Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,716   Posts: 1,514,790   Online: 829
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: which is worse?

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrismat View Post
    A scratch on the back element would be worse because it is closer to the film plane. The further away from the film the less noticeable a scratch would be (as long as it isn't too bad).
    Additionally, with the rear element usually being smaller, the same scratch would affect a larger percentage of the figured surface. I would think that would amplify its effects.
    I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
    - Garry Winogrand

  2. #12
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, formerly NYC.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    414
    I scratched the back of a small micro 4/3 lens (14-42mm) It was some kind of goop about 1/4". You couldn't see anything on the picture if it was a complex subject. But on a blue sky, it showed as a darkened area about 1/4". I sent it back to Olympus and they replaced the back lens element free of charged including shipping. That was really nice of them.

  3. #13
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,558
    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    While it all makes sense in theory I think the scratch on the rear is better and have shot lenses with such scratches with seemingly no issues. The front scratches make the lens more prone to flare in my experience.
    The thing to do is to fill the scratches with black paint or marker. If they are too shallow to take paint they will probably not matter, unless there are many, which will cause problems. I know that at least some camera repairers will fill scratches very inexpensively.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Peak District, Derbyshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    259
    I think one or two scratches (big or small) won't normally make any difference to the image. Its when you get the build up of years worth of cleaning marks that the flare goes up and the contrast goes down, and even then the image will still be sharp. Some amazing bargains can be had on Ebay if you don't mind the odd cosmetic mark on a front element.

    Steve
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/

    book
    wood, water, rock,
    landscape photographs in and around the Peak District National Park, UK.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    wonderful new jersey
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    100
    Thanks for all the input! I can now stop worrying about every little dust spot or smudge on the lens, and just go out and take some pictures instead.
    That lens test in the link above was great

    R paul

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woking, Surrey, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    475
    Images
    27
    My Nikkor 105/2.5 AI has a big scratch/gouge on the rear element. I bought it a suitably discounted price on approval, but after a very careful image comparison with the 80-200/2.8 I had at the time (itself an excellent lens) I was unable to spot the slightest imperfection from the 105mm even when using a digital body and pixel peeping the images side by side at 100%.

    Ian

  7. #17
    one90guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Texas Gulf Coast
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    290
    This is a very interesting post, shot down what I have always believed on lens glass. What about internal imperfections? I have a brand new looking Yashica 50mm M42 that has what looks liked a dried water spot, I was going to disassemble, probably destroy, just to try my hand at lens repair. Now I think I need to run some film with the lens.
    “In the end, it's not going to matter how many breaths you took,
    but how many moments took your breath away.”
    ― Shing Xiong

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,291
    The effects of any scratch can be reduced or eliminated by filling it with black India ink. I found a 9 1/2" Dagor in a good Compound shutter at a camera show, the vendor wanted $50 for it - I traded a 35/2.8 pre Ai Nikkor for it. The Dagor, ecxept for a 3/8" gouge just off the center of the rear glass, was flawless. I filled the scratch with ink, the lens' performance cannot be distinguished from another 9 1/2" Dagor in barrel which I have.

    No scratches at all is obviously the ideal situation, but don't let one mark scare you off of an otherwise desireable lens. The Dagor was just too good to pass up - my second $50 Dagor.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    779
    Very informative thread, thanks to the op and contributers! I learned a bunch!
    2bits

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,291
    Quote Originally Posted by BobD View Post
    If the scratch is on the front, everyone will see it and think you are a bad photographer for using a scratched lens.
    However, if the scratch is on the rear, no one will see it and your status will be unaffected.

    Therefore it is far better to have scratches on the rear of the lens.
    Also, if the scratch is on the rear I won't see it and be annoyed.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin