Do you shoot with scratches, cleaning marks or haze?

Do you shoot with scratches, cleaning marks or haze?

  • Scratches

    Votes: 56 18.9%

  • Cleaning marks

    Votes: 110 37.0%

  • Haze

    Votes: 28 9.4%

  • Other problems

    Votes: 24 8.1%

  • None! Mine's are Mint.

    Votes: 79 26.6%
  • Total voters
    297
sitemistic said:
You realize that with this thread, the eBay selling price of junk lenses will jump 20 percent. 😱
Click to expand...
In some circles, this has already happened: last year I was watching an eBay auction for an Olympus 24mm Shift lens with a horror show for a front element (looked like it had been hurled at a sand castle by Orlando Hernandez). Still went for a mint, though obviously not quite as much as it would if the lens was mint. Scarcity, of course, is no small factor here.

Wow. Maybe it's time to start buying up (at bargain prices) all those scratched up L lenses from by PJ buddies' "worn out" boxes!
Click to expand...
Scratches, up to a point, are no biggie. Mechanics are. At the old sports/stock agency I used to work at, some of Canon's 28-70 zooms were notorious for developing lens-barrel "wobble" (I discovered this while testing out an early-production 1D body), and the staff wasn't known for excessive hammering of gear. You might already know this, but just in case. 🙂


- Barrett
 
I do have some lenses that has seen better days! A Summar 50f2 that looks like a skating rink on the front element and has stuff inside that I would not like to deal with! However, in bright light it does give an "unearthly glow" to the images - particularly with bight surfaces against dark background.
One of my Nikkor 35f2.5's is similarly afflicted! It has plenty of scratches and even though I cleaned out the stuff between elements as well as the haze, it still flares - but again in certain light and condition it looks rather fetching (I have several other 35f2.5's with clean glass) - sharpness is not affected and on a flat, grey light day it looks "normal".
My 50f2.5 Hektor LTM has a nice "glow" to it. Not scratches per se, but uncoated and some minor haze. It is a very tough lens to take apart and after 76 years it resists any attempt to remove elements for cleaning!
You can have substantial chips and scratches in the front element and if you fill them in with black markers, it will usually work fine. So, you belovd 50f14 is now a 50f1,401 or 1,45 (depending on the size of the chip). Scratches and chips on the rear element is usually the death sentence though. That's why I am "religious" with back caps and extremely lax with front caps!
I am now waiting for a Nikkor 50f1.4, which a friend is cleaning, It arrived on a "dead" Nikon S and all the aperture blades were removed. The camera had been dunked in water so it remains a paperweight' The lens, however will be cleaned and de-coated and probably designated as a permanent f1.4!
These lenses with damage are usually cheap or even free. Dont turn them down, they give a different view and sometimes it works well!
 
Hi...
I have a few lenses with cleaning marks on the front element. Other than that, I want my glass to be as near mint as possible. Also, minor dust specs inside some excellent FSU lenses, cause no problems at all.
Mike
 
I once bought a Canon FD 400/4.5 SSC that had been in a closet for a long time, so it was in perfect mechanical condition, but with a severe fungus problem. Without the fungus, this lens cost around $650-750 at the time, but I got it for around $125 and spend $80 on a cleaning at the now long lamented Professional Camera Repair in New York. The coatings had been etched on some of the inner elements, but I still use this lens. See any fungus?--

nflick.jpg
 
northpole said:
Indeed Chris, but if this theory is correct and we viewed/ judged our results in isolation, I wonder how many of us truly need to be considering other more expensive pieces of glass - whether our existing ones are scratched/ hazy/ or perfect! I guess that's where this GAS thing comes in!

Peter
Click to expand...
Dear Paul,

Quite possibly, but there's more to it than that -- such as better ergonomics, and quite simply, new kit in good condition.

I have just received a set of Summarits: 35-50-75-90. They're gorgeous. There are only four reasons not to buy them:

1 If you already have better (why would I switch the 75 Summarit for my 75 Summicron?)

2 If you already have others you're happy with (why would I switch the 35 Summarit for my 35 pre-aspheric Summilux?)

3 If you can't afford them (or the 50mm would be seriously tempting)

4 If you can afford (and persuade yourself you need/can justify) even more expensive kit...

If I didn't have the gear I already have, and I had enough money for Summarits but not Summiluxes/Summicrons, I'd be very tempted indeed.

Cheers,

R.
 
I think we all agree that having clean/unmarked glass is optimum. But I have and use hazy and scratched lenses, without problems. Such lenses are by no means useless; in the vast majority of situations I'd even say there's no noticeable difference between them and a pristine example. Lens hoods are a good idea, of course.

