internal elements covered in something

[denada]

i just got a nikkor 105mm 2.5f off ebay. i buy all used equipment, and all of my lenses are a mess when you shine a flashlight through them. but i think this might be an issue ...

that's not just a lot of dust. it's frosted in there. is that haze? i haven't developed a roll of film yet, but i don't really want to wait a week to get a roll back and request a return if that's obviously very wrong. anyone have a lens that looked that horrible where it didn't effect the image quality?

thanks!

 

[480sparky]

What you got there is a whole lot of resettled real estate.


AKA dust.


At best, it won't affect your shots. At worst, it will really reduce the contrast, especially when shooting into bright lights.

 

[fmw]

The lens is a good candidate for a cleaning. Great lens by the way. One of Nikon's best designs.

 

[denada]

^is this something i can do myself? if so, is there a link or any info you can provide as guidance? i am reasonably mechanically inclined, but if there is significant risk of damaging the lens i'd rather just return it.


when i google it tells me not to do it myself. there's no way having a pro clean the lens cost less than a new lens.

 

[KmH]

Do you have the equipment needed to test and verify each lens element is properly placed in the lens?
It's very unlikely the dust has any visible effect on images made using the lens.

Shining a flashlight through the lens makes it look way worse than it actually is.

Note that even new lenses often already have dust inside them.
Lenses are not assembled in dust free clean rooms.

 

[denada]

no, i don't have any equipment. i realize no lens looks good if you shine a flashlight through it, but i have a dozen other old lenses that i purchased used and none of them have elements that are coated like this one. that's just holding it up to an overhead lamp in my car and snapping a phone pic, as my phone is my only flashlight (the rest are pulled apart to convert land cameras) and my only digital camera. it's more apparent when i look through with my phone light; the elements are entirely frosted. maybe that somehow wouldn't effect photo quality, but i doubt that so i have already returned it.

i took a few photos with it. once developed i'll report back on what they look like.

thanks for the replies.

 

[smoke665]

If they appear frosted is it possible that you're seeing fungus and not dust?? Fungus can create an opaque lens and depending on the amount could affect image quality.

 

[denada]

doesn't look like fungus photos i've seen. not the same pattern. by "frosted" i just mean the coverage is even and completely eliminates the smooth, clear look that polished glass has.

looks most like the "small particles" example in this post: www.DavidSchoppmann.de :: Lens defects

which the author says does not affect the image.

it's only on the internal elements. the interior of the font and rear glass does not have the same coating.

seller actually refunded the money and said i didn't have to send it back, but that makes me feel guilty as some people are saying the lens is fine. will recommend he takes the lens back and sells with note and/or including my photo.

 

[Tim Tucker]

This could be a number of things, but the most likely is that it was probably serviced using the wrong lubricant. Some lubricants have distillates that evaporate over time. These then condense on the inner elements of the lens, generally the ones either side of the aperture blades.

I only buy second hand MF Nikkors and the biggest problem is from "home" servicing. I have three 105/2.5s and the one I've owned since 1980 is one of the best examples I've seen in terms of CA simply because it's never been apart. The other two are an early Sonnar version which is ok now and an absolutely mint example of one of the later Sonnars.

 

[cgw]

Negotiate a refund and keep looking. A very common lens you should be able to find in better shape regardless of vintage. You might also consider the 100/2.8 E series--a sleeper that gives very little away to the 105.

 

[Solarflare]

^is this something i can do myself?

NO !!!

Not without the right equipment and training / skill.

Theres some YouTube videos around of people unmantling a "simple" AI 50mm f1.8 (the socalled pancake Nikon, smallest Nikon lens for the Nikon F mount) and thats already really complicated. Douzens of parts, and everything has to be correctly back in place !

Lenses aint simple.

Really, if you would be able to clean/repair lenses, you would already know it and wouldnt have to ask.

I only buy second hand MF Nikkors and the biggest problem is from "home" servicing. I have three 105/2.5s and the one I've owned since 1980 is one of the best examples I've seen in terms of CA simply because it's never been apart.

IMHO that lens is a bit more famous than for just the lack of CAs.

 

[Tim Tucker]

^is this something i can do myself?

NO !!!

Not without the right equipment and training / skill.

Theres some YouTube videos around of people unmantling a "simple" AI 50mm f1.8 (the socalled pancake Nikon, smallest Nikon lens for the Nikon F mount) and thats already really complicated. Douzens of parts, and everything has to be correctly back in place !

Lenses aint simple.

Really, if you would be able to clean/repair lenses, you would already know it and wouldnt have to ask.

I only buy second hand MF Nikkors and the biggest problem is from "home" servicing. I have three 105/2.5s and the one I've owned since 1980 is one of the best examples I've seen in terms of CA simply because it's never been apart.

IMHO that lens is a bit more famous than for just the lack of CAs.

My point was that the ones that have been 'serviced' for OCD dust syndrome show noticeable CA, whereas mine which has never been taken apart shows virtually none, and was not a review of the lens' overall strengths...

 

[480sparky]

My point was that the ones that have been 'serviced' for OCD dust syndrome show noticeable CA, whereas mine which has never been taken apart shows virtually none, and was not a review of the lens' overall strengths...

An anecdotal sampling of one does not create empirical proof of a theory.

 

[Tim Tucker]

An anecdotal sampling of one does not create empirical proof of a theory.

And the assumption that I was comparing my Gauss design 105/2.5 against my Sonnar does not provide a reasonable basis for your statement.
My Gauss designed 105/2.5 does not show the problems of CA that I've seen in about half a dozen other samples (all Gauss) from review images posted online. That this is down to mine never being apart is an educated guess based on my experience of only using and buying MF Nikkors and that the ones I've had problems with are the ones that have not been serviced with proper care and attention.

 

[480sparky]

An anecdotal sampling of one does not create empirical proof of a theory.

And the assumption that I was comparing my Gauss design 105/2.5 against my Sonnar does not provide a reasonable basis for your statement.
My Gauss designed 105/2.5 does not show the problems of CA that I've seen in about half a dozen other samples (all Gauss) from review images posted online. That this is down to mine never being apart is an educated guess based on my experience of only using and buying MF Nikkors and that the ones I've had problems with are the ones that have not been serviced with proper care and attention.

How the h-e-double-toothpicks can I 'assume' anything about your lenses. I can't assume you're comparing any of your lenses to each other since I don't know what you have for lenses.

So your statement about assumption has absolutely no basis at all.