Lenses with hazing

[DEC3]

I sometimes see lenses listed for sale that say there may be some slight hazing in the elements. I assume that a small amount does not effect image quality but I may be wrong about that. Also does slight hazing normally progress to significant hazing? Does anyone know if it is easy to have this problem corrected if need be and about how much it should cost. Thanks in advance for the help.

[Alan Gales]

From my understanding haze is caused due to outgassing of the cement used to secure the lens elements. Sometimes it gets worse and sometimes it doesn't. It can also settle on the inside of a lens element.

Hazing causes the lens to be more prone to flare causing image degradation. All haze will affect sharpness some but a little bit of haze may not be noticeable or noticeable in all conditions.

You can send your lens to someone like Carol Flutot or SK Grimes and they can clean it for you. I don't know what they would charge and it may vary due to lens construction. I'm guessing here.

When I see lenses listed that have haze, I avoid them.

[jcoldslabs]

Haze or fogging that exists between two uncemented elements is easily cleaned off. I picked up an 18cm Xenar two years ago for only $15 because it had lots of haze within the front group. It cleaned off completely once disassembled, and it's now one of my favorite 4x5 lenses (and is crystal clear). Anything trapped between cemented elements is above my pay grade to deal with.

Jonathan

[goamules]

Of the things that can go wrong with a lens, I'd say an overall haze can be the worst. It covers more of the glass, so has more of an affect. If very light, it won't have much of an affect, or if not shooting into the sun.

[Dan Fromm]

Haze or fogging that exists between two uncemented elements is easily cleaned off. I picked up an 18cm Xenar two years ago for only $15 because it had lots of haze within the front group. It cleaned off completely once disassembled, and it's now one of my favorite 4x5 lenses (and is crystal clear). Anything trapped between cemented elements is above my pay grade to deal with.

JonathanSometimes, but unfortunately not always. Years ago I bought what turned out to be two lens cones, each with a focusing helical and a 135/4.8 Lustrar in Syncro-Compur, for Peckham-Wray press cameras. One of the lenses had heavy fogging on the two pieces of glass that faced the diaphragm. Solvents wouldn't touch the haze.

[jcoldslabs]

Dan,

I suppose yours is a cautionary tale: not all haze is created equal. If it has etched the glass you're screwed. I was lucky, but I've gotten lucky this way more than once!

J.

[ridax]

All haze will affect sharpness some

Yes the common sense says so... but in reality, my very careful tests (some 40x magnification and more) never showed any sharpness degradation due to lens fog, whatever heavy. Image contrast drops radically but sharpness just remains exactly the same.

... A decade ago I was sure I could get rid of any lens fog easily. Then, I started buying on-line. I still don't know if the reason is the materials used by Schneider and Mamiya (vs. those used by Soviet and East-German lens manufacturers) or the hot climate of America (where most of the sellers reside) but now I avoid fogged lenses, too (unless I have a special purpose for them and don't mind the flare - like in enlarging lenses, for example, as I often preflash the paper from the start and thus deliberately increase the flare) as quite a few of the lenses I got though e-bay had a pretty durable fog inside.

I also have a couple of Componon and Componon-S lenses (purchased from different sellers in different parts of the world) without any fog inside but with almost matte surfaces of their front elements. Those have no foreign matter on them; the glass itself looks etched. I've never seen the phenomenon in any other lens except those particular Schneiders. Looks like they used some really strange glass with a pretty low corrosion resistance for those.

And BTW my semi-matte Componon and Componon-S specimens are still perfectly sharp, too. But the flare is too much even for my style of printing....

[Alan Gales]

Yes the common sense says so... but in reality, my very careful tests (some 40x magnification and more) never showed any sharpness degradation due to lens fog, whatever heavy. Image contrast drops radically but sharpness just remains exactly the same.

... A decade ago I was sure I could get rid of any lens fog easily. Then, I started buying on-line. I still don't know if the reason is the materials used by Schneider and Mamiya (vs. those used by Soviet and East-German lens manufacturers) or the hot climate of America (where most of the sellers reside) but now I avoid fogged lenses, too (unless I have a special purpose for them and don't mind the flare - like in enlarging lenses, for example, as I often preflash the paper from the start and thus deliberately increase the flare) as quite a few of the lenses I got though e-bay had a pretty durable fog inside.

I also have a couple of Componon and Componon-S lenses (purchased from different sellers in different parts of the world) without any fog inside but with almost matte surfaces of their front elements. Those have no foreign matter on them; the glass itself looks etched. I've never seen the phenomenon in any other lens except those particular Schneiders. Looks like they used some really strange glass with a pretty low corrosion resistance for those.

And BTW my semi-matte Componon and Componon-S specimens are still perfectly sharp, too. But the flare is too much even for my style of printing....

I have not done sharpness testing with hazy lenses so I'm not going to argue with you. :)

You still lose contrast with haze so your printed image will look less sharp.

