View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
DAVEG
Joined: 08 Sep 2013 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:05 pm Post subject: can lens marks be polished out ? |
|
|
DAVEG wrote:
I bought a 35mm OLYMPUS m.zuiko it has a slight mark on the front lens can these be polished out as I have not got it yet I was hoping to get some ideas from any one who has managed to successfully polish the odd mark out. Unless it's best leaving well alone as it might not impact on IQ but if I can remove it all the better. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kendo1
Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 171 Location: Edinburgh
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kendo1 wrote:
I'd leave it alone, you'll probably do more damage to it trying to rectify the problem.
It's very unlikely it will affect performance anyway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
56 DIN
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 Posts: 1656 Location: Germany Erbach /ODW
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
56 DIN wrote:
how deep is the mark and how fine is the surface of the lens?
if the mark is only in the coating, you polish away the coating and you´re done with a fine lens having some percent less transmission and maybe reflections if you use a filter - not really worthwhile
if the mark is in the glass it is probably multiple times deeper than the standards of surface deviation of modern lenses - this perfect radius shouldn´t be destroyed intentionally
just leave it like it is _________________ Thomas
NEX & manual lenses
Nikon & manual lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DAVEG
Joined: 08 Sep 2013 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DAVEG wrote:
yeah don't know how bad it is till i get it but if it niggles me I will just move it on , if however it does not impact on IQ then I will keep it ,it's a 2.8 35mm so may be useful focal range 70mm on my digi cam. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray Parkhurst
Joined: 04 Jul 2011 Posts: 504 Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
I have multiple copies of a certain lens type that have different levels of damage. One has bad internal fungal damage between elements. One has significant internal separation (about 40% of the lens area), another has a lot of bad chips and scratches on outer surfaces, a couple have heavy haze, and I also have a couple pristine copies. They all produce virtually the same image quality! The lens with 40% internal separation, and the ones with heavy haze, have very slightly lower contrast, but otherwise are the same as the others. Most folks shy away from lenses with even a small scratch or coating mark, but in reality those things make no difference to image quality or use. Such a small percentage of light passes through those regions that there is no perceptible overall effect. All that can happen is that light hitting a scratch or chip or coating mark is scattered to other areas of film or to pixels it should not be going to, and thus lowering the local contrast. The biggest bargains out there are lenses with small imperfections that no one else wants, and thus you can get for a fraction of their true value. I leave the perfect lenses to collectors, who ironically don't care about image quality anyway! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote: |
I have multiple copies of a certain lens type that have different levels of damage. One has bad internal fungal damage between elements. One has significant internal separation (about 40% of the lens area), another has a lot of bad chips and scratches on outer surfaces, a couple have heavy haze, and I also have a couple pristine copies. They all produce virtually the same image quality! The lens with 40% internal separation, and the ones with heavy haze, have very slightly lower contrast, but otherwise are the same as the others. Most folks shy away from lenses with even a small scratch or coating mark, but in reality those things make no difference to image quality or use. Such a small percentage of light passes through those regions that there is no perceptible overall effect. All that can happen is that light hitting a scratch or chip or coating mark is scattered to other areas of film or to pixels it should not be going to, and thus lowering the local contrast. The biggest bargains out there are lenses with small imperfections that no one else wants, and thus you can get for a fraction of their true value. I leave the perfect lenses to collectors, who ironically don't care about image quality anyway! |
+1 with one disagreement: 'milky glass' I have had a few lenses with milky or hazy glass that were not fixable and hardly to not useable _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
twinquartz
Joined: 11 Jun 2012 Posts: 316 Location: Sweden
Expire: 2013-10-29
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
twinquartz wrote:
Yes, it can be polished out -- but the optical properties of the
surface/lens will suffer.
Remember, "to polish" is just a milder version of "to grind".
