Cleaning Marks

[John]

What is considered to be cleaning marks? Did the lens get cleaned so many times the coating wore off? Did they clean it dry by mistake? Did they need to rub sand off at the beach? When is a cleaning mark considered a scratch? Is a cleaning mark on ebay different than other cleaning marks? Marked lenses at KEH are usually described as "bargain" or "ugly". Forgive this query if it has been asked in the past. 😕

 

[back alley]

my take on cleaning marks is that they are light, not deep, swirls made from cleaning the lens, likely with a bit of grit either on the lens or the cloth used.
unless there are a ton of them or they are too deep, they should have no affect on pics taken.

 

[richard_l]

"Cleaning marks" is supposed to come across like: "Whoever had this lens was so careful about keeping their equipment clean that that they even wiped off a tiny bit of the lens coating, although not enough to make a difference." However, it could indicate any scratches on a lens element which could be attributed to cleaning. In any case, "cleaning marks" are at best evidence of improper lens cleaning.

 

[peter_n]

As Joe says most cleaning marks do not affect picture quality. But they may affect resale value.

 

[ray_g]

Interesting question. I find filters the hardest to clean without leaving a slight "smudge." Anyoen have any tricks up their sleeve?

 

[johne]

John
Might look at repair notes here for my experience with deep marks on a Summicron. The front element can be renewed.
Johne

 

[bmattock]

I have a slightly different take. I believe that 'cleaning marks' or 'swirl marks' etc DO affect photograph quality. The question is simply to what degree do they affect it? Are the results visible to the naked eye?

When the resulting damage only results in a slight lowering of overall contrast, we may never notice, unless we had an identical (but clean) copy of the same lens to compare it to.

But that's not the same as saying 'no damage'. There is always damage to the photographs if the lens is compromised in any way from manufacturer specs.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

PS - Filters scratch more easily because their colors are often dipped and coated on instead of being 'in the glass'. Many filter makers advise against cleaning their filters with anything but water - no lens cleaners. I try to buy older filters where the color was part of the glass.

 

[peter_n]

Interesting question. I find filters the hardest to clean without leaving a slight "smudge." Anyoen have any tricks up their sleeve?

I don't know if its a "trick" but what I do is run the filter under a hot tap, then douse both sides with dishwasher liquid. Then I gently rub in a circular motion with my thumb & forefinger, rinse, then repeat with the dishwasher liquid. Final rinse and then dry with a microfiber cloth. After that I stick it in the toaster oven on very low heat and switch the heat on and off so that the filter just gets slightly warm. My filters (all either Hoya or B+W) look pretty good after all that...

 

[FrankS]

If/when damaged by improper cleaning, filters are easier and less costly to replace than the lens' front element. This is especially important to realize when dealing with vintage lenses that a) have softer coatings, and b) may not be easily replaced in prime condition.

 

[doubs43]

I have a slightly different take. I believe that 'cleaning marks' or 'swirl marks' etc DO affect photograph quality. The question is simply to what degree do they affect it? <Snip> Bill Mattocks

I tend to agree with Bill on this. While the degredation of the image may be so slight as to defy detection by the naked eye, I believe it's still there.

Having said that, I own two lenses that have somewhat heavy cleaning marks on the front elements and yet take seemingly beautiful pictures. One is a Nikkor LTM 50mm lens that came on a Tower RF camera sold by Sears. I bought the camera and lens from a pawn shop sometime between 1968 and 1971. The other is a more recent purchase (2004) of a 50mm f/1.5 Summarit in M-Mount. The Summarit arrived with a Leitz protective filter on it but the front lens element appears to have been cleaned with sand. Both lenses perform well so go figure!

Walker

 

[back alley]

Interesting question. I find filters the hardest to clean without leaving a slight "smudge." Anyoen have any tricks up their sleeve?

ray, that place near you, 2filter.com, has a cleaning fluid called 'formula mc' and it is amazing stuff.

joe

 

[djon]

If it's not visible to the naked eye in a large print, it's not a practical photographic issue.

Your own definition of "large" is key.

For example, I'm revisiting my "soft" Epson 3200 flatbed scanner with 6X9 negs, testing anti-newton glass as a perhaps-sharpness-improving non-digital technique (it works) on inexpensive 11X17 alpha cellulose paper. If I can't tell the difference between two techniques in the finest areas using loupe, there's no practical photographic difference. (I've been trying to determine if I wanted to use 6X9 with 3200 for portraits, Vs 35 and better Nikon V scanner).

 

[ray_g]

ray, that place near you, 2filter.com, has a cleaning fluid called 'formula mc' and it is amazing stuff.

joe

I saw that in the link you sent, and I thought about that when I asked the question. So you've tried it?

 

[richard_l]

Damage to the lens coating due to improper cleaning (euphemistically called "cleaning marks') may or may not noticeably affect image quality. Sometime somewhere someone (who probably had a popular web site or wrote a book or something) proclaimed categorically that cleaning marks are innocuous, and this has been parroted as sacred writ ever since, much to the delight of some (not all) eBay sellers trying to unload damaged optics. Therefore proceed with caution when buying lenses which have sustained coating damage termed "cleaning marks."

 

[back alley]

richard, we don't all parrot the things we read.

while not a cleaning mark, my canon 35/1.8 has a small mark on the rear element.
i thought i'd take a chance with it and it worked out well, i don't see any affect/effect on my pics.
none of my lenes has really bad cleaning marks on the front but some have a bit, again no discernable degradation on my pics.

is there lens damage, are there differences between a swirly lens and a mint lens? maybe...but not necessarily, not always and not always noticeable.

joe

 

[djon]

Scratches, for example. It's long been known that front element scratches are less likely a problem than rear elements, and standard repair shop practice is to simply paint scratches with black enamel, which eliminates their influence on the image. I've seen this done with motion picture camera lenses.

We'd all like mint lenses, but we're not likely to have them long if we're seriously into photography. I notice that one of my FD lenses, a 24 SSC I'd bought used about 20 years ago, still has the edge phenomenon that I'd seen when I bought it..unchanged, still a "flaw" in a piece of glass that's always delivered.

 

[richard_l]

The problem with coating damage is reduction in contrast due to increased flare. It's more subtle than seeing direct evidence of the scratches on an image. Inking in an isolated scratch eliminates it as a source of flare.

 

[Poptart]

Dear Mr. Fedderman, You sure have a lot of questions for someone from New Jersey!
Cleaning marks are permanent streaks in the multi-coating left by rubbing too hard or too frequently or with the wrong thing. Think about when you were 15.