which is worse?

[EdSawyer]

rear is worse. Less glass in the way to correct it.

[E. von Hoegh]

Where on earth do you people get the idea that the lens can somehow "correct" for light scattered by a scratch or other flaw on the front?

[LyleB]

Here is another example of a terrible lens doing quite ok.

http://www.deansphotographica.com/de...ylenstest.html

[lxdude]

Where on earth do you people get the idea that the lens can somehow "correct" for light scattered by a scratch or other flaw on the front?

My question too.

[BobD]

Who is "you people" ?

[lxdude]

Who is "you people" ?

The two that made the claim.

[Jeff Kubach]

I don't have any scratches on my lenses, but I do scratch my a$$ once in a while!

Jeff

[summicron1]

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.

my brother once had a nikon lens that was not just scratched on the rear element, it was abraded in a huge chunk of the center of the element, but he still said it was one of the sharpest lenses he had and used it for commercial work.

we tend to think something on the lens will block light going to part of the film, but I suspect it does not work that way. I would suspect, but have no proof, that a front element scratch would cause more flare if in direct bright light.

[ambaker]

Here is an interesting article on a lens rentals site about scratches on the front element. Sadly the did not offer a rear element comparison.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008...ment-scratches

[Alan Gales]

A scratch on the rear element is worse then the same size scratch on the front element. Also it is much worse to have the scratch near the center of the lens then towards the edge.