Test Before You Trash

[JOSEPH ANDERSON]

Hi, everyone.
This question is for all you extremely knowledgable optical people. Lord knows there are
more of you on this forum than is at an opticans convention. Unfortunately I'm not one
of you.Not long ago one of my favorite lenses (Ektar 203) suffered a fatal shutter
failure. Two weeks later at a local camera show I found the same shutter,a flash
supermatic with cells,and it worked.I got it very cheap because the front element looked
like it was cleaned with steelwool. It was bad.The rear was just passable. But,my only
intrest was the shutter.The next day I tested the shutter.I made five exposures on
type 55 film at five different speeds and stops. Negatives were fine and confirmed the
shutter was pretty much in agreement with my light meter. What I didn't realize is
when removed the cells from the two shutters I inadvertently put the same bad cells
back into the working shutter.A true senior moment! ( I did have a phone call while I
was doing this.) It was back to the darkroom to examine the negatives again. They
were good, no flare, tack sharp, and nice contrast.
I would very much appreciate any comments on this.
Thanks, Joe A

[Wayne R. Scott]

Check out this "Dirty" lens test:

http://www.deansphotographica.com/

Wayne

[David Karp]

I have a used single coated Fuji 240A with a scratch on the rear surface of the front cell. Being single coated and having the scratch I got a good deal on the lens. I have never noticed any impact of that scratch.

[Dan Fromm]

Joe, it depends on the lens.

I have a 210/5.6 Zircon whose front element has the classic "cleaned with brillo" look, like your Ektar. The lens shoots very well.

I also have an 80/2.8 Xenotar with the same look. It is horribly soft.

Cheers, good for you,

Dan

[JOSEPH ANDERSON]

Thanks guys, and wayne thanks for the deanphotographica dirty lens test.
That thing looked realy bad.But, the photos looked good. I'll be going through my
miscellaneous junk box now. I've got a lot of old lenses there. Some are stil on the cameras and date back to the 1880s and ninties,and they all look better than the
Ektar. Joe A

[E. von Hoegh]

I've mentioned this before.

I found a 9 1/2" Dagor at a photo show, for about $40. It has a 3/8" scratch right in the center of the rear outer surface. In comparison to a Goerz Berlin Dagor of the same FL, I see no difference. It's my most used 8x10 lens.

(I traded a 50mm Nikkor for it)

[John Bowen]

Wow,

I learned something today...

[Mark Sawyer]

I've mentioned it before, but I have an old, uncoated 12" Dagor that's badly scratched and pitted that came for free with a camera. I didn't use it for years, then tried it on a whim, and it performed beautifully.

Fingerprints on a lens can degrade its performance visibly.

[Dave Moeller]

Jergen Kreckel ("certo6") put up the following page about a lens that's in less than perfect condition. For some reason, it just makes me smile:

http://www.certo6.com/gallery/planar.html

[JOSEPH ANDERSON]

Dave, That Zeiss dosen't look good at all. But, that old " looks aren't everything" seems
to be validated by that great photo. Is that a crack on an inner element of the front
cell? If so, being that big you would think it would cause some flare.
Thanks, JOE A