An interesting test would be to compare a clean version of a particular lens with examples of that lens that are scratched, hazy, etc. (And while we're at it, see what happens when a good quality, clean UV or haze filter is attached to the clean lens.)
 
I consider the psychological factor as well - "user"-condition lenses get more use. Will I beat up on myself when I put the first mark on my like-new 35mm Summilux ASPH - you bet! But then I might use it more.

- John
 
Here's another Summar image with a little bit of haze, a bubble and a few faint scratches in the front element. I thought it would flare more in this lighting, but it did okay. The flare tends to occur in the middle shadows most of the time.

Zoo
2059991947_a8503abc41_o.jpg
 
You need to add an option for "Big chips of glass missing from some elements".

This lens is actually a fine shooter. I've stopped worrying about a few scratches here and there. I'm comfortable with a bit of dust. Haze can be a problem depending on how bad and what you want to do with it.

ChrisN With this lens do you put something opaque in the chip? I have often read that with a significant gouge like this, a using black felt tip or similar will block the light passing through this part of the lens and prevent any flare occurring.

In answer to the question in this thread, I personally do not presently have any lenses with significant wear or scratches but have in the past and found that they shoot fine if you avoid flare. I do have two pieces of Leica glass, a 35mm Summaron f3.5 and the 90mm Elmar f4 which both have a little cloudiness - just visible with a torch. Both are fine shooters.
 
Last edited:
Scratches andminor chips acn also make an image mysterious! John Whitlow Delano, an american shuttling back and forth to China, put out a book some years ago "Empire", published by 5 Continent ISBN 88-7439-127-7. He uses an old M2 with a 35f2.8 Summaron. I dont know him. but somebody in Bejing met him and the lens is obviously less than pristine!
The book is a faschinating take on China, the obviuos flare and the sepia tone quality of the printing gives it an etheral look.
Every time I look at the images, I feel better about some of my lenses!
 
Recently, two lenses were cleaned. One was a 35mm LTM and the other a 90mm LTM. Before the CLAs I used both in all kinds of light. The 35mm flared almost always. The 90mm; I really didn't see any flare. Looking at both before CLA they had similar hazing. I wonder if longer lenses are less likely to show the adverse effects than shorter lenses?
 
Last edited:
peterm1 said:
ChrisN With this lens do you put something opaque in the chip? I have often read that with a significant gouge like this, a using black felt tip or similar will block the light passing through this part of the lens and prevent any flare occurring.
Click to expand...


Peter, yes, what you suggest has also been recommended above by TomA, and also some time ago by Brian Sweeney, a sometime member and expert on all matters optical. Unfortunately the chips are in the second element inside the front, behind the front element! I don't know how the damage got there, other than to suppose that the lens was pulled aprt for cleaning, and something went terribly wrong!
 
The link Brad Bireley posted to my Dirty Lens Test does show a really terrible example of a bad lens that performs well in spite of it. I certainly wouldn't go poking that lens at the sun and expect much from it, but it still makes the point that many of us obsess over defects that will truely make little or no difference to our photos.
I think a blind survey of photos from a new pristine lens, and photos from a lens that had seen a fair working life, with all it's consequences would bear that out. I doubt many would be able to tell the difference from looking at photos made by the two lenses.

Another example is a lens in my Nikon working kit. A 24mm Nikkor that I bought from KEH in the advertised "UGLY" condition. It was a $25 lens, and looked every bit of it. Using the phrase another poster expressed, it looks like a skating rink on the front element. Cleaned with a Brillo pad, no doubt. I use it a lot, and am mindful to keep the sun off the front element, and it does quite well, as you can see in the photos here:

room3.jpg

Yes, you see a bit of around the door window. Most lens/film combos will, with a six stop overexposure at that point.

station.jpg



Would I normally buy lenses in perfect shape? Sure. The simple facts are, economics won't always allow it. A few scratches will not hurt anything, (except possibly the photog's bragging rights).
 
I like to shoot by myself or in the company of others, but certainly not with Mr. Scratches, Cleaning Marks or Ms. Haze 😀

I only have a couple of lenses that have "perpetual" haze in them, and use them for the right time I need them. Otherwise, I try to keep mine as clean as a whistle. Dry whistle, that is.
 
Marks on the front element are generally not troublesome: but marks at the rear can ruin performance. Haze can be nasty and is little affected by the use of hood.
 
I have cleaning marks on only one lens - the Elmarit-R 24mm 2.8. I got it in a straight trade with my R7 for my Canon 30D 😀
The front glass in never a problem, the rear element is, as mentioned many times before in the tread. I keep trying not to scratch them though. But hey, if I scratch them they will be always mine, I won't be able to sell them on a good price even if I am in big needs. Sounds cool,eh. I'll go clean my precious now 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom