Mark on my lens...am worried! :-(

[Paula]

Okay I just can't hold back from posting...I'm not going to sleep tonight wondering...

I've got my new MP with 35mm lens and I'm about to put on a new Hoya UV filter -and as I'm preparing to do so, I'm there with the blower brush getting the dust off when I notice a dust particle that won't move so I very gently use a soft cloth to move it...but they don't seem to move and so now I'm wondering is it now a scratch? Is it normal to have little specs on a lens? What do I do?

Add to that the fact that the Hoya filter was about as clear as a window after a rainy day...I'm not much impressed by that? Again is this typical of others experience?

(And finally is it normal to be this neurotic as a new Leica owner?! Oh my...what have I done.)

Cheers
Paula

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Paula,

A speck ain't a problem -- but if you're paranoid, consider Opticlean to remove it.

Paranoia is normal when you've spent that sort of money; hmmm, maybe that's an idea for an Amateur Photographer column...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Paula]

Thanks Roger. And I certainly agree paranoia would be a very good theme!

I never imagined I'd feel such "paternal" emotions to such a little object! Yes money is a big consideration - I'd say the camera is probably worth more than most of the cars on my street, and that makes me very self-conscious! But it's more than that even...it's the responsibility of knowing that this little object is something I will be treasuring for such a long time to come, something that I want to look after and protect as if it was an extension of my own arm! Two weeks ago I would have said such emotion was bonkers...now I'm totally obsessed...and wondering should I have stuck to my Zorki 4k!

(Not a chance mate!)

Good night
Paula

 

[foon]

i guess if you're not planning to sell it anyway
don't worry about it...
a tiny speck like that won't hurt, even if there's ten
as long as they're on the front element

yes a camera like that is really expensive
but afterall, it's only a camera and you should take more pictures with it😀
dont worry about those scratches

 

[sunsworth]

Just throw away the UV filter. More trouble than they're worth INHO.

Steve

 

[peter_n]

I understand the paranoia, Paula. I recently bought a 28mm lens from an RFF member and the UV filter for it was here before the lens arrived! 🙂 Luckily the lens looks like it had a filter on it's whole life so I didn't need to do anything.

If I don't like the look of a front element, I take it to a local repair shop where a tech cleans it for a fee - then I slap the filter on it - works for me. You will find that some swear by filters and others abhor them here. I'm firmly in the filter camp! I would say put the filter on the lens (Hoyas are good!) and don't worry about it too much. Get a recommendation for a good lens guy (there must be someone in London) and just have them look at it. I don't touch lens elements myself - too scared. 🙂

 

[weisgrau]

Paula.

The mark is either a scratch or a solid of some sort that has attached itself to the coating on the lens element. If it is a scratch it is unlikely to affect photo quality in any way. If it is a solid, it could refract light an reduce image quality.

If you want to clean the front element properly in an effort to remove the mark, purchase a microfiber lens cleaning cloth and a small amount of distilled water. Dampen the cloth and press it against the mark so it can absorb some moisture if it is a solid. Then slowly and gently wipe the are with a circular motion. The solid should be removed by the effort.

A substitute for distilled water is to hold the cloth over the steam from boiling water. The steam will penetrate the weave of the cloth and dampen it. Then do the circular cleaning. Be careful not to scald your fingers in steam.

I do not recommend using lens cleaner solutions unless you know that they contain no solvents that will impair the lens coating.

The other thing you can do is use a powerful magnifier and hold the lens under a light source that is oblique to the surface. Examine the surface near the mark. Do you see a shadow from the mark? if so, it is a solid that ought to be removed. If not, it is likely to be scratch, in which case just go make photographs with it and join the ranks of photographers with scratched lenses. I joined 40 years ago.

 

[rover]

I use a Lenspen to clean my lenses.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...069&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Pretty neat tool. It has a brush at one end which I use most of the time. I only use the cleaning pad when there is gunk that needs to be removed from the glass.

 

[Socke]

I once cleaned a Canon 75-300 with weissgraus method, now I have nice circular scratches where the speck was :-(. The performance of the lens isn't any worse than before but I won't try that on the lenses I realy like!

 

[Ben Z]

Did you get the lens from a dealer? Is it new? I'd take it back to the store and tell them to either get the speck off at their risk or give you a new lens. Believe me, if you went to trade the lens in they'd point right at the speck and tell you how much less your lens is worth as a result.

If the filter is cloudy, it probably needs cleaning too. The foam in those filter boxes seems to outgas after a long while and cloud the filters. I changed all my filters for b+w multiresistant ones, they are virtually 100% transmission, and have never caused any flare or ghosting for me.

 

[peter_n]

Ben makes a very good point. The lens is new and you love it. But three or four years from now your love may wane for whatever reason. I sold a lens recently that I never thought I would part with - I bought it new, it had a filter on it all the time and was pristine when I sold it and the price reflected that. I would get the speck fixed, one way or the other.

 

[weisgrau]

Socke,

Maybe you pressed to hard or cleaned a lens with a soft coating. Or maybe the colth wasn't damp enough. As I recall my method was the one recommended by Leica years ago. I have cleaned Leica lenses that way for years without a scratch.

