Posted by Larry Fischer on November 27, 2009 at 7:59 AM
I purchased a len over e-bay.
It was listed as -Mint with no visible signs of internal dust or mold. A quick glance showed the lens to be in good shape externally. I arrived home just in time to set up for the ISS-Atlantis dual trail Wednesday evening.
It was then I noted quite a bit of diffraction of stars from supposedly a lens with superb reviews--Nikkor 28mm, f/2.0, Ai-S.
Exam of the lens internaly with a strong beam of light revealed quite a bit of dust or particlates on the inner elements.
So to my QUESTION; What is the correct way to examine a lens for dust, mold, etc.
I will try working deal with the seller to either send it to Nikon for cleaning (about $80 with P&H) and he can refund or just return the lens.
I had the same experience with a Nikkor 50mm, f/1.4 that I owned for a long time. The lens was remarkably better after cleaning material from the inner elements. So am I correct in thinking this lens will do significantly bette with cleaning, or is it just a dud???
the fisch
Posted by Alan Olander on November 27, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Shining a light through a lens will definitely reveal any dust that's present, but I doubt you would find any older lens without at least some. It takes quite a bit of dust to degrade an image, but when shooting into the sun, etc., you might see some of the effects. If I were selling an older lens, I would be very careful not to say that there was no dust present. If you shine a light through any of your lenses (even new ones), you may be disappointed.
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 27, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Alan,
Most of my other lenses are much more clear of particulates than the one I purchased.
Will probably send it to Nikon--about $80 including postage.
If this brings the old 28 mm f/2.0 mm Ai-short focus Nikkor to life, it will be worth it. It is a strong alternative rather than attempting the purchase of a new 14-24 zoon Nikkor. At least I can use lens covers and polarizers with the former....!
This lens had a "powder appearance" on some elements further into the lens. That would have to affect the quality of the image.
Posted by Alan Olander on November 27, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Sounds like the lens has an above average amount of dust. Should be a good lens after it's cleaned. Wish I hadn't sold mine!
Posted by Dan Borzynski on November 27, 2009 at 6:31 PM
I wouldn't get too freaked out about a small amount of dust inside a lens:
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 28, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Alan, sounds like you've had a short focus 28 mm???
I tried some test shots yesterday; full sunshine with a lot of contrast. Used my regular Nikkor 28 mm, f/2.8 not short focus and it did well through all f-stops.
The 28 mm, f/2.0 short focus did not fare well. The wide open was significantly blurred and the resolution at 200 magnification was neve as good ad the regular lens. Since I can see significant particulate matter with a bright angled light source on the inner element, I would hop that would affect the lens, especially wide open.
Before I spend $80 bucks on a possible "dud" I would like to know, perhaps from Nikon, if that is really the problem. Wide open, in my mind, brings more duest in play which appears to be heaviest at the periperhy of the inner element.
Just passing on my thoughts. Still waiting from the seller on e-bay to see whay he will do. As it is now, I don't want this lens.
Discussion
5 repliesIt was listed as -Mint with no visible signs of internal dust or mold. A quick glance showed the lens to be in good shape externally. I arrived home just in time to set up for the ISS-Atlantis dual trail Wednesday evening.
It was then I noted quite a bit of diffraction of stars from supposedly a lens with superb reviews--Nikkor 28mm, f/2.0, Ai-S.
Exam of the lens internaly with a strong beam of light revealed quite a bit of dust or particlates on the inner elements.
So to my QUESTION; What is the correct way to examine a lens for dust, mold, etc.
I will try working deal with the seller to either send it to Nikon for cleaning (about $80 with P&H) and he can refund or just return the lens.
I had the same experience with a Nikkor 50mm, f/1.4 that I owned for a long time. The lens was remarkably better after cleaning material from the inner elements. So am I correct in thinking this lens will do significantly bette with cleaning, or is it just a dud???
the fisch
Most of my other lenses are much more clear of particulates than the one I purchased.
Will probably send it to Nikon--about $80 including postage.
If this brings the old 28 mm f/2.0 mm Ai-short focus Nikkor to life, it will be worth it. It is a strong alternative rather than attempting the purchase of a new 14-24 zoon Nikkor. At least I can use lens covers and polarizers with the former....!
This lens had a "powder appearance" on some elements further into the lens. That would have to affect the quality of the image.
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches
I tried some test shots yesterday; full sunshine with a lot of contrast. Used my regular Nikkor 28 mm, f/2.8 not short focus and it did well through all f-stops.
The 28 mm, f/2.0 short focus did not fare well. The wide open was significantly blurred and the resolution at 200 magnification was neve as good ad the regular lens. Since I can see significant particulate matter with a bright angled light source on the inner element, I would hop that would affect the lens, especially wide open.
Before I spend $80 bucks on a possible "dud" I would like to know, perhaps from Nikon, if that is really the problem. Wide open, in my mind, brings more duest in play which appears to be heaviest at the periperhy of the inner element.
Just passing on my thoughts. Still waiting from the seller on e-bay to see whay he will do. As it is now, I don't want this lens.
the fisch