What is cleaning marks?

[sonyleica]

I am little bit confused about this term everytime I browse some lenses in EvilBay. Some old and interesting lenses, for me, has some cleaning marks but sellers said that those doesn't affect the image quality.

My question is what is really this cleaning marks on the lens optical surface? Is it some trace of left over when the lens was cleaned? Can't it be totally removed? I mean there must be a way to clean the lens without any cleaning marks, I suppose.

When I use lenspen to clean the optics, will it leave some cleaning marks? Eventhough I have done it very carefully?

Rgds
DJ

 

[Pablito]

cleaning marks = damage to the coating, can even mean scratches. A subjective if not deceptive term IMO

 

[Neare]

Yes, cleaning marks generally when a lens coating has been lifted from the lens surface (occurs through wiping your lens clean most of the time), thus it is not something that can really be fixed.

However as Pablito also said, many people refer to scratches on their lenses as cleaning marks as the scratches were a result of cleaning. These are scratches at the end of the day no matter how the seller may put it.

Most cleaning marks are relatively small and will not effect a shot in any noticeable way. If a very large portion of the coating was removed however that will effect the result, quite rare for that to happen though. Best way to buy old lenses is to see them yourselves. I look through the old lenses on Ebay. 90% say they are in mint condition. Rubbish, "Clean and Clear" is a matter of opinion.

 

[sevo]

In camera fair days, cleaning marks used to be traces of grease on the coating that change the colour of its sheen, or at the very worst, minor abrasions to the same effect. Now, ebay cleaning marks are scratches and entirely removed coating...

 

[Roger Hicks]

cleaning marks = damage to the coating, can even mean scratches. A subjective if not deceptive term IMO

Seconded. But equally, they usually make astonishingly little difference if the lens is shaded.

Cheers,

R.

 

[john_s]

I used to be a perfectionist and never bought a lens that wasn't close to mint. But I have acquired a couple of lenses that would have been very difficult to get in excellent condition and I just use them happily even though there are some marks on the front element. If you're concerned with resale value, it's an issue. The lens is worth less!

I have one lens with a horrible chip in the front element. I have filled it with black paint (to prevent reflection/refraction) and there is no discernible effect of the damage. Actually, it seems that a chip that might be deep causes less optical effects than a large number of shallow scratches.

I object to the term "cleaning marks". It confounds a positive act, that is cleaning, with damage caused by ignorance or carelessness. A well used and well cared for lens has no "cleaning marks!"

 

[sonyleica]

I do agree. I don't like the term of "cleaning marks" either. Little bit deceptive to me

 

[batterytypehah!]

What are cleaning marks? A chance to get a good lens for a bargain price, is what they are. As long as you don't overpay, there's no reason to avoid such a lens.

By the same token, treat your lenses with care if you intend to sell them down the road.

 

[Disaster_Area]

What are cleaning marks? A chance to get a good lens for a bargain price, is what they are. As long as you don't overpay, there's no reason to avoid such a lens.

By the same token, treat your lenses with care if you intend to sell them down the road.

+1

I absolutely love cleaning marks (at least on forums, steer clear on eBay). MOST sellers here in my experience have been overcritical of the condition of their lenses because they're afraid of the hassle of returns and refunds from perfectionists. I too have a lens with a giant chip out of the front and it performs beautifully so I'm not at all afraid of a few cleaning marks. The only caveat is I won't purchase a less than mint copy of a lens if I fully intend on trying it out and possibly reselling it because it may mean I have to take a loss on it down the road, or at least have a harder time selling it.

Like others have said though... I stay the hell a way from any mention of cleaning marks on eBay... it seems to be a license to classify any amount of damage as "minor cleaning marks". I don't know how people have the nerve to list things as "Mint... with slight cleaning marks, and brassing which doesn't affect image quality... btw it's sold AS-IS with no refunds".

 

[Bill58]

Just another reason NOT to clean your lenses. I don't, unless I touch them accidentally or spill something on them. Give them a quick squirt of air (not from a can of compressed air) just a hand blower and put them up after each use and use a hood!!!