Google for astronomy lens polish and you will find compounds
which are suitable for optical grade work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DAVEG
Joined: 08 Sep 2013 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DAVEG wrote:
I must admit I got for £20 so relly can't complain too much especially for a Olympus zuiko wolud have had to £50 -£60 with no imperfections .
Also a while back I bought a 50mm for a £5 cos it had a bit of fungus but photos were still bloody good and for no money sometimes I think I worry too much, besides can't acheive perfection ever even what I regard as a decent photo (PRINZ GALAXY TEST DAY )
others would differ but I take thes photo's to please me and my family , so one man's good photo may very well be another mans poor photo. Same I suspect goes for lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DAVEG
Joined: 08 Sep 2013 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DAVEG wrote:
Had a previous Prinz Galaxy 400mm with milky rear I was unimpressed when seller said it was perfect got refund woman said I could have so moved iton and bought my new one with the proceeds result. Some people now shit all about lens qaulity . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gmonkman1
Joined: 08 Jun 2011 Posts: 45 Location: se of Winnipeg Manitoba
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gmonkman1 wrote:
Hello:
A friend of mine had a sigma 10-20 that he was getting real frustrated with.
He showed me a bad scrape that happened while he had the camera on a neck strap
and the front element hit a rock surface. Said he was getting tired of photoshopping
out the blur that it caused. So he asked me if I wanted it. I couldn`t say no.
The problem was that it was leaving a blur in the pictures that I took so I used a
black marker to fill it in. Didn`t work...the grey blur turned to a black blur.
Then I got the idea of polishing with a cotton cloth and a wee bit of toothpaste. That
worked a little bit by taking off the edges and making the blur smaller but it was still
there. That blur would always be at the 3 o`clock position in horizontal scenes.
After thinking about the projection circle having more unused space on the top and
the bottom at a horizontal position , I removed the front element and turned it
to the 12o`clock position. Yay....it worked but I have to be careful of strong front
light.
I believe this may work with any bad scratches and a variety of lenses.
have a good day |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
You mentioned I believe tha the mark or marks is on the front element, yes? If so, just leave it alone. Don't worry about it. It will have no effect on your photos unless it's a fisheye, which I don't think it is.
I've often told the story here about my Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED-if with the big chunk of glass missing from the front element. The whole lens looked like it had been through the SoCal press corps wars. But it operated perfectly and despite that big huge gouge out of the front element, it took perfect, very sharp photos. In fact, it was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
You mentioned I believe tha the mark or marks is on the front element, yes? If so, just leave it alone. Don't worry about it. It will have no effect on your photos unless it's a fisheye, which I don't think it is.
I've often told the story here about my Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED-if with the big chunk of glass missing from the front element. The whole lens looked like it had been through the SoCal press corps wars. But it operated perfectly and despite that big huge gouge out of the front element, it took perfect, very sharp photos. In fact, it was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned. |
The same with a friendla of mtthe with the nikkor 180/2,8 of beggin 70's.
Frontthe element scratches and cleaning marks. Sharo and good contrast. I used it.
Why polished? Use it. Loss contrast? Well, PP. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
guardian
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1746
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
guardian wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote: |
I have multiple copies of a certain lens type that have different levels of damage. One has bad internal fungal damage between elements. One has significant internal separation (about 40% of the lens area), another has a lot of bad chips and scratches on outer surfaces, a couple have heavy haze, and I also have a couple pristine copies. They all produce virtually the same image quality! The lens with 40% internal separation, and the ones with heavy haze, have very slightly lower contrast, but otherwise are the same as the others. Most folks shy away from lenses with even a small scratch or coating mark, but in reality those things make no difference to image quality or use. Such a small percentage of light passes through those regions that there is no perceptible overall effect. All that can happen is that light hitting a scratch or chip or coating mark is scattered to other areas of film or to pixels it should not be going to, and thus lowering the local contrast. The biggest bargains out there are lenses with small imperfections that no one else wants, and thus you can get for a fraction of their true value. I leave the perfect lenses to collectors, who ironically don't care about image quality anyway! |
From everything I've ever read I have to agree with you. It's interesting how little impact is created by scratches, even gashes, suffered by the front element of a lens. I don't really know the reason. In an information theoretic sense, it appears there is a lot of redundancy in the system.
