wipe marks; what is the effect?

[raid]

Originally Posted by JohnTF

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

I hope that you see this is as a joke.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by raid

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]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

(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]

Originally Posted by raid

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]

Originally Posted by Gumby

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]

Originally Posted by JohnTF

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]

Originally Posted by JohnTF

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.

[Brian Sweeney]

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]

Originally Posted by JohnTF

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]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

"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]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

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]

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

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.

[Brian Sweeney]

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.

[Sonnar2]

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

So, unless the reformulated the 50/1.8 with different glass, it must be the lubricant.

CANON quoted in their brochures of the 50's that the black 50/1.8 was a recalculation with newly developed glass types.

Probably the 35/1.8 (developed in the same time) hazes the same way. One should keep in mind that it was the fastest 35mm in the world back in 1956, patented in most countries for newest technology, which couldn't have been tested for longevity. My has a very slight haze, it just affect picture quality when used in backlite, but there are worse ones present. The 35/2 and all LATER lenses DON'T haze this way (although they can develop the usual kind of spider web fungus, which is removable when mildly). To me it's quite obvious that CANON did a change either in glass or coating technique.

I'm not sure about the 50/1.4. My is clear as a cristal but some are sold with haze too. I would avoid them as a buyer.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

I cannot really imagine owning a LR with the plastic radiator grille introduced in 1972...

I have to admit that it is a bit of a drawback. But I put up with it in return for the vastly better heater.

But then, as Ed seemed unable to handle, different people have different image problems. I'm glad that cheered him up, though. I wouldn't wish pain and suffering on anyone. Except perhaps (and this becomes recursive) those who wish pain and suffering on others. Hope he's better soon.

Cheers,

Roger

[Brian Sweeney]

So the Canon Glass in the late 50's is the culprit. I have cleaned two 50/1.4's (v1 and v2, going by the distance scale?), the haze was light but came off to leave a perfectly clean surface. The Black 50/1.8's did not clean up well.

The Canon 85/2 that came with a Leotax and Simlar 5cm F1.5 had been in storage for 30 years. It was very hazy and frozen up when I got it, cleaned up well. The Simlar also cleaned up well, but the focus mount had to be soaked for 3 days in lighter fluid. It was frozen stiff, but is feeling much better now.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

But then, as Ed seemed unable to handle, different people have different image problems. I'm glad that cheered him up, though. I wouldn't wish pain and suffering on anyone.

I can handle it just fine. What makes you think that you know what I, or anyone else, can handle? Do you have ESP, or a crystal ball? I think you are projecting your own quirky personality when you refer to the "image problems" of others. I prefer to refer to what you call "image problems" as traits, desires, etc. It is much kinder that way; your value judgements are not only meaningless, but somewhat offensive.

Thanks for the well wishes... I am feeling a bit better.

[Gumby]

Yes... I suppose you are right. Would you like a capsule summary? In summary, Roger seems to think that people who don't drive old pieces of junk or shoot with beat-up camera equipment have some sort of personality disorder. I made the mistake of telling John (not Roger, who I couldn't really care less about his opinions of people's personalities) that I don't buy "bargain" camera equipment and like to drive a nice, well-maintained car.

I regret having reacting to one of Roger's foolish comments... and apologize to you for having to see this message.

[Brian Sweeney]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

You know of course that none of this exchange between you and Roger makes even vague sense to the rest of us?????

Roger used to have headlights made from Canon Glass. He spilled oil on it. It etched. He had to replace it with Plastic covers. This is causing major issues among those that believe that Land Rovers should use 100% original equipment rather than third party glass. I think Vivitar sold the new Grill for the Land Rover. We're not sure who really made it, but it is a Series 1 grill cover.

[Gumby]

Now that's funny!

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Gumby

(1) Do you have ESP, or a crystal ball? (2) I think you are projecting your own quirky personality when you refer to the "image problems" of others. (3) I prefer to refer to what you call "image problems" as traits, desires, etc. It is much kinder that way; (4) your value judgements are not only meaningless, but somewhat offensive.

(5) Thanks for the well wishes... I am feeling a bit better.

(1) Of course. Doesn't everyone?

(2) And you aren't?

(3) Yes. I like precision in writing. That's how I earn a living at it.

(4) Quite unlike yours, then. EDIT: come to think of it, if they're meaningless, how are they offensive?

(5) Good. I'm glad we agree on something. Good health to you!

Tashi delek,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

We're not sure who really made it, but it is a Series 1 grill cover.

Dear Brian,

Aaargh!

Thanks for maintaining a sense of humour.

Cheers,

R.

[Gumby]

Roger, please continue this in PM if you must. Spare the others. Thanks