wipe marks; what is the effect?

[JohnTF]

You have all given me valuable information here.
I have an inexpensive 35mm 1.8 Spiratone (By Mitake) lens in Nikon SLR F mount.
I decided to take the risk of buying a lens that was not perfect based on the description of it. There are small marks but no chipping and there are crystal like small areas on the front. I added a lens hood first.

I expect some occasional flaw to show up as I use it [based on your discussions above].

I expect people to begin trying the late night marketed eyeglass scratch free stuff just before the lens goes on the table to sell. ;-) Best to sniff for solvents?

I will be looking for a book to come out soon. ;-)

John

 

[JohnTF]

Now that would be a new type of testing!
Let's find several fungus ridden, wipe marks infested, chipped lenses and let's compare them with lenses that are hardly used and that look like new.

Quick, before this drives up the prices? ;-)

 

[Gumby]

Any visible damage or dust probably knocks off half the value of a lens, which may be terrible for the seller and acceptable for the buyer.

This is EXACTLY what I was implying, with the exception that you added 'dust' to the discussion which I find a bit extreme. Any argument to the contrary seems, umm... for lack of a better word, ignorant... or at least not well informed.

 

[Gumby]

Now that would be a new type of testing!
Let's find several fungus ridden, wipe marks infested, chipped lenses and let's compare them with lenses that are hardly used and that look like new.

This is probably a waste of time. I can't cite specific URLs or magazine articles or discussion forum threads... but it has been done time and time again.

 

[raid]

This is probably a waste of time. I can't cite specific URLs or magazine articles or discussion forum threads... but it has been done time and time again.

It was stated more as a joke than as a fact.
I certainly would not do such a lens comparison.

It would be a "waste of time".

 

[raid]

Quick, before this drives up the prices? ;-)

I hope that you see this is as a joke. 😀

 

[Gumby]

It was stated more as a joke than as a fact.
I certainly would not do such a lens comparison.

It would be a "waste of time".

Hmmm... well, your post reads completely serious.

 

[raid]

(1) It degrades contrast and sharpness

(2) Less than you might expect. Often far less, but

(3) It is worst with lights shining into the front of the lens or even glancing across the front glass.

This is not quite the same as saying that manufacturers waste their time polishing lenses.

Tashi delek,

R.

Hello Roger,

I second your points given above. These were my "fears" before I started this thread, and I am pleased to see so many ideas/thoughts given on this issue.

 

[JohnTF]

I hope that you see this is as a joke. 😀

Right, as you did. OTOH, I do wonder how many of us would not consider buying/using "ugly" equipment. Is it rather like driving an unkempt car?

I have posted photos of nice looking equipment in various threads calling for camera "porn", and I have equipment whose purchase price was very low due to cosmetics. Maybe it is time for a lighthearted thread of photos made with scruffy equipment along with a thumb of the equipment.

I was not thinking of any direct comparison with the pristine siblings.

If I had to grab the M2 to go out the door with, it would be my first one which has the markings of a veteran, and was shipped to me because the store taking it in trade thought it too scruffy to have in their inventory, passing it along at the trade in price as a courtesy to the seller.

It also seems the market goes on a very steep slope from Mint to User grade.

Regards, John

 

[JohnTF]

This is EXACTLY what I was implying, with the exception that you added 'dust' to the discussion which I find a bit extreme. Any argument to the contrary seems, umm... for lack of a better word, ignorant... or at least not well informed.

Agreed, but often cited.

I do not have any data, but I do get the feeling that the modern coatings may well have their greatest effects on the internal surfaces. Am open to correction, certainly more serious folks here have the data on this.

If it makes a difference, I was thinking of internal dust and the fear of necessary expensive disassembly for cleaning. I am fortunate to have access to reasonable service, and often even the well known service agencies are less than people imagine.

Probably a lot of equipment that has been sitting about could benefit from service, I really do not like to see people forcing equipment to try and avoid necessary service, e.g. if an M Leica is not smooth when advancing, the CLA may be a necessary kindness.

Regards, John

 

[Gumby]

OTOH, I do wonder how many of us would not consider buying/using "ugly" equipment. Is it rather like driving an unkempt car?

I don't. Nor do I drive an unkemp or unmaintained car. A lot has changed since I grew up and got a good-paying full-time job!

 

[Gumby]

If it makes a difference, I was thinking of internal dust and the fear of necessary expensive disassembly for cleaning. I am fortunate to have access to reasonable service, and often even the well known service agencies are less than people imagine.

