Nikkor 50 LTM glass

[Steve_Pfost]

I just received a Nikon 50mm 1.4 LTM. After looking at the glass it seems as though there may be some discrepancy with the glass. I believe it is on the rear element. Could this be decementing? If so, how much will this affect an image and will this get worse over time? I've never had a lens with this issue so I am not familiar with such an issue, If I need to I will just return it. The glass otherwise is considerably clear. One photo is from the front and one from the rear.

[/url]DSCF8115 by Steven Pfost, on Flickr[/IMG]

[/url]DSCF8110 by Steven Pfost, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[xayraa33]

Yup that looks like de-cementing of the lens elements..that tell-tale sugary looking granular yellow balsam on the rim edges of the lens.

The lens will preform alright in most cases even at full bore but it can get worse and the de-cementing gets more aggressive and make the lens very poor to use.

Take the lens back or return it for full refund if you paid good money or top dollar for it.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Very common affliction with this lens. Think of it like this, that's as far as the decementing has advanced in 70 or so years since the lens was manufactured and its very unlikely to change in the coming years, so if you got the lens for a decent price I'd just use the lens and not worry about. You won't see any impact on image quality. I've used copies with far worse decementing and the images were fine.

 

[Steve_Pfost]

Well, my main concern was how rapid does decementing start to deteriorate a lens. Is this an issue where in five years the lens is going to begin giving me issues where it’ll be nearly useless. Or is this something I’ll never really notice in my images. I mean, I got the lens for $325, with tax and whatnot it came to like $365. So I think I paid under normal for it from what I have seen as I have watched these from time to time. Considering the issue, I’m flip flopping my thoughts on returning it. I know these are the chances one takes when buys vintage lenses.

 

[xayraa33]

Well, my main concern was how rapid does decementing start to deteriorate a lens. Is this an issue where in five years the lens is going to begin giving me issues where it’ll be nearly useless. Or is this something I’ll never really notice in my images. I mean, I got the lens for $325, with tax and whatnot it came to like $365. So I think I paid under normal for it from what I have seen as I have watched these from time to time. Considering the issue, I’m flip flopping my thoughts on returning it. I know these are the chances one takes when buys vintage lenses.

It could very well stay stable and not get worse, the late made Zeiss Opton Sonnars like on the 50mm f1.5 West German versions used a different bonding cement than the traditional balsam of past Sonnars and it held up far worse and affected lenses separate to the centre at times.

See if you can get a discount on the price from the seller if you intend to keep that Nikkor lens.
If you do not want to chance it and do not like defective lenses then return it for full refund, the Nikkor 50mm f 1.4 lens is not that rare in LTM or Nikon S mount and can be had for 400 to 600 dollars in pristine condition for top shelf examples like the black ring late made LTM examples.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

You got a good price on the lens at $325 for the LTM version. The amount shown is minimal, and fairly common on lenses of this age. It will not affect the images made.

 

[Miles.]

I'd ask for a discount but it'll still be a great shooting lens.

 

[splitimageview]

I've photographed many vintage lenses in an effort to showcase/reveal their defects, it's not all that easy to do...

I can't make any definitive conclusion from these two photos.

Can someone point me to what I should be noticing? 🙂 Just the little telltale signs on the very edges?

If so, that's nothing.