Do you shoot with scratches, cleaning marks or haze?

[jsrockit]

For me it's not what the lens looks like, but how works. If it is scratched, has haze, chips, etc and I like the photos from it... then cool.

 

[robklurfield]

use what you can afford. life is short. enjoy it. no one will know your glass has flaws unless you tell 'em.

 

[hexiplex]

None of my lenses have any optical afflictions, I think. The exception being the M-Rokkor 28 I bought today that has some very light cleaning marks and some white fungus. But it cost me 175 dollars along with hood, caps and original box, so even if the fungus does cause flare, I'll be happy using it.

 

[monochromeimages]

I always try buy lenses as near perfect as possible but I have a DR Summicron with slight haze - it still produces fine images and is one of my favourite lenses..

 

[Pirate]

I have a Hasselblad lens I bought from one of the guys here that has marks where the coating was rubbed or scraped off. It shoots beautifully. A couple of my best medium format shots came from that lens, so I don't worry about it. My Leica lenses are clean but from seeing how well lenses can do with a little bit of wear on the glass, I don't get worried about it much.

 

[damien.murphy]

No problem with using lenses that have scratches/ cleaning marks. I prefer to buy mint though, so a lens is easier to re-sell in the future.

 

[swoop]

I have a 90mm summicron that I got a good deal on because it had a single spec of internal dust. It makes no difference in images. I also had a 40mm nokton with the front element badly scratched up. it works perfectly. I recently sold it at a big loss. But I used it the day before I sold it and there was nothing wrong with the images that came out of it.

People make too big a deal out of these things. use any lens for more than a day and you're going to get dust all over the thing. And tiny scratches on the front surface aren't that of of a deal. I'm not saying it doesn't matter. But it isn't something to cry about. Scratches on the rear element are a bigger problem.

 

[enenrf]

I used to buy lens as mint as possible, I was quit picky about the optics condition until last month when I tried to by a 35mm cron 8 elements and 50mm cron rigid. my friend told me those lens now in clean and clear condition almost all have been previous CLAd. so I bought hazy ones at low cost. They have sent to be repaired , I am still waiting to see the result.

 

[umcelinho]

I had a Yashica Mat with a badly fogged lens. Still it would take nice pictures, but when I shot contre jour... it got too dreamy!

 

[DNG]

Looking at this question from a slightly different perspective, does anyone have any objective criteria which would inform us at which point of scratch/ internal dust/ other, that the performance of e.g. a Leica lens looses its erformance advantage/ characteristics. such that you would be better either replacing it whether with a new cheaper alternative or minty Leica? The problem being that we tend only to have one model of a given focal length hence unable to make the comparisons for ourselves.

Or does it matter if we are happy with the results as they appear before us?!!!

Peter (no scratches)

As an old fart who has had cameras with many lenses that had scratches, and even chips taken out, I can attest that these blemishes on the front element don't impact the IQ until they just covering the front element. (I know you techy types will argue this point on the micro level), But, in the real world observation of the negatives/prints, They just don't show up, without a microscope, by the time the image is projected/recorded on the film, and it printed on paper, that level of defect is eradicated.

Years ago, I was hanging out with my Newspaper Photographer friend, who gave a Nikon F3 with a 200 f2.8 ED Nikkor that had a large scratch (like someone took a sharp knife and laid down a 2" gouge dead center on the front element.).. IT HAD NO EFFECT on the negatives sharpness, on any part of the negative as far real world use in printing on Photographic paper or newsprint.

So, We may want perfect old glass, we may not need it... unless you shoot in very bright sunlight..towards the Sun, Or, photographing a stage with bright spot lights.... Then, you may get some flair or softness...maybe...

OTOH... You can get a very good deal, knowing the few limitations of the lens with a lot scratches.

Now, if they are on the rear element.... Pass on it. that is where the image is focused with, and that will cause problems. The Front Element is more for light gathering, the internal elements guide and sharpen the image to the back group, that focus's the image on the film plane.

 

[PatrickT]

I've often wondered about this. For example, there is a nice Rollei 2.8C on a well known camera site that has "some cleaning marks on front element". It's priced at a heavy discount compared to others of the same type. Might be worth it to get it...

 

[tbarker13]

Scratches and cleaning marks don't concern me a bit. Not a big fan of haze, though.

Way back in my college days, I bought a Nikon 180/2.8 from another photographer. The front element was a disaster in terms of scratches. I could never tell the difference between my images and those shot by guys with the same lens in mint condition.

 

[Vickko]

I just bought a "new" Summarit 50 f1.5. Looks nice, except for a white piece of debris, behind the front lens, and annoyingly right near the center.

Wouldn't be so annoying if it were off to the side.

Vick

 

[jordanstarr]

All the marks you speak of do very little to the image quality. I have a 50mm Summicron that has coating spotting, fungus residue and cleaning marks and I can still produce very sharp images that are nearly the same as my "like new" 35mm summicron. The only thing I've noticed is a slight decrease in contrast, which can be controlled. I use a hood and all is well to protect against flare. I've also made amazing 11x14 prints with a hazed 35mm Summaron where the sharpness was damn close to my 35mm Summicron. There's way too much concern about scratches, cleaning marks, haze, etc. Although I would prefer a clean lens, I'd rather save 25% by getting one with a couple cleaning marks.

 

[ferider]

Dots on your front element will show up as dots in OOF circles in your bokeh shots. Visible without microscope.

Try this: draw a dot with a sharpie on a filter attached to a fast lens. Take a photo with strong OOF highlights. Find the dot in those highlights ....

In the extreme, you can do this: http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_create_your_own_bokeh

Regarding haze: ever driven with a dirty car wind-shield or glasses against the sun ? That's what haze does - more haze = more flare + lower contrast.

For whom it concerns 🙂

 

[umcelinho]

I have a Canon 50/0.95 that has a separation spot in the front element block. it only interferes with the oof circles in bokeh, as a darker splash/blob inside every circle.

 

[dyao]

People who are concerned about imperfections in the glass should shine a flashlight into their 'perfect' lenses...see what's really inside!

 

[mnu]

These are taken with a Jupiter-8 with a lot of scratches, also missing a few screws etc. I got it for free...

 

[mathomas]

This is a fun article:

Kurt Munger's Dirty Lens Article.

 

[fates]

There's always crappy lenses to be had... in fact I made a website dedicated to their usage: http://craplens.com/