White dots around the edges ("Schneideritis")?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

MINT comes from the world of numismatics, and refers to coins as they appear before they are circulated, with NO use or wear and in factory-perfect condition.

Exactly! I collected coins as a kid. So, to me MINT means just that - like it was just minted with absolutely no signs that it's ever been handled, let alone used, let alone imperfect in any way cosmeic or functional. For this reason, I almost never use the term MINT when describing something I'm selling. At the very least, to be MINT in my mind, a lens should be just like it was when it left the factory - in the box with the orignal caps and paperwork. Anything less than that and it becomes MINT- in my book. I still get a chuckle everytime I see someone describe a used lens as Mint+. I always picture getting a box filled with sand and bauxite to make my own lens.

That said, the lens Mika purchased is definitely not even close to MINT condition - even by the more relaxed standards typical on eBay. Think about it, if you bought a new lens and it was similarly inflicted with a case of Schneideritis, you'd send it back for a refund without hesitation - and rightly so. I also think $750 is way too much for a 31 year old single coated Symmar-S - even if it was in MINT condition (which it is not). If you check recently completed auctions on eBay, you will see several examples of much newer, multicoated 360mm lenses - without a hint of Schneideritis - selling for less money.

On the issue of Schneideritis, as others have mentioned it is caused by a delamination of the blackening compound around the perimiter of the of the lens elements. I have absolutley no documentable proof that it affects image quality or lens performance in any way. That said, my inuition tells me that if it's bad enough, it might reduce contrast slightly and perhaps make the lens a tiny bit more susceptible to flare. Think about it. The lens manufacturers blacken the edges of their lenses for a reason. If the blackening compound provided absolutely no benefit at all, why would they bother with the time and expense of applying it? I've got lenses dating from the 1920s through the present, and they ALL have this blackeing compound on the edges of the glass. So, it must be there for a reason - and my best guess at that reason is to minimize the chance of internal reflections. I'm sure a few tiny white "bubbles" in the blackening will have no observable affect, but when the surface area of the bubbles exceeds that which remains blackened, I begin to wonder. The only way to know for sure would be a controlled test using samples of the same lens type - one with significant delamination and one with none. I suspect any difference would be subtle (slightly reduced contrast), but I'd be surprised if there was no affect at all on a lens with severe Schneideritis. I'm not saying this would make the lens unusable and incapable of making excellent images, just that it would not be performing at it's absolute best.

At the very least, Schneideritis does impact resale value of the lens. As the condition of the lens was misrepresented, I'd return it to the seller for a refund. As long as eBay sellers are allowed to pass off imperfect merchandise as MINT, they will continue to do so.

Kerry

[John_4185]

MINT comes from the world of numismatics, and refers to coins as they appear before they are circulated, with NO use or wear and in factory-perfect condition.

My clever wife has threatened to put up an auction: "Mint mints in mint mint box".

Just for hits.

[Mika]

Epilogue

Although John’s wife already had the appropriate last words in this matter, I thought I should give you the end of the story.

I approached the seller (on eBay) about the problem and suggested a partial refund of the price I paid. I think that he truly had not realised that the white dot phenomenon was an ”affliction” and not an original feature. He was a good sport about it and gave 160 USD off the price. It’s human to make misstakes, so I ended up giving him positive feedback, after all.

By the way, I talked to a saleswoman on Teamwork who had the experience that all lenses of this age and type have the white dots. Some have more of it, some less. In other words, Symmar’s and Symmar-S’s all have it as well as earlier Symmar-S MC’s. She was adamant in her opinion that these dots do not affect picture quality. But, the credibility of a seller is less than the testimony of a user (althoug no-one has yet testified to the end that the dots have any practical significance, apart from the value of the lens).

All in all, for full- and 2/3-body portraits, a dot here or there doesn’t matter (especially not if they are Polaroids). For my next lens, which will be 150, 165 or 210 mm for 4"x 10" panoramas, I will seriously consider buying a new one … or at least ask a lot of questions before buying a used one.