David Lyga
Member
Buying cheap zooms, especially the 80 - 200 variety, can be exciting when cheap enough and if you think that cleaning it will be quite easy. However, sometimes one's greed and shortsightedness overcome such positiveness.
Warning: the Pentax FA 28 - 80, f 3.5 - f 4.7, autofocus, has a special allure when it is sold for $5 (recent KEH transaction). Of course, the condition was 'as is', so I have no complaints.
I am used to removing that rear element set in order to make the glass so clean and bright. But one cannot do this if that rear element set is factory sealed, thus impenetrable. It is very frustrating to look at what I have: Pristine body, pristine glass ... except for this problem. What to do? Haze, so easy to clean, but impossible to reach!!!
For the record, I tested it against a lens with 'clean' glass, throughout. The sharpness was equivalent but the contrast was a grade lower with the haze lens. So, I can still use it, albeit at an aperture that is one step larger than designated. Doing that will compromise matters and build up the contrast so that the lens now performs almost, but not quite, as handsomely as it should. Comments? - David Lyga
Warning: the Pentax FA 28 - 80, f 3.5 - f 4.7, autofocus, has a special allure when it is sold for $5 (recent KEH transaction). Of course, the condition was 'as is', so I have no complaints.
I am used to removing that rear element set in order to make the glass so clean and bright. But one cannot do this if that rear element set is factory sealed, thus impenetrable. It is very frustrating to look at what I have: Pristine body, pristine glass ... except for this problem. What to do? Haze, so easy to clean, but impossible to reach!!!
For the record, I tested it against a lens with 'clean' glass, throughout. The sharpness was equivalent but the contrast was a grade lower with the haze lens. So, I can still use it, albeit at an aperture that is one step larger than designated. Doing that will compromise matters and build up the contrast so that the lens now performs almost, but not quite, as handsomely as it should. Comments? - David Lyga
Last edited: