View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
bogolisk
Joined: 20 Dec 2009 Posts: 448
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:47 pm Post subject: haze ? cloud? fungus? |
|
|
bogolisk wrote:
Sorry for a newbie question:
What is this: fungus? haze? cloud?
this is the description from the ebay seller with 99.1 feedback: Click here to see on Ebay
Quote: |
Glass is clean and clear, no haze, fungus or scratches. |
_________________ When I try to be a photographer I manage to add an f to art. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 7448 Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
Looks like damage to the coating to me. It doesn't look like fungus, although it's possible this was the cause of the damage. I have two lenses a bit like this and, apart from possibly a small reduction in contrast, I doubt you'll notice any difference. _________________ Peter - Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: haze ? cloud? fungus? |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
bogolisk wrote: |
this is the description from the ebay seller with 99.1 feedback: Click here to see on Ebay
Quote: |
Glass is clean and clear, no haze, fungus or scratches. |
|
Regardless of how the lens performs, this is clearly a not-as-described item. I would be complaining to the seller for sure. _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bogolisk
Joined: 20 Dec 2009 Posts: 448
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:59 pm Post subject: Re: haze ? cloud? fungus? |
|
|
bogolisk wrote:
Scheimpflug wrote: |
bogolisk wrote: |
this is the description from the ebay seller with 99.1 feedback: Click here to see on Ebay
Quote: |
Glass is clean and clear, no haze, fungus or scratches. |
|
Regardless of how the lens performs, this is clearly a not-as-described item. I would be complaining to the seller for sure. |
yes I did complain! I paid $12+s/h and he offers $10.00 back. It sux I don't want the hassle of going thru a paypal dispute. Anyway, I up the contrast in post and the pics don't look too bad. wide open (f2. on e-p1:
_________________ When I try to be a photographer I manage to add an f to art. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57839 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
peterqd wrote: |
Looks like damage to the coating to me. It doesn't look like fungus, although it's possible this was the cause of the damage. I have two lenses a bit like this and, apart from possibly a small reduction in contrast, I doubt you'll notice any difference. |
+1 _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
trifox
Joined: 14 May 2008 Posts: 3614 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-05-29
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
trifox wrote:
bogolisk..
Why do you make an complaint when you get a nice piece of glass for nothing??
tf _________________ Flickr.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jon Goodman
Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 13
|
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jon Goodman wrote:
I believe somebody tried to clean a haze off the back side of the front element and did not know what they were doing. If you remove that element and clean with FLITZ paste (only use a small bit of it), you may see that lens element very clear again. You may lose the remaining coating, but at this point we must be honest: it isn't doing much good anyway.
Jon
I have seen this many times in the Minolta 58mm 1.4 lens and the cure is always the same... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sadness
Joined: 16 Aug 2010 Posts: 49 Location: Constanta, Romania
|
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sadness wrote:
It could be that the fungus was cleared but it damaged the coating. I have a pentacon 50mm 1.8 damaged like this, smaller damage, and it is one of my best 50mm.
Well like someone on this forum said that some of his best lenses were uncoated, don't remember exactly who.
Anyway looks like a nice lens from your test foto. _________________ My site motorai.ro as motorcycle addict, I post on the blog of the site.
casti moto piese moto accesorii moto echipamente moto |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
trifox wrote: |
Why do you make an complaint when you get a nice piece of glass for nothing?? |
There are good reasons. Sometimes, you pay more in shipping than you did for the lens.. so if you wanted a certain lens in good condition, receiving one in worse condition than you want, even for "free", still means you are at a loss after the shipping.
Not that the lens is horrible or unusable, just that you've spent money, wasted time, and in the end, you have not received what you need. _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spleenone
Joined: 26 Dec 2009 Posts: 1130 Location: Slovakia
|
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:37 pm Post subject: Re: haze ? cloud? fungus? |
|
|
spleenone wrote:
bogolisk wrote: |
yes I did complain! I paid $12+s/h and he offers $10.00 back. It sux I don't want the hassle of going thru a paypal dispute. Anyway, I up the contrast in post and the pics don't look too bad. wide open (f2. on e-p1:
|
I would try to shoot straight into the sun or some light source. Like test on flares or ghosts =/
...but nevertheless look like cheap glass. _________________ Shoot on analog mainly with
Nikkor glass
then Pentacon6TL for squares
and Fujica GL690 in case of 6x9
Carpe diem! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
€BAY has started to suck, really. _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Ok, guys, maybe what I am going to say will not please someone, but here's my take on the subject: when the price of a lens is in the 10-20 dollars range, you always have to take the sellers descriptions with a lot of doubt.
This is not a justification for the dishonest seller; but wanting to be as cheap as it can be (I mean to buy the cheapest possible) is an attitude that may pay big sometimes, but it also exposes you to risks, because when people sells cheap, it usually means that the item has some issues, or they just don't care at all to make a good ad for a USD10 income.
The solution? Buy less, but spend more and stay on the safer side.
Is it worth to buy frm a seller with negatives, or a seller that makes incomplete description, or that is vague, or shows bad photos, or... et c. et c.... to save 20 bucks?
I don't think so.
Examine all auctions and all dealers, look at the past feedbacks, see how well the object is described, make questions before buying, and when it is time to decide, buy only if there is one source that looks entirely safe - if there is none, or if you have doubts, or if you hear a little voice inside your head, do not take risks just to save a few bucks; delay the purchase, and try again one month later.
All in all, it is often our selves at the origin of most bad choices. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|