matt paint on lens details...

[numnutz]

I have four relatively modern (1940s - 1960s) lenses that I have purchased from various sources. I have noticed that the lettering around the inside of the front element, name, serial number etc. has been painted out matt black.

Can anyone give me an explanation why this has been done? I have not seen it on any wide angle lens and never on lenses for 35mm and medium format. I assume it is to stop flare but I have not seen it on any wide angle large format lenses where I would expect there may be more likely the possibility of edge flare.

Should I try to remove it or is it best left alone (I don't know what the paint is)


nn :)

[Steve Hamley]

It's to stop flare. There's a comment here somewhere about blacking out the white lettering on a wide angle Dagor to prevent same.

I'd leave it alone.

Cheers, Steve

[erie patsellis]

Common practice with commercial shooters (until recently apparently, I still do it), it eliminates the reflection of the lettering in the product you are shooting.

[GPS]

It was indeed the common practice especially in a studio with studio lights.

[erie patsellis]

All my normal and slightly longer 35mm lenses (up to 180mm) have their trim rings blacked out. All my RB's do as well. It really depended on how anal you were, and what type of work you did, if you did lots of shiny objects, you tended to black out lenses, bodies and grip equipment, and drape black cloth on everything within the field of view of the object. Unless I really needed to, all jewelry and other shiny bits were typically shot with the longest lens I could get away with.

If attention to detail wasn't the shooter's "thing", then he didn't bother, or said "good enough".

[rdenney]

It should be noted that the lettering has no effect on the image unless a filter is used. The problem is when the reflection of the lettering on the inside of the filter causes veiling flare. It's the reason the major manufacturers went to putting their labels around the outside of the rim.

Rick "who has never seen much effect" Denney

[Mark Sampson]

Which reminds me of the lens I owned, about 1978, that had the worst flare I've ever seen. (Non-LF alert) It was a Leica 90mm f/4 Elmar from the 1950s... it had a satin-chrome nameplate ring around the front element, and a steep angle to the strongly-curved front element as well. (The words and numbers were in black.) There was no way you could have a light source anywhere near the subject, much less any backlighting, or a sheet of flare would cover the whole image. I only kept it for three months or so... I still have and use the Leica M3 I'd used the lens on, but I was cured right then and there of any delusions that Leitz designs were necessarily superior.

[rdenney]

Which reminds me of the lens I owned, about 1978, that had the worst flare I've ever seen. (Non-LF alert) It was a Leica 90mm f/4 Elmar from the 1950s... it had a satin-chrome nameplate ring around the front element, and a steep angle to the strongly-curved front element as well. (The words and numbers were in black.) There was no way you could have a light source anywhere near the subject, much less any backlighting, or a sheet of flare would cover the whole image. I only kept it for three months or so... I still have and use the Leica M3 I'd used the lens on, but I was cured right then and there of any delusions that Leitz designs were necessarily superior.

I noticed the flare with one of those lenses, but early enough to be uncoated. Figured it was the lack of coating. I think I took about half a dozen images with that lens before putting it back on the shelf. But it was cheap!

Rick "whose purchase of that lens falls in the 'oops' category" Denney