 

[batterytypehah!]

Just another reason NOT to clean your lenses. I don't, unless I touch them accidentally or spill something on them. Give them a quick squirt of air (not from a can of compressed air) just a hand blower and put them up after each use and use a hood!!!

Right on. If you shop enough for bargain cameras, like I do, you'll notice that they're either banged up bodies with spotless glass, or pampered bodies with lenses that have been wiped with a shirt sleeve way too often. Guess which of the two indicates that a pro used it before.

 

[Rey]

Interesting thread,

I have a ziess sonnar up on the evil-bay right now, it is listed with a kiev 4. I use the term "cleaning marks" to describe what I know as micro-polishing marks on the exterior elements. These are not large scratches and are pretty invisible when viewing through the lens, but you can see them if you angle the exterior lens elements into the light. So how then should these be described? They were obviously made by repeated cleaning of the elements. The lens is listed as "bargain/user" condition also. What else can one do?

 

[batterytypehah!]

^ I'm with you there, Rey. The fact that some unscrupulous sellers are misusing the term "cleaning marks" doesn't mean that your listing is dishonest. But, as you can see from those strong opinions above, you run the risk of getting lumped in with the crooks and losing potential buyers. So, what is a person to do?

I mean, have you guys ever seen a used car ad in, say, the UK? You'd think nothing on the roads there is worse than "excellent." So you get wise and realize that excellent = it's a heap. But this doesn't change the meaning of the word itself.

 

[Disaster_Area]

It's a gamble... you can list less than perfect gear here, but then you can expect to probably get less for your item as people here expect to pay less for less than mint... BUT you'll probably have less hassles here because people will know what they're getting in to and may know that a few ACTUAL cleaning marks aren't a big deal.

On ebay... where almost everything is listed at mint textbook price or higher, regardless of condition you'll probably get a higher price but be prepared for hassles. I've listed things with explicit and clear descriptions of it's less than mint condition along with GOOD photos (not those blurry P&S pics you usually get on eBay where you can generally make out the shape of an item at best)... and I STILL got a request for a refund because the buyer wasn't satisfied with the condition of the item, stating exactly the reasons I listed in the auction as the faults of the item.

I now only ebay things that are actually mint, with no flaws a buyer could possibly complain about... or things that I don't care how much I end up getting for it. And yes... I do use the "all sales final" clause with questionable items because the postal service here in Canada is ridiculously expensive... I can't be bothered with returns... unless the item actually has flaws I didn't notice, but that's a different story.

 

[Rey]

You both hit the nail on the head. One can offer an accurate description, but the buyer will return the item because he/she hoped that it was better than described. If the item comes back inact, then I have no problem relisting. I always state that buyer pays return shipping.

 

[john_s]

Interesting thread,

I have a ziess sonnar up on the evil-bay right now, it is listed with a kiev 4. I use the term "cleaning marks" to describe what I know as micro-polishing marks on the exterior elements. These are not large scratches and are pretty invisible when viewing through the lens, but you can see them if you angle the exterior lens elements into the light. So how then should these be described? They were obviously made by repeated cleaning of the elements. The lens is listed as "bargain/user" condition also. What else can one do?

If you describe the marks as above, you've done the right thing in my opinion.

 

[thomasw_]

cleaning marks:> euphemism for scratches. however insignificant, cleaning marks are scratches.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Interesting thread,

I have a ziess sonnar up on the evil-bay right now, it is listed with a kiev 4. I use the term "cleaning marks" to describe what I know as micro-polishing marks on the exterior elements. These are not large scratches and are pretty invisible when viewing through the lens, but you can see them if you angle the exterior lens elements into the light. So how then should these be described? They were obviously made by repeated cleaning of the elements. The lens is listed as "bargain/user" condition also. What else can one do?

Dear Rey,

This is, I believe, what most honest people understand by 'cleaning marks'.

The problem is that not all people are honest, so others do not necessarily adhere to what you and I regard as a fair description.

Cheers,

R.