View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010 Posts: 574 Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject: Another scratched lens test |
|
|
revers wrote:
I have this badly scratched Industar-61 LD:
It was replaced with another with minor scratches. Here I present images taken with both shot @f4
1. Scratched @ minimum focus distance
2. Unscratched @ minimum focus distance
3. Scratched
4. Unscratched
5. Centre crop, scratched on left
Surprisingly little difference. _________________ Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 4710 Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
Nice test, this proves that front element scratches doesn't affect image quality very much. I think a test with a scratched rear element would have been much worse?!? _________________ Lars | Lens collection | Manuellfokus.no |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5019 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Well in theory a scratched lens must make a difference _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57840 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Excalibur wrote: |
Well in theory a scratched lens must make a difference |
+1 Thank you for sharing this nice evidence! _________________ -------------------------------
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 |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6624 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Interesting results! I'd be keen to see some comparative shots at, say, f8 though. That's when we should see some change, if there is a difference _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
To my eyes there is no difference.
I suppose if it's a good lens and scratched then it's still a good lens.
What would the scratches do apart from cause a slight loss of contrast?
I suppose with modern digital PP little flaws are not so much of a problem as in the past.
My Pentacon 1.8 has what looks like chips missing out of the coating but you can't see anything in the images it takes:
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andrew G.
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 Posts: 159 Location: Pennsylvania, USA
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew G. wrote:
Nordentro wrote: |
I think a test with a scratched rear element would have been much worse?!? |
Ooooh yes, much worse.
Front element scratches are really only a problem with wide lenses, especially ultra-wides. Rear element scratches however, do not discriminate. They WILL noticeably affect your image in some way; it doesn't matter if the lens is an ultra-wide or a telephoto. _________________
DSLR: Nikon D40x
SLR: Nikon N2000, Nikomat FTn
Glass:
Nikon:28mm f/2.8 Ai, 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S, 2.8cm f/3.5 F, 28mm f/3.5 Ai-S, 50mm f/1.8 Ai, (2) 50mm f/1.8 Series E, 55mm f/3.5 Micro K, 55mm f/3.5 Micro Ai, 100mm f/2.8 Series E, 105mm f/2.5 F, 105mm f/2.5 Ai, 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S, 200mm f/4 Ai-S, Process-Nikkor 260mm f/10, TC-200
Third-Party: Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 preset, Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 TX, Tamron 28mm f/2.8 Adapt-A-Matic (v. 1), Vivitar 35mm f/1.9 (Canon FD), Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 T4, Tamron 135mm f/2.8 Adapt-A-Matic, Vivitar 135mm f/3.5 preset, Vivitar 200mm f/3.5, Soligor 200mm f/3.5 T4, Star-D 500mm f/8 Mirror, Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 AF, Tamron 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 Adaptall-2 (44A), Hanimex 35-70mm f/2.8-3.8, [x2] Tamron SP 35-80mm f/2.8-3.8 Adaptall-2 (01A), Tokina AT-X 50-250mm f/4-5.6, Soligor 55-135mm f/3.5 T4, Vivitar 70-150mm f/3.8 (one-touch), Vivitar 75-205mm f/3.8 (one-touch), Soligor C/D 78-210mm f/3.5, Soligor C/D 100-300mm f/5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
newton
Joined: 10 Mar 2011 Posts: 343 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newton wrote:
What would you classify as an ultra wide lens? What focal length, to see the effect? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arninetyes
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 312 Location: SoCal
Expire: 2013-03-26
|
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arninetyes wrote:
I don't currently have any scratched lenses to test, but I know that a couple of my lenses are sensitive to front element dust. Slight to moderate amounts of front element dust don't seem to have any noticeable effect on sharpness, but I do notice an issue with flare. My most dust sensitive lens seems to be my Nikkor 25-50/4 Ais. When it's perfectly clean, it has minimal flare--not quite as good as my 28/2 Ai, but quite usable. A little dust, and flare increases rapidly enough to become a problem.
I would guess that damaged front glass probably would increase flare significantly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
newton
Joined: 10 Mar 2011 Posts: 343 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newton wrote:
I suppose the flare is worse in front of brightly lit subjects? When is the flare the worst? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
The absolute true doesn´t exist for me.
In some situation (front light o very clear background) the front scratches can be a bad thing. The same with the front element with abundance of clean marks (not affect only the coated) like the dispersion filter for portraits.
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
newton
Joined: 10 Mar 2011 Posts: 343 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newton wrote:
estudleon wrote: |
The absolute true doesn´t exist for me.
In some situation (front light o very clear background) the front scratches can be a bad thing. The same with the front element with abundance of clean marks (not affect only the coated) like the dispersion filter for portraits.
Rino. |
It is an interesting situation, for an artist, that is. I suppose the scratches could be taken advantage of in some scenarios. You never know what you are going to get. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
There aren't my prefer situations. I like to win at random.
A lot of notes in each pic, where were the subject to measure the light, or to do the focus at, ets.
All cientificaly taken. The same situation, the same aperture, shutter and focus at, very similar pics.
Rino _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
newton
Joined: 10 Mar 2011 Posts: 343 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newton wrote:
I just got a super scratched lens. It is the worst I have ever seen anywhere. It is worse than anything bad that I own, no matter how careless or beat up they are. It is like someone took a razor blade and cut into the glass. It is an awfully deep set of scratches. I have a real problem with it because the seller was dishonest and said they were cleaning marks and secondly because of the amount I paid or he charged. I have a real big problem with that. Cleaning marks are superficial; these are genuine flat out scratches and knicks. The worst thing is that he is a camera seller so he absolutely knew what he was selling and was lying about it!
Take the scuff marks that Revers had posted above and deepen it by about ten to twenty times! The guy even showed a pic of his lens but deliberately hid these capital S scratches! On top of that, he lied about it when asked! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 4710 Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
newton wrote: |
I just got a super scratched lens. It is the worst I have ever seen anywhere. It is worse than anything bad that I own, no matter how careless or beat up they are. It is like someone took a razor blade and cut into the glass. It is an awfully deep set of scratches. I have a real problem with it because the seller was dishonest and said they were cleaning marks and secondly because of the amount I paid or he charged. I have a real big problem with that. Cleaning marks are superficial; these are genuine flat out scratches and knicks. The worst thing is that he is a camera seller so he absolutely knew what he was selling and was lying about it!
Take the scuff marks that Revers had posted above and deepen it by about ten to twenty times! The guy even showed a pic of his lens but deliberately hid these capital S scratches! On top of that, he lied about it when asked! |
Try to contact the seller and solve the problem. If the seller wont apply or dont cooperate, put him on the bad seller thread on mflenses and open a ebay case (if bought there) _________________ Lars | Lens collection | Manuellfokus.no |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David
Joined: 13 Apr 2011 Posts: 1869 Location: Denver, Colorado
Expire: 2013-01-25
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David wrote:
Interesting that the only difference is a bit of shadow detail loss. Look at the branch shadows on the park bench in the split screen, for instance.
I'm curious about the unscratched lens you used for comparison. It seem that many of the differences could come from a slightly better lens (Vivtar or similar versus Quantaray, for instance.)
+1 on being surprised there's no meaningful difference. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/hancockDavidM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|