For those that fret about defects on their lens elements...

[tim atherton]

I recently got a 165mm Super Angulon of ebay that was listed as the shutter not working and the rear element somewhat damaged from being dropped...

I got it for about $320.00 and figured if it was so bad I could always sell the parts.

When it arrived you could see where it had been dropped there was a dent on the rear element rear metal edge and you could see a chip had been broken out of the rear element - oval and maybe 1cm in length, but it was still held in place in the rear element (I think if ever I drop this beastie again, that weill be it). The chip is on the edge - so that if you took off the rear element retaining ring a scallop of glass would probably drop out.

Shutter was all gummed up so that went in for servicing, another $80.00

Over the last little while I've been testing it in various lighting conditions, including as much rise/fall as I can get in to bring the chip in to play

Results - so far - not a sign of anything. Front light, no hood etc etc - the thing doesn't show up at all! And I get nice crisp trannies

So maybe one day it will show up on something, but for now, I figure it's a good deal and in fututre I won't fret over every little mark on the lens...

(oh and I'm keeping an eye out for 165mm rear elements - thought I had one on ebay - a well and trully smashed from a fall front element, rear fine, went for $80.00 no shutter - luckily I realised it was from the later design than my lens before I bid - one day though.... :-) )

[David R Munson]

If you're ever feeling adventurous, you might try prying off the chip and putting it back in place with optical cement. I did this with a large chip in a prism once, and while it didn't disappear completely, it was minimized. And I think if I had to do it again, I could almost make it disappear. Food for thought.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, er, ah, take a look at this: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjun04/pjso.html

I'm beginning to think that we're all excessively fussy about minor lens faults. Major ones, too.

FWIW, I have a really crappy, ugly might be a better word, 5"/4.5 Aviar with etched glass and all that shoots not too badly. When it arrived, I realized I'd been sold a pup and my heart sank. But it turned out to be usable.

All this is encouraging me to try out an even worse 135/4.8 Lustrar that I bought cheaply "for the shutter" and to find out what exactly was on offer.

Cheers,

Dan

[Jim Galli]

Haven't finished the interesting piece that Dan linked us to. But, is it somehow true that dings and bangs at the back light are more detrimental than the same on the front? One of my favorite lenses is a 165 f8 WA Dagor that has some dings on the front. It's very crisp. Just bought a V Protar that has some serious nicks at the back and haven't given it a try yet. I filled the nick in with pencil lead hoping that might stall some of the errant light.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I tried a Nikkor 240 W with a fairly unpleasant looking scuff on the rear element, and it was still sharper and contrastier than older single-coated lenses I have in otherwise better condition. The main effect of the defect was to bring down the price.

[james mickelson]

Same here with my 240 Caltar IIN. Bought the lens cells for $50 and all that was wrong with the lens was a huge spall about the size of a nickel in the rear cell. Thing weighs a ton especially in the #3 copal shutter I put it in, but not a bit of blur or any other problem with it. Even in sunlight.