How much should Schneideritis affect the price of a lens?

[Noah A]

I bought a used 120/8 Super Angulon on this very forum (as a backup to my 115 Grandagon, which needs a shutter repair and is worthy of a backup since it's the lens I use 75% of the time). It was stated to be optically perfect and "like new". However once I received it I noticed it was not as described.

It has two small coating marks on the front, the mounting flange is scratched up and, perhaps most importantly, it has the dreaded schneideritis. It's mostly on the smaller elements at the back of the front lens section. I know this is said not to affect image quality, but I know it affects resale value.

Before I decide what to do about the lens, I'm wondering, in general, how much Schneideritis should affect the price of a lens?

[ic-racer]

None?

[Lachlan 717]

Are you a collector or a user?

If the former, somewhat; if the latter, probably none whatsoever.

[Noah A]

I'm a user. But in nearly every thread that discusses this issue, it's mentioned that the condition affects resale value. I'm just looking for opinions on how much.

[Frank Petronio]

I think it matters. If a mint 120/8 goes for $400 then one with Schneideristis but otherwise mint should be $100 less, 25% - seems about right to me.

I'd probably pay 10% less for a Caltar and 10% more for a Sinar/Linhof-selected version.

I'd pay 10% more a newer black Compur over a Copal shutter, and 20-25% more for a recent CLA. I'd pay 10% less for a Prontor or Sieko shutter. I'd pay 25-50% less if it looked like the lens was remounted into a different, odd shutter with sketchy or missing aperture scales.

For each cosmetic ding I'd take 10% off. If the glass has cleaning marks I'd subtract 25%. If the aperture blades are oily that's 25-50% off. If it needs a CLA to run or has filter ring dings I'd take 50% off or at least as much as the CLA would cost, $100-plus.

I currently use an old Schneider-made Caltar with Schneideritis and sticky-oily aperture blades mounted in a Polaroid Prontor without aperture scales. The glass has cleaning marks and the body has numerous scuffs and a filter ring ding. The previous owner of this lens gave me $50 to take it! haha

[BrianShaw]

Noah, it depends a lot upon how much you paid. if you paid a premium price it might matter more than if ou bought it for a low-ball price.

[Noah A]

I paid $450 since it was supposedly mint...

[BrianShaw]

Well, I don't quite know what else to say. Frank's formulas seem OK to me but having a number of lenses with Schneideritis I can attest to the fact that it seems to have no affect on images. I don't really know the fair market value of the 120. At $450, though, I'd need a stiff drink to get over it. Actually, that's what I'd do if I were in your shoes: a nice glass of Jameson or Maker's Mark and then forget about it. Think of it this way -- it is an older lens and 99% will have some degree of schneideritis. Good luck with whatever you choose to do.

[cdholden]

I think Frank put too much effort into it, but I don't disagree with any of it.
Brian's recommendation of Makers Mark is an excellent choice.
Personally, I'd return it if I had been lied to. It clearly isn't perfect or like new. That's more than just an accidental oversight. I had a similar experience last year. I hate when people try to do business like that. It isn't difficult to be honest and fair.

[Steve Hamley]

This is almost a "troll" post. No correct answer.

Cheers, Steve