[Mark Sawyer]

Haze is a very bad thing and affects the image significantly in contrast (and sometimes resolution), as it usually covers a very large percentage of the glass surface. Dust, scratches, bubbles, etc. have very little effect on the image as they affect only a small percentage of the glass surface.

The good news is, I've bought hazy lenses, disassembled them, and wiped the haze right off! :) The bad news is, I've bought hazy lenses, disassembled them, soaked them for weeks in alcohol, bleach, acetone, ammonia, etc., then wiped and wiped aggressively, and the haze is still there... :(

[ridax]

Yes resolution also goes down with haze - as resolution is a function of both sharpness and contrast....

[Mark Sawyer]

Yes resolution also goes down with haze - as resolution is a function of both sharpness and contrast....

Agreed, (and this is just me being overly picky), but it's a matter of degrees. If the haze is so bad that resolution is noticeably affected, the loss of contrast will make the lens totally unusable in any normal sense. Haze is like a diffusion filter; there's a sharp image under the soft image, and it's not affected that much. But haze is also unlike a diffusion filter in that it's milky instead of clear, scattering the light all over randomly rather than near the focal points and dropping contrast radically. But yes, you'll lose micro-resolution along the edges, and it could definitely be a problem, especially if you enlarge.

[alanbutler57]

I finally bit the bullet last weekend and took my Super Ikonta C apart to see what could be done for what initially looked like slight haze. Naturally, it was the center element most of all, so more dis-assembly was required. I got probably 90% of the haze off the second element as well as the inside surfaces of the front element and rear group. I resorted to Ronsonol on the uncemented center element. I assume the haze in this case was deposits of volatilized grease over the years.

The improvement in contrast was immediate and significant. As a bonus, I found out that someone had re-assembled the lens wrong at some point, the three micro retaining screws in the distance scale ring were not aligned with the guide holes in the front element housing. So now, instead of some noticeable back focus wide open I have front focus which seems to be more common, and is, to my eye, less of a problem now that I know it's there.

From last fall, note backfocus:
119182

After cleaning and re-alignment, note frontfocus and improved contrast :
119183

Sorry, I just realized this isn't a "large format" lens story, but, I think the moral is the same; don't toss a hazy lens until you've tried to salvage it!

[Alan Gales]

I finally bit the bullet last weekend and took my Super Ikonta C apart to see what could be done for what initially looked like slight haze. Naturally, it was the center element most of all, so more dis-assembly was required. I got probably 90% of the haze off the second element as well as the inside surfaces of the front element and rear group. I resorted to Ronsonol on the uncemented center element. I assume the haze in this case was deposits of volatilized grease over the years.

The improvement in contrast was immediate and significant. As a bonus, I found out that someone had re-assembled the lens wrong at some point, the three micro retaining screws in the distance scale ring were not aligned with the guide holes in the front element housing. So now, instead of some noticeable back focus wide open I have front focus which seems to be more common, and is, to my eye, less of a problem now that I know it's there.

From last fall, note backfocus:
119182

After cleaning and re-alignment, note frontfocus and improved contrast :
119183

Sorry, I just realized this isn't a "large format" lens story, but, I think the moral is the same; don't toss a hazy lens until you've tried to salvage it!

Congratulations, Alan, it looks like a new lens!

I used to own a Condominium before I was married. I was sitting around the pool drinking beer one summer day with my friends Gary and Stan. Gary said that he was named after Gary Cooper. I replied that I was named after Alan Ladd. Stan spoke up and said, "Stan the Man Musial!". ;)

Alan

[alanbutler57]

Thanks!
Always good to run into somebody who knows how to spell Alan the right way!

[Jerry Bodine]

Congratulations, Alan, it looks like a new lens!

I used to own a Condominium before I was married. I was sitting around the pool drinking beer one summer day with my friends Gary and Stan. Gary said that he was named after Gary Cooper. I replied that I was named after Alan Ladd. Stan spoke up and said, "Stan the Man Musial!". ;)

Alan

Hear, hear! Having been born in Sedalia and lived in St. Louis for a while until age 6, Musial has always been the Man to me - what a guy, always pleasant and smiling in the dugout. And then there was Enos Slaughter sitting in the dugout filing/sharpening his steel spikes to intimidate the opposing team. Ah, those were the days (except for the heat & humidity I try to forget), what memories!

[Alan Gales]

Hear, hear! Having been born in Sedalia and lived in St. Louis for a while until age 6, Musial has always been the Man to me - what a guy, always pleasant and smiling in the dugout. And then there was Enos Slaughter sitting in the dugout filing/sharpening his steel spikes to intimidate the opposing team. Ah, those were the days (except for the heat & humidity I try to forget), what memories!

I live in Brentwood and Stan Musial lived 5 minutes away from me in Ladue. He used to trade up at my father-in-law Junior's service station on Brentwood Blvd. Junior said he was just a great guy all around and the best ballplayer he has ever seen play. Stan even gave Junior a wooden bat rack that his kids had growing up. Today it hangs proudly in his Son's man cave.