Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 79

Thread: "Does not effect image"

  1. #21
    Les
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ex-Seattlelite living in PNW
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: "Does not effect image"

    ....the more defects...the more they enhance coulodian, eh ? Just bought a Schneider and am farming some 'nitis....so I can enhance it's worth. Maybe I should stretch the truth a little and claim that it has seen some bullets flying, he he....I do realize that I'm stepping between political mines here...(not intended).

    Les

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    954

    Re: "Does not effect image"

    Quote Originally Posted by goamules View Post
    Goerz got it right in 1915, when they said "The presence of a few air bubbles does not in any way affect the work of the lens." There have been a lot of tests with horrible, cracked, scratched, chipped lenses, which show they create perfect photos.

    Let's see those tests.....

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,512

    Re: "Does not effect image"

    Quote Originally Posted by Toyon View Post
    I think we should all drop the commonly used phrase, "does not effect the image". It is particularly difficult to prove that a chip, haze, schneideritis, rub mark, cleaning mark etc..., does not effect the image, unless exacting and precise measurements were taken before and after the damage.

    Manufacturers of lenses know that careful control and precision have a significant effect on quality of a lenses' image. We can deduce from this that the issues listed above, will very likely have a negative effect on an image. To what degree? That is hard to assess. But "no effect", is extremely unlikely.

    It is fair to say, "image remains sharp and contrasty", "image seems sharp compared to lenses without this issue", "I see no evidence that this has a significant effect on the images it produces".
    Actually, it would be much harder to say that a flawless lens is in fact flawless, as who knows what not easily visible damage is there, bad barrel threads, bad production example or any other defect causing a lens to preform not as it should.

    Chips, dings, even scratches, most cases of haze, edge fungus, coating issues, WILL NOT affect the sharpness, contrast or other qualities of a lens even when shooting directly into the light.

    On the other hand, some lenses are so bad, that even when they are brand new, they flare and loose all contrast at any hint of direct light.

    So - if you do not like buying USED lenses that have not been in production for decades because they have defects that do not affect their operating quality, you should buy NEW lenses and leave everyone else alone.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,512

    Re: "Does not effect image"

    Quote Originally Posted by Toyon View Post
    Let's see those tests.....
    Put a small screw driver blade in the middle of a lens and take a picture and tell me if you see any effect..

    Someone already posted this, but you might have missed it:
    http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
    As you can see someone has already re done this tests with more then a "few air bubbles".

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    954

    Re: "Does not effect image"

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Galli View Post
    Won't be following this rule or any other generated by whoever "we" is in the original post. Buyer's Beware.

    Defects are over rated in antique camera lenses. People who want perfect lenses should contact retailers who sell new ones. People buying antiques should pre-suppose imperfections of an aritcle that has stood the tests of time. Almost none of my antique lenses are flaw - less. If one is, you can count on me using words like "minty!" etc. and doubling the price.

    Get over it.
    You did not understand the post. What I stated was that a seller cannot honestly assert that a defect "has no effect" on a lens, unless it has been precisely tested in a before and after state.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,512

    Re: "Does not effect image"

    Quote Originally Posted by Toyon View Post
    You did not understand the post. What I stated was that a seller cannot honestly assert that a defect "has no effect" on a lens, unless it has been precisely tested in a before and after state.
    I agree with jim, and as i said above, one cannot assert that any lens which has not been precisely tested will preform as expected.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Montara, California
    Posts
    1,827

    Re: "Does not effect image"

    Quote Originally Posted by Toyon View Post
    You did not understand the post. What I stated was that a seller cannot honestly assert that a defect "has no effect" on a lens, unless it has been precisely tested in a before and after state.
    But is this a solution without a problem? How many times have you bought a used lens with a defect and been told "it has no effect on the image" and then find that it does indeed cause a problem? Has it ever happened to you?

    --Darin

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    954

    Re: "Does not effect image"

    Quote Originally Posted by koh303 View Post
    Actually, it would be much harder to say that a flawless lens is in fact flawless, as who knows what not easily visible damage is there, bad barrel threads, bad production example or any other defect causing a lens to preform not as it should.

    Chips, dings, even scratches, most cases of haze, edge fungus, coating issues, WILL NOT affect the sharpness, contrast or other qualities of a lens even when shooting directly into the light.

    On the other hand, some lenses are so bad, that even when they are brand new, they flare and loose all contrast at any hint of direct light.

    So - if you do not like buying USED lenses that have not been in production for decades because they have defects that do not affect their operating quality, you should buy NEW lenses and leave everyone else alone.
    Wow. Dazzling illogic. You assert that it is hard to say that a "flawless lens is in indeed flawless", yet at the same time you assert that it is easy to determine that a flawed lens is not effected by those same flaws.

    By the way, I buy used lenses all the time, many have flaws. But I won't buy from someone who asserts that there is "no effect" when he/she has no basis to make that claim.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,512

    Re: "Does not effect image"

    Quote Originally Posted by Toyon View Post
    Wow. Dazzling illogic. You assert that it is hard to say that a "flawless lens is in indeed flawless", yet at the same time you assert that it is easy to determine that a flawed lens is not effected by those same flaws.

    By the way, I buy used lenses all the time, many have flaws. But I won't buy from someone who asserts that there is "no effect" when he/she has no basis to make that claim.
    This is easy to follow:
    Its impossible to say that a lens is flawless. It is easy to say that visible defects will not have an effect on the lens performance. A bad lens with a defect will still be bad. A bad lens without a defect will still be bad. Defects, even severe ones, have little or in most cases NOTHING to do with that.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    954

    Re: "Does not effect image"

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Boville View Post
    But is this a solution without a problem? How many times have you bought a used lens with a defect and been told "it has no effect on the image" and then find that it does indeed cause a problem? Has it ever happened to you?

    --Darin
    Actually a couple of times it has. A Cintar lens I bought was strongly effected by haze, even though it was very faint and the buyer said it had effect. Why are you defending people who make statements when they are selling that they almost certainly cannot prove?

Similar Threads

  1. How does "staning" developers like Pyrocat HD or others effect printing?
    By stradibarrius in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 16-Jan-2015, 19:25
  2. What is the "AURA" effect with IR film?
    By sanking in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 17-Dec-2010, 11:44
  3. "Just like being there" effect on Panoramic prints
    By NicolasArg in forum On Photography
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 9-May-2010, 17:23

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •