Will this affect image quality?

[writingwithlight]

I just got this lens from a supposedly reputable online shop. I will not name it, as this may be a one off incident,and I do not want to smear anyone's reputation.
I bought this Jupiter 8 lens off this online shop at about 2-2.5 times what I could have gotten off ebay, as I thought that all the lenses it sold were already CLA'd and in pretty good condition.
But I was sorely disappointed with what I saw. There is this relatively huge bubble in the lens. (look at the pic I uploaded), which I do not whether it will affect the image quality of my pics.
Though I know that the bubble is not the fault of the person who sold me the lens, but I am very disappointed that it was not stated in the item description.
As I am still pretty new to such stuff, could the mentors and experts here pls tell me whether it will affect image quality? If it does, then I may want to ask for a refund and ship this lens back to the person.🙁🙁🙁
Thanks.

 

[Thardy]

I always try out new equipment when it arrives. I would test it all apertures to see if the bubble cause any problems.

Sometimes sellers don't even know there's a problem . If it's OK you might still be able to keep the lens but get a discount. I'd shoot a roll then have it developed at a one hour lab if you have them where you are.

 

[writingwithlight]

Thanks for the advice. I will go try it out.

 

[writingwithlight]

No kidding!

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'd be astonished if it mattered. It is about one-twentieth of one per cent of the area of the element; it won't scatter light in the way that a scratch would; it's not worth worrying about.

What sort of image degradation are you expecting? Because unless you have a perfect example of the same lens for comparison, what is your standard?

One of my lenses has a tiny dab of black paint on the front glass, covering up an even tinier scratch -- and that is no problem. This should be of even less concern.

As Platon says, in the past, bubbles were often held up as a trademark of good lenses. In all fairness, this was making a virtue out of necessity: expensive optical glass is not something you re-melt needlessly (especially after it has been ground), and re-melting a glass like this would indeed be unnecessary.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[writingwithlight]

I see. Thanks so much for your insights. I'm still kind of ignorant when it comes to lenses for rangefinders. I started off with digital, and I'm still picking up the ropes for RFs. I think you guys have allayed my fears. Esp when Roger has spoken. Lol. In fact, believe it or not, the very reason I picked up rangefinding is because I read the book you wrote about rangefinders. Was somehow very inspired after reading it. Its unexplainable, but reading it somehow stirred my blood. No kidding.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In fact, believe it or not, the very reason I picked up rangefinding is because I read the book you wrote about rangefinders. Was somehow very inspired after reading it. Its unexplainable, but reading it somehow stirred my blood. No kidding.

Thank you: I am touched!

(Mind you, a lot of people have called me 'touched' over the years).

Cheers,

R.

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

While it may not matter for the photos, it does matter in the transaction. Condition of equipment is a large determinant of price, and should be fully disclosed. A camera that's covered with scratches will take the same photos as a mint one, but that's besides the point.

 

[Windscale]

There's NO problem with the bubble in the lens!
You can seen it more often in older lenses.

Once upon a time it was a "trademark" for high quality lenses to have these "bubbles".

You can see many in older Leica lenses.

 

[writingwithlight]

Well, the guy who sold me the lens probably assumed that I knew that having bubbles in the lens wasn't an issue. Since it wouldn't affect the quality of the photos, I guess I'll just let it pass.

 

[Roger Hicks]

While it may not matter for the photos, it does matter in the transaction. Condition of equipment is a large determinant of price, and should be fully disclosed. A camera that's covered with scratches will take the same photos as a mint one, but that's besides the point.

Yes, but bubbles like these are normal and need not be mentioned. So as you say, it's beside the point.

Cheers,

R.

 

[payasam]

Optical glass often had bubbles in it. I believe some or all FSU lenses came with a reassuring statement that the bubbles would not affect picture quality.

 

[retro]

It's already been said but I will chime in:
Bubbles are common on older lenses and are not a big deal optically.

BTW, I have an old Schneider 360mm lens with a big crack on the
front element and it is a very sharp lens, regardless.

 

[Highway 61]

I just got this lens from a supposedly reputable online shop. I will not name it, as this may be a one off incident,and I do not want to smear anyone's reputation.
I bought this Jupiter 8 lens off this online shop at about 2-2.5 times what I could have gotten off ebay, as I thought that all the lenses it sold were already CLA'd and in pretty good condition.
But I was sorely disappointed with what I saw. There is this relatively huge bubble in the lens.

I have such similar bubbles in pretty all my vintage Zeiss and Nikon rangefinder lenses.

You'd rather be happy to have one in a Jupiter-8, it's the trademark for high-quality floated optical glass.

Not too sure, but if your J-8 was one made with some Vodka bottles recycled glass, you'd probably not have bubbles (unless it had been Vodka on the rocks w/ seltzer water) but you wouldn't have anything that could be called a photographic lens, either.

Besides - we all recognized the seller you are talking about I'm pretty certain... 😉