Rover the problem with a lens pen is that each time you clean the lens the pad pick up the dirt. Where does the dirt go? It stays on the pad. If you pick up something on one cleaning, it is in the pad. So you are wiping it against the lens. Maybe you clean the little pad satisfactorily. I don't gamble on it. But I do use the brush end of the lens pen.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I once bought a Contax G lens of which the seller had warned about a scratch in the rear element. I've used that lens for years without ever noticing the slightest problem of flare, sharpness, contrast or chromatic aberration. Not even "comma"!

However, if you purchased this lens brand new, go and see to have it replaced so that you can sleep at night. If it's used, and you purchased it from an individual... did the seller disclose this defect?

All in all, some of my lenses have "defects" that never have affected the final image. Chances are this speck won't do it.

BTW, is that a 35 Summicron or Summilux? Just curious...

 

[peter_n]

I think it's an f2 Summicron but my memory could be going... 😉

 

[Fred]

If you got it new the dealer should be able to help out, if not I'd not worry as the remedy may well make the whole problem a lot worse. I'd clean the filter and keep it on. More importantly, take photos and enjoy it. The 35 cron is a real gem.

 

[jaapv]

It can happen even with Leica, even new. I once got a Leica lens new in plastic that looked like somebody had wiped the front element with a Brillo pad. No "you must have done it yourself" or "the guarantee only covers mechanical parts" stuff, just a new lens within a week, directly from the factory. Leica service does (or should) reflect the price you you paid for the lens. If you got it new, just return it to clean or replace, if you got it used it will be a lot harder to claim an "undisclosed defect" as it won't impair the performance of the lens in any way.Btw. I'm just wondering, if you just bought about the best lens in the world why would you want to use it with a piece of glass in front of it? And if you buy a top-range lens why use a consumer (quite good, but not in the class of your lens) grade filter? If I would feel the urge to use a filter I would use , for instance, Heliopan, which is made of a superior quality of optical glass.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jaap,

Both Ctein (who is a better experimentalist than I) and I independently tested a wide range of filters to see their effect on definition: after all, 'everyone knows' that filters take the edge off definition and that cheap ones are worse.

Like many things 'everyone knows', it's not true. The only thing to produce detectable deterioration was 3mm window glass. Everything else, including German, Japanese, American, FSU and Cokin resin, had no detectable effect.

As I say, if these were my findings alone, I'd be more hesitant about putting them forward. But they aren't. I don't know of ANY methodical test which has revealed problems arising from half-decent filters. And both Ctein and I were expecting problems, so we were looking hard for them.

The limits to film resolution with top-flight lenses and sharp, fine-grain film are normally set by film location, which is why 125 lp/mm on the film is rare and hard to repeat, while 100 lp/mm is readily achieved with the best lenses.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[jaapv]

You are probably right that it makes no difference in everyday photography, Roger, but then this kind of thing is notoriously hard to prove or disprove. The theoretical considerations,such as the difference in refraction of two plan-parralel surfaces between the corners and the center is, of course irrefutable and I do feel that that there is a lot to be said for the claims about flare, and of course we have all seen examples of ghosting. I note that Leica for instance incorporates a flat, non-refractive "filter"as first element in their 280/4.0 Apo R and instructs the user "always to use a filter in the rear filter holder to avoid loss of quality", as well as incorporating a neutral filter in their internal filterholder in their extreme wide-angles "to avoid any loss of quality, as the design is optimized for a filter" Now they wouldn't do that, if a filter didn't make any difference.What I mean to say is that it seems pointless to me to pay 2000$ for a lens and try and save 50$ on a filter. If you buy the best in lenses, which is what Leica customers do, it would be logical to buy the best in filters, whatever the merits or flaws of the thing. As for using a filter, a hard lesson taught me that a filter is not a very adequate protection of a lens. I dropped a 180/3.4 R once ( a rather expensive lens for me at the time ), the "protective" filter broke and scratched the front element so badly that it had to be exchanged. Since then nothing but lens caps and hoods for protection for me! But this is just my opinion and of course everybody must use his/her equipment as he/she feels most comfortable with. 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jaap,

A rear or internal filter is in a somewhat different situation from a front one, where (by definition) the ray-bundles are parallel.

I completely agree about ghosting and flare and will remove the filter if I think that the lighting conditions are such that they are likely to provoke either. But this is not the same as definition. Also, as an optical designer once pointed out to me, the advantages of coating the FRONT surface of a lens (or a filter if used over a lens) are pretty trivial anyway.

As for spending $2000 on a lens and saving $50 on a filter, I'd agree with you IF I thought it made any difference. But I don't; it could equally well be seen as 'wasting' money. In fact, I prefer top-quality filters (I like B+W) for a number of reasons, including lack of binding and nicer 'feel'. If you can afford top-quality filters, by all means buy 'em: you won't regret it. But if you can't afford 'em, don't worry.

Finally I can tell the exact opposite story about a filter as protection. My wife tripped and banged her 35/2.8 PC-Nikkor against a step, smashing the filter (Nikon L39, as I recall) but leaving the lens completely undamaged. That would have been the front element otherwise...

As you say, everyone must make their own choices, based on the evidence available. Your evidence is as valid as mine: let the readers decide.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[andrewn]

Paula, I have been here myself!! The mark is probably harmless optically but now you know it's there you KNOW it's there! Danger is if it doesn't clean off easily it will nag away at you until it's too late to change it. You have spent lot's of money so if you are not 100% happy don't be too embarassed to send it back now rather than trade it in for something else at a loss months later...