Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> cleaning marks |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
cleaning marks
cleaning marks a nice word for scratches ??? do these marks make any difference to the finished print, there seems to be a lot of lenses advertised with cleaning marks that are a bit cheaper than clean examples, has anybody had a experience with these lenses are you using marked lenses and how are you getting on with them..
www.essexcockney.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Are these cleaning marks merely smears where someone has tried to remove something from a lens but not been able to do so properly, or are they actually very fine, minute scratches which are euphemistically described as 'cleaning marks'?
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I have a lens like this, that I have stopped using If i'm going to print in the darkroom. It is a nice lens which makes it a shame. so in answer to your question I would avoid them.
__________________
Mitch http://photomi7ch.blogspot.com/ If you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
yes I would say small scratches ,I have a nikkor 500mm cat lens it is quite old and the coating on the lens has gone a little blotchy its perfectly fine for black and white but no good for colour I have had it for 20 years and only use it for b/w ...but scratches ???there seems to be more lenses advertised as such ,so do you take a chance or leave well alone ....
www.essexcockney.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Can you get the lens you want on a trial basis?
I've got a 105/2.5 Nikkor lens with a huge mark/scratch on the rear element. I tried it against a perfect condition 80-200/2.8 Nikkor on the DSLR I owned at the time - tripod mount, zoom adjusted to match field of view to the 105mm. Images enlarged to 100% were virtually indistinguishable, if anything the 105 was slightly superior quality, so I got a fantastic lens for 2/3 the going price of a perfect example. Ian |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes these fine scratches can be a problem. they can cause a softness, it all depends on how dab they are, but often older lenses have blotches and scratches, and will perform very well, in all my years of collecting and using ''classic'' cameras I have only come across a lens that is very soft due to scratches once, it was on an old Retina, and should have been a fine lens, a zexon six element, but as soon as I held the camera up to the light I could see the softness, at first I thought it was haze,but when I took the lens apart to clean it I found a pattern of fine scratches,and although the lens, when I tried it produced very sharp images, it was as if they were taken though a soft focus filter, but that was the only time, and the camera was returned for a full refund, but on the whole a few fine scratches make little differences, at least in my experience, Most of my 50 yr + old cameras, which I use all the time have blotches and scratches on the lens, 50+ years of cleaning Ect, but still take fine and very sharp imanges, at least in black and white, so I wouldn't worry to much, but if you can get a lens that you can return for a full refund then do so, and don't go by the scratches Etc but by the way the negatives and prints look.
Richard
__________________
jerseyinblackandwhite.blogspot.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I usually take it to mean that coating has been damaged by cleaning. The problem you could find is a seller refusing to refund when the lens turns out to be bad, because the defect was mentioned in the description. I agree that glass damage doesn't necessarily cause a loss of image quality. I bought a Bronica 50mm which was described as perfect, but has a large white area inside at the back. I'm sure it is chipped or cracked. Strangely, images made with it don't seem to be affected, although I have since acquired a better version. I will take it apart at some point to see what the defect is, and to learn about the workings of this type of lens. Alex
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
The problem you can hit with older lenses with lots of small cleaning marks is a lack of contrast, and, especially flare . . but then again, use a decent lens hood and a film/developer combo that will yield good contrast and you can get around it.
I've got an upcoming Blog (nearly there, just need to finish the prints) about a Minolta I have with the most sand-papered lens I have ever seen - it is still a fine lens, I just have to be careful about how I use it. Chips and gouges in the glass are strangely less of a problem - shrapnel affected Aerial Recon lenses were regularly checked over and any chips painted matt black . . you would think that would have been disastrous, however it seemed to have little effect on the images. Phil Last edited by Phil; 17th August 2013 at 06:59 AM. |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drying marks on negatives | valerio | Monochrome Film | 20 | 22nd May 2013 08:51 AM |
Cleaning DDS | Dave miller | Cameras - Large Format | 14 | 12th November 2011 07:31 PM |
marks with nova print clips | robinb | Monochrome printing techniques | 8 | 22nd March 2011 07:37 PM |
Cleaning | ivanbpalli | Darkroom | 4 | 21st August 2010 09:51 PM |
Drying marks on film | jonogmun | Ask Les | 2 | 6th July 2009 11:50 PM |