Worth keeping this scratched 50/1.8?

[ItsReallyDarren]

I picked up this Canon 50 1.8 recently. Everything looks decent except for the front element and some traces of bubbling on the very edge of a rear element.

The second shot was taken in my bathroom but I couldn't get the marks to show up very well. After I placed it on a flashlight the details are quite easy to see.

I did some test shots with the lens and plan on developing it later tonight. I paid $160 for this lens, given the scratches are there better condition versions out there to be had for the amount I paid?

[Al Kaplan]

You should have tried to get the lens for less. You should ALWAYS try...LOL, but the lens will most likely take very nice photographs. It takes a lot of scratches to really affect the image very much.

There's a well known photographer by the name of David Hamilton who's known for his soft dreamy photographs of girls. Google his name for some links to his work. He actually takes sandpaper to the surface of his lenses!

The 50mm f/1.8 Canon is an excellent lens.

[cjm]

Originally Posted by ItsReallyDarren

I paid $160 for this lens, given the scratches are there better condition versions out there to be had for the amount I paid?

You should definitely be able to get a better condition 50mm f1.8 for less. Maybe $100-$125 for one in good condition. For $160 it should be in excellent condition. Can you return this lens?

[Bingley]

So what do the test shots look like?

[Brian Sweeney]

It will have little, if any, effect on the images. But I would expect a near-perfect lens for $160. $100~$125 would be reasonable for one with light cleaning marks.

[Jay Decker]

Originally Posted by ItsReallyDarren

I picked up this Canon 50 1.8 recently. Everything looks decent except for the front element and some traces of bubbling on the very edge of a rear element.

Two thoughts for you to consider... If you feel cheated for having spent spent a top dollar price for a lens that should have been in the scratched and dented bin, then try to return it and avoid the anger.

If you can let that go, shoot the lens. Like the other guys have pointed out, it probably works great and these defects will not have any sensible impact on the image quality, particularly if you are shoot on film.

[ZeissFan]

It seems as if these lenses are in plentiful supply, so there's no reason to purchase one that is in poor condition.

[david.elliott]

The price for this lens has been going up over the last few months, by at least fifty dollars for the EX+ condition lenses, at least at KEH and Adorama. I think adorama has quite a few though - you can check them out, along with their grading scale. Their return policy is easy and generous if you go through them.

It takes quite a bit of scratches to impact image quality.

Consider whether you'll have to pay return shipping if you send the lens back. If you do, and it is a decent amount, it might not be worth it to hunt around for another lens that is free from cleaning marks.

Good luck.

[Brian Sweeney]

I would not label that particular lens "poor Condition". I've seen MUCH worse and sold much worse. But the last one I sold was for $75. It produced excellent pictures, could not tell from my perfect one. Now the latter- would go for $150 "in my book", but I'm keeping it.

[tennis-joe]

I have been told that if the from lens is scratched it will not affect the picture. What you don't want is scratches on the back element.
Joe

[ItsReallyDarren]

The film is still hanging in the bathroom waiting to be scanned. That should be taken care of when I get back later tonight.

I bought the lens from Keh, bgn condition. I have until Monday of next week to call them for a return. I would have tested it sooner but the lens came in while I was on vacation.

The scratches don't bother me as much as the price, seeing the recent discussions about the lens around here. For the price I paid it seems like I could have waited out for one in better condition.

I will admit though what pushed me into buying this particular lens was the fact that it was a chrome bodied Serenar (v2 I believe). shallow I know...

[Stephen S. Mack]

My eyeglasses are in the same shape as David Hamilton's soft-focus lens. When that view is your everyday sight, it gets old fast.

I'm in line for some new spectacles.

With best regards,

Stephen S. Mack