Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Interesting question. And what is also interesting is the wide spread belief that any ding, scratch, etc. on the rear element spells death to a lens. I had a Nikon 28 1.4 - a magnificent lens, BTW, which I sold to a fellow LUGER - with two scratches on the rear element. I never saw any evidence of the scratches, even at 1.4, even in back lighting. I suspect that the bottom line is that rear and front elements are far more tolerant of our hamhandedness than we would ever belief. I also suspect that IF one is going to have a problem caused by a scratch or ding, the rear element is more likely to be the site of the imperfection. B. D. David Rodgers wrote: > > While reading some lug message from the last week or so I read some > comments about scratches on lenses. While scratches on rear elements are > probably worse than on front elements, placement of the scratch is very > important. I had 150/4 Sonnar with a horrible scratch on the rear element > (possibly left by a repair person gone mad with a screwdriver). It never > showed up in the least (even at f4). The only time it was ever a factor was > when I bought and sold it. It greatly reduced the value of the lens. OTOH, > I sold it for what I originally paid for it and I used it for 10-years. > (try that with anything digital!) > > The horrific scratch on the 150 was on the outer third of the rear element, > which led me to wonder; in the mystical world of bent light and > vectors, just how much of a rear element is actually used. Maybe just a > portion of the center? I suppose only a lens designer could answer that. > > Dave > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html