd like a Noctilux, so if any of you are rich enough to spot one to a talented but underpaid photog, just drop me a PM.

Andrew, by gawd, if I had the money I'd buy one and deliver it to ya. Beautiful work ... ummm

 

[planetjoe]

Merciful, bravo on that work. Really, very nice.

If the others hadn't beat me to it, I'd be foaming at the mouth for film/soup info. Well-done. Makes me want to run right home and "flashlight" my best lenses again - just to be sure.

Now, if only my 15-month-old would stay put long enough for me to catch him with large apertures...


Cheers,
--joe.

 

[merciful]

Thanks a lot, guys. Warms the heart, ya know.

I shot a lot of the kids at her school earlier in the fall, in order to have prints to sell at the Christmas Fair to benefit the school: sold about 60 prints in a few hours. Nothing beats shooting kids: except, maybe, shooting kids and getting paid to do it! The last gallery on my site has a few of the best examples.