'Cleaning Scratches' on rear lens element

[Thomas King]

Hi All,

I picked up a camera recently that is in near mint condition apart from the one issue mentioned in the title. The rear lens element appears to have a number of micro scratches on the lens not visible to the naked eye but visible when shining a torch through. Is this an issue at all? I have the option to return the camera but have been struggling to find one in near mint condition. Will this have any noticeable impact on my image quality. i'm a complete novice so I apologise if this is a stupid question! Thanks

 

[loman]

It will have zero impact on performance.
If you are a novice I would definitely just leave it as is and shoot away

 

[Thomas King]

It will have zero impact on performance.
If you are a novice I would definitely just leave it as is and shoot away

Great thanks for this info, I suspected as much but had done some reading regarding the 'dreaded' rear lens scratch. I was aware that front element scratches are not a big issue at all but was under the impression that rear lens scratches were much more fatal!

 

[chris77]

it depends. post a pic, it cant be answered otherwise..

 

[anfenglin]

Well, the only possibility of cleaning or getting rid of scratches it to polish a lens. That removes the coating and quite possibly f's up the optical properties.
There is a difference between real scratches and slight marks or lines in the coating.
For example old Meyer Görlitz and / or Zeiss Jena lenses but especially the Meyer lenses with a red V on the barrel tend to get fine lines in the coating on each individual lens with age.
These lenses are only singled coated though.
Now I do not know what lens it is that has scratches but I can tell you that scratches on a front lens are not bad at all, I used to have a very beat 3,5cm Nikkor on a Nikkomat a few years ago,
that lens had two scratches on the front lens and I never noticed problems originating from those scratches.
From what I hear, scratches on rear lens elements are supposedly more drastic, you may have to take pictures with the lens to see wether the scratches are a problem.

When in doubt I always use my finger nail to check if it's a scratch or only marks in the coating, sometimes the eyes are decieved.

 

[Thomas King]

it depends. post a pic, it cant be answered otherwise..

I can't catch the scratches in a photograph otherwise I would. I would describe the marks as 'micro-scratches' that are only visible under very bright artificial light!

 

[chris77]

if you cant photograph them (!), forget them

 

[Thomas King]

Well, the only possibility of cleaning or getting rid of scratches it to polish a lens. That removes the coating and quite possibly f's up the optical properties.
There is a difference between real scratches and slight marks or lines in the coating.
For example old Meyer Görlitz and / or Zeiss Jena lenses but especially the Meyer lenses with a red V on the barrel tend to get fine lines in the coating on each individual lens with age.
These lenses are only singled coated though.
Now I do not know what lens it is that has scratches but I can tell you that scratches on a front lens are not bad at all, I used to have a very beat 3,5cm Nikkor on a Nikkomat a few years ago,
that lens had two scratches on the front lens and I never noticed problems originating from those scratches.
From what I hear, scratches on rear lens elements are supposedly more drastic, you may have to take pictures with the lens to see wether the scratches are a problem.

When in doubt I always use my finger nail to check if it's a scratch or only marks in the coating, sometimes the eyes are decieved.

Thanks for your response, the camera is an Olympus Mju II with a 2.8 Zeiss lens so it's only a little point and shoot thing but I paid good money so don't want to realise that there is a major problem after it is too late to return! I have also gone through the hassle of sending one back already as it had a big chip in the front element as well as numerous fingerprints!

 

[Thomas King]

if you cant photograph them (!), forget them

Thanks, I will try to stop worrying!

 

[anfenglin]

Yeah, I second that, if they are that small forget about them, they are even less important in wide angle lenses.

 

[Thomas King]

Yeah, I second that, if they are that small forget about them, they are even less important in wide angle lenses.

Great thanks, it seems like i'm in the clear! I guess more severe visible scratches towards the rear element is what causes problems!

 

[anfenglin]

The problem nowadays is that people tend to get really fuzzy about clean lenses, they have to be especially perfect and clean, and OH, if there is dust in it it HAS to go back to the seller!!
I have seen so many lenses and especially binoculars with lots of wiping and cleaning marks because people think a lens has to be immaculate.
It is ok for taking pictures even with minimal haze, dust and sometimes even with slight lens separation which sometimes occurs in the last two elements of the front lens block on a Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2,8/35
(the 2.4/35 is of a different design). It is sometimes mistaken for haze.

Microscratches are even less important and have even less impact on image quality than haze which causes loss of contrast.
You will see nothing whatsoever in your pictures that would indicate that the lens is scratched.

 

[Thomas King]

The problem nowadays is that people tend to get really fuzzy about clean lenses, they have to be especially perfect and clean, and OH, if there is dust in it it HAS to go back to the seller!!
I have seen so many lenses and especially binoculars with lots of wiping and cleaning marks because people think a lens has to be immaculate.
It is ok for taking pictures even with minimal haze, dust and sometimes even with slight lens separation which sometimes occurs in the last two elements of the front lens block on a Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2,8/35
(the 2.4/35 is of a different design). It is sometimes mistaken for haze.

Microscratches are even