Never throw away a scratched lens

[HuubL]

Remember my radioactive Summicron thread of a couple of days ago. The Cron had such a severely scratched front glass that I was thinking of throwing it away. I took some pictures with it on a GF1 and compared them against identical subjects taken with a scratch free and clean Rigid Summicron. I know they're not exactly the same formula and the rigid is supposed to be better, but still I was pleasantly surprised with how the LTM delivered after some tweaking in PSE.
Check this link.

 

[FrankS]

Very cool. Thanks for sharing!

 

[farlymac]

So, there's hope for my Elmar after all. Your Chron looks like it was not only scratched, but sandblasted.

PF

 

[maxmadco]

Also do not be too quick to dismiss a lens that has separation or other flaws. Try them out first using an adapter for digital or on film for you may be surprised that the results you get are much better than you thought.

 

[Brian Legge]

I'd expand that to 'never throw away a lens'. There are all sorts of us around who salvage parts, rebuild stuff (or are self educating), etc.

Yes, there are points where cameras/bodies are totally unusable even for practice or parts but those tend to be the exceptions.

 

[rfaspen]

I simply must second what Brian said. you just never know what or how that lens may become relevant. They aren't being made anymore and the parts are increasingly useful to help maintain the world population of these things.
If anyone has a lens or body they're thinking of tossing....please put up an offer here on RFF or something similar. even if it's only for the good karma!

 

[Nokton48]

I never throw lenses away. I have several "parts" boxes in my studio.
If you don't need it now, you might need it later.....

 

[zuiko85]

"scratched lens" can mean a lot of things. I have a 24mm Zuiko with a scratch/gouge about a third of the way out from center on the front element. Probably about 3~4 mm long. Never noticed (on film) any problem but I don't have a pristine lens to compare. Because of damage lens was so cheap I could not pass it up. It's liberating to shoot with 'user' grade equipment.

 

[Bille]

See also this:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches

 

[charjohncarter]

You could put Vaseline over the front element, and use it for soft portraits while gaining back some contrast.

 

[raid]

When I bought my Biogon 35/2 recently, there was a Rigid Summicron offered for $100. The lens was described as being very hazy and not useful. I took the gamble and I bought the lens. Don Goldberg just finished cleaning it. He wrote me that there are some fine scratches on the front and the back glass, but the lens was a good lens. He expects the lens to be "slightly soft when used wide open". Final cost is $250.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The big difference is when light strikes the front glass obliquely -- the kind of thing a lens hood is designed to stop. I have a Summitar that is not only scratched but cracked in half (front element only, obviously). Under ideal conditions, with the big rat-trap shade, it's astonishingly good. Under the worst possible conditions (strong sunlight glancing across the front element) you can barely recognize any detail in the picture.

But as others have said, any lens can have its special uses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

I'm in the don't throw it away class but why do so many throw away the instruction books? That's based on ebay...

OTOH, based on other forums, why don't they read them at least once before throwing them away?

Regards, David

 

[p.giannakis]

Very interesting.
Out of curiosity, what does the "tweaking of red channel" add to the picture? And how did you do it?

Regards,
Pan

 

[swatch]

out of curiosity, what would a picture look if lens has separation problem ?

 

[HuubL]

Nothing much for contrast, only the "Auto contrast" tool of PSE left a distinctly bluer tone than the unmodified image of the Rigid. I tweaked the red channel a bit to get comparable tones between the two images.

Very interesting.
Out of curiosity, what does the "tweaking of red channel" add to the picture? And how did you do it?

Regards,
Pan

 

[raid]

The big difference is when light strikes the front glass obliquely -- the kind of thing a lens hood is designed to stop. I have a Summitar that is not only scratched but cracked in half (front element only, obviously). Under ideal conditions, with the big rat-trap shade, it's astonishingly good. Under the worst possible conditions (strong sunlight glancing across the front element) you can barely recognize any detail in the picture.

But as others have said, any lens can have its special uses.

Cheers,

R.

This is good to know, Roger. Each lens has its role somewhere and somehow.

I don't think that I have duplicates of lenses (except old Sonnar lenses), so getting a second Rigid Summicron was my "first".

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Only the Hektor 50mm f/2.5 I bought recently was scoffed beyond use at apertures smaller than f/6.3. I spent some serious cash having it properly curved and adjusted though. It's pristine now.

I have plenty of other lenses with light scratches. I'm never too bothered by them. The images they produce is still good. Though using a hood is sometimes a good idea.

 

[Beemermark]

"scratched lens" can mean a lot of things. I have a 24mm Zuiko with a scratch/gouge about a third of the way out from center on the front element. Probably about 3~4 mm long. Never noticed (on film) any problem but I don't have a pristine lens to compare. Because of damage lens was so cheap I could not pass it up. It's liberating to shoot with 'user' grade equipment.

For "real" scratches / gouges a good trick is to blacken it in with a black fine point sharpie. Helps.

 

[Shac]

Is it only me but looking at this image (link below) it sure looks more like fungus than scratches
https://c2211b7d1267c530063ee6ad6e7...emp2eG8/Huub's Homepages/radiocron/index.html
Anyway glad it still takes OK images