Haze, scratch, cleaning marks, etc

[aleksanderpolo]

How do they affect the image quality? I am asking because I am hunting for a Distagon 28/2.8 with a tight budget, and want to know if I should go for one with "haze" or skip it...

Thanks in advance

[F16SUNSHINE]

It's dificult to answer your question in regards to how much it will effect the image.
Scratches on the front and near the edges will not have much effect usually on a mid to long lens but can on a wide.
In your case using a m4/3 if may be negligable considering that 50% of the usable Image circle falls outside the sensor.
Haze and fungus should be avoided period if on the interior surfaces. Fungus on a front element (say underneath a filter that has been on to long) can be cleaned with success).

I would like to suggest one thing. Since you have a m4/3 and a tight budget.
Maybe look for a Yashica ML 2.8/28.
Very similar performance to the Distagon 2.8/28 ( color, contrast, sharpness, distortion).
The corners are not quite as good neither is wide open performance (but close).
In your case corners are not important and one stop is not much to lose with a 28mm to gain better sharpness.
The cost of that lens is normally under $50.
Take a look in the lens gallery for sample of that excellent and underated lens.

BTW the Zuiko 3.5/28 and 2.8/28 are also excellent bargains and have similar performance although slightly more neutral colors.

Cheers
Andy

[estudleon]

If the haze isn't inside the lens, can be fixed. But can be an internal question too (differences in the tension of the differents materials by bad fusion) and here not solution. You can note the differences in the tension putting the lens under polarized light.

Rino.

[supahmario]

once someone tested all these influences by defacing a lens stepwise. i cannot find the link at the moment. perhaps anyone else here can.

[estudleon]

[rbelyell]

[aleksanderpolo]

Thank you all for your suggestions. The haze is according to the item description, I do not have the lens at hand, so there is no way for me to examine it.

Regarding ML 28/2.8, I am actively considering it, and am sure it is a great lens. However, I think I will be second guessing its difference with Distagon 28/2.8 and getting Distagon regardless at the end, so it might be better for me to skip it...

[aoleg]

Have a look at thic thread: http://forum.mflenses.com/lens-haze-effect-on-picture-quality-t19581,highlight,haze.html

Just two pictures: the first one taken with the lens with haze, the second one - same lens, but haze was cleaned. I would definitely avoid wide-angles with haze.

[luisalegria]

I agree, I cleaned my old Sigma Mini-wide that had haze, and the results are night and day.

Some lenses are easier to disassemble and clean than others. Wide angle primes are usually harder. Zooms can be impossible.

[hk300]

it depends what 'HAZE' actually is.

Very often haze cannot be cleaned, and means that the coating of a lens element has gone bad (= coating has oxidated) and then you end up with an unfunctional lens, the contrast will be significantly less than a lens without the haze.

Unless the lens is very cheap, it would skip it, haze is often worse than fungus.

[luisalegria]

True. Sometimes haze is not cleanable. In the case of my Mini-Wide it seems it was mostly condensed lubricant, but there was also a little damage to the coating, so even after cleaning the lens is probably not as good as new.

I have seen a comment elsewhere about using aluminum polish to remove a damaged coating, maybe this is something to try in such cases. Maybe better no coating on one surface than haze ?

[hk300]

[djmike]

I am conservative and can not tolerate for such Distagon 28/2.8 lens with "haze". 2 cents. Mike

[kl122002]

Haze is not bad, but it may comes again sometimes after cleaning. My Meyer Orestor 100/2.8 has haze within the core aera. After cleaning, the haze went to front. But that is not very serious so I just skip it.

But my cluminar 85/2.8 is really an great problem. Not just haze, but the coating on the front elements also. The change of coating made an 'whiten' area on the front element. It is hard not see normally, but can be found when check from the back of the lens under strong light.

I don't really mind scratches, unless it is for selling or collection.

[dnas]

I've attemped to clean maybe 50 lenses of fungus and 15 of haze.

Of the 50 lenses with fungus, I've cleaned about 30 without any damage on the lens element coatings. Another 15 would have had slight discoloration on the coatings, while around 5 have had damage to the coatings and the lens surface. (complete removal 60%, removal and minimal damage 30%, unsuccessful 10%)

On the other hand, I've probably managed to completely clean only 5-6 out of 15 lenses with haze. (complete removal maybe 30%, unsuccessful 70%)

So steer away from haze!!!!!!

[aleksanderpolo]

Thank you all, I have successfully steered away from the hazed lens without bidding on it.

On the other hand, how about cleaning mark on the front or back element? Do they have noticable effect on the image? Or is it primarily affecting cosmetic and resell value?

[peterqd]

This is a crop from the top edge of a shot taken with a Pentax-M 1.7/50. The sunlight has picked up what could be cleaning scratches. I've tried to find them, even using a loupe, but there is just nothing visible on either of the external elements. Could be internal I suppose - I rebuilt this lens from two defective ones - but could they be in focus like this? I'm a bit stumped.

[aoleg]

[aleksanderpolo]

Thank you all.

peterqd, that is one scary example...

[Attila]

Samples taken with this lens are here

with a MINT COPY

[ramiller500]

The main effects of lens imperfections are on the mind of the obsessed lens collector, who is driven mad even by defects that cause no noticeable degradation of photos at reasonable magnifications.

[Riku]

Fungus often grows under the coating detaching it from the glass. The damage is irreversible.

[spleenone]

[Banjo]

[pulatom]

IMO unless the lens is pretty short, the front element imperfections will only result in a slight loss of contrast when pointed to a strong light source (it won't be visible at all in "normal" photos).