Of course I agree with those who believe overall lens "milkiness" has an impact on image quality. With milkiness, all available information is compromised and there is no backup or redundancy possible.
To the OP:
I agree with other voices here suggesting no effort be made to "repair" your lens. The opportunity for making things worse is significant. Chances for any real improvement are scant. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Quote: |
can lens marks be polished out ? |
You'd do a lot more damage to the lens than the mark itself. _________________ 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 |
|
|
exaklaus
Joined: 11 Aug 2009 Posts: 1633 Location: Niederrhein, Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
exaklaus wrote:
Orio wrote: |
You'd do a lot more damage to the lens than the mark itself. |
YES!!
Klaus _________________ my Ebay auctions
Canon 5D II,
Fuji GW690III, Fuji G617, Fujifilm X-E1
Bessaflex TM
Tachihara 4"x5"
Summilux-R 1:1,4/50
Canon FD 85mm 1:1,2
Color-Heliar 75mm F2.5 SL
www.autoselbstfotografie.de
www.classic-cameras-and-lenses.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
konicamera
Joined: 03 May 2009 Posts: 746 Location: Warsaw, Poland
Expire: 2014-06-14
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 8:13 am Post subject: Re: can lens marks be polished out ? |
|
|
konicamera wrote:
DAVEG wrote: |
I bought a 35mm OLYMPUS m.zuiko it has a slight mark on the front lens can these be polished out as I have not got it yet I was hoping to get some ideas from any one who has managed to successfully polish the odd mark out. Unless it's best leaving well alone as it might not impact on IQ but if I can remove it all the better. |
I agree with everyone here who suggested not doing anything and that scratches on the coating have no appreciable effect on IQ.
However, in the case of a gouge in the glass (not your situation as I understand, but the info might be useful), you may run into strange reflections depending on the angle of the lens relative to the sun or other strong light source. I had a lens like this a long time ago. It had a scratch 1mm wide and deep and about 1.5 cm long right in the middle of the front element and produced the funniest light artifacts in some situations. To be rid of them I touched up the inside of the scratch with a flat black marker pen. This eliminates this portion of the front element from the light transmitting surface area. BTW, there are no discernible effects in terms of light falloff (to put things in perspective, consider that any one click on the aperture ring reduces the light transmitting area by half). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DAVEG
Joined: 08 Sep 2013 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DAVEG wrote:
Got refund was not happy so no longer a problem, case closed |
|
Back to top |
|
|
significantimagery
Joined: 20 Apr 2013 Posts: 75 Location: Kansas City
|
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
significantimagery wrote:
I just received a lens today that was advertised with SCRATCHES upper case in the auction title.
I had looked at the photos and determined the scratches didn't look like too big of a deal to me. I could live with that and was happy to purchase this lens for almost half of the regular going price...for this minor imperfection.
Here's what it looked like:
Guess what...there were NO scratches on this lens! The fine circular lines were certainly marks from cleaning the lens...and they did appear to look like light scratches... but with a breath on the lens and some slight pressure on a cleaning cloth with my finger nail, the marks are all completely gone!
That's not going to work every time of course...certainly not for "real" scratches.
I thought I would share this story in this thread because if it's not an obvious scratch...you never know, maybe it isn't. Might just be dirty...
I bought this lens from a seller who regularly sells vintage camera lenses...he must've assumed they must be scratches or just didn't try very hard to clean the lens and didn't want to risk making the scratches worse.
Chances are you are a member of this forum, so if you sold this to me, thank you! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SkvLTD
Joined: 19 Apr 2013 Posts: 198
|
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
SkvLTD wrote:
But hey, at least everyone has tried something instead of trashing potentially useable pieces of equipment. |
|
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
|