I decide on how adverse I am to dust based on my own impression of "how much is too much". The cost of cleaning is, indeed, the consideration. If the price is right I don't have a problem with buying a lens with a dusty interior or dried up focus mechanism because I, too, have many options to consider WRT local repair shops. This is one aspect of living in a major US metropolis with a highly active photographic industry that I am blessed with.

I think (but can't remember exactly) paying less than $100 a couple of years ago to have a well-used Nikkor 50 professionally overhauled and put back into "minty" condition.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Usa a hood on a lens with a lot of cleaning marks on it, you'll be fine. You are up against a Fourier transform. Internal haze and misaligned elements are far worse than a few cleaning marks. Etched glass is bad as it covers much of the surface area and scatters the light rays passing through. Cleaning marks just are not deep enough to scatter the light rays. Flare is more of a problem. Hence, use a Hood.

Bad Glass: Canon 50/2.8 surface behind the aperture. I don't know what Canon did to the lubricants and Glass they used, but I've seen it happen to their lenses more than most others.

Cleaning Marks have more of an effect on the value of a lens, not its performance. After all, if you can see the marks it must mean the lens is no good...

 

[raid]

Brian,
Only one lens has this problem in my case.
I will use it and will find out soon what the effects are.

 

[colker]

it has great effects on your mood. you feel miserable from having scratched lenses. though pics are less affected.😉😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Is it rather like driving an unkempt car?

Dear John,

"It is not dirty or unkempt. It is a 1972 Land Rover."

Anyone who can't handle this, and feels that he has to drive shiny new cars, has his own image and personality problems. Which are quite different from mine. (Or presumably yours.)

Tashi delek,

R.

 

[Gumby]

"It is not dirty or unkempt. It is a 1972 Land Rover."

Anyone who can't handle this, and feels that he has to drive shiny new cars, has his own image and personality problems. Which are quite different from mine. (Or presumably yours.)

This is the funniest, if not the oddest, thing I have ever read that has been written by you. If I said why I find it so funny (odd), I would certainly see the post deleted (at a minimum) and probably be banned from the forum. Thanks for the laugh... I'm quite ill and in severe pain at the moment and needed a cheering up.

 

[JohnTF]

Dear John,

"It is not dirty or unkempt. It is a 1972 Land Rover."

Anyone who can't handle this, and feels that he has to drive shiny new cars, has his own image and personality problems. Which are quite different from mine. (Or presumably yours.)

Tashi delek,

R.

Is it at least "scruffy"? I can probably manage to post a shot of my 1970 B taken with a scruffy lens, and yes the car is dusty.

Is the 2CV in the shop again?

Igor yesterday was telling me what a good deal the new cars are becoming, and as I have never bought a car new, I see no reason to begin now. The MG, however, needs a fuel pump and the squirrels put a three inch hole in the top, so I need the dollar to go up a bit more to order one.

Ed, if your Nikkor needs further attention, I think I have a vise and pipe wrench that should fit. ;-)

Sincerely hope you are feeling better, judging from the time difference, Roger must be into his second glass of Margeaux, while measuring the transmission lambda. ;-)

Regards, John

 

[Sonnar2]

Usa a hood on a lens with a lot of cleaning marks on it, you'll be fine. You are up against a Fourier transform. Internal haze and misaligned elements are far worse than a few cleaning marks. Etched glass is bad as it covers much of the surface area and scatters the light rays passing through. Cleaning marks just are not deep enough to scatter the light rays. Flare is more of a problem. Hence, use a Hood.

True indeed!

Bad Glass: Canon 50/2.8 surface behind the aperture. I don't know what Canon did to the lubricants and Glass they used, but I've seen it happen to their lenses more than most others.

I have seen this type of bad "haze" (which is not removable) at three types of CANON lenses. I think it has to do which a certain type of glass, or coating technique. The haze is always on the element just behind the stop, towards the stop.
- 50/1.8 black version (NEVER seen on the older chrome ones)
- 100/3.5 chrome and black version
- 50/2.8 (as yours)

I don't know about the common haze of the 50/1.2's, if it's of the same kind. Very often sellers talk about "just a bit oil haze on the glass, easy to remove" -DON'T BELIEVE IT.

It's not CANON specific. LEICA lenses hazes too, and often worse. Probably it has to do with some newer glass types developed in the early 1950's years.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The 50/1.2's develop the same type of etching as the others. ChrisN had this problem with his.

On the 50/1.8's: same experinence as yours. I had an early chrome 50/1.8 that was opaque with haze, but it cleaned of perfectly. Later black 50/1.8- glass is etched. So, unless the reformulated the 50/1.8 with different glass, it must be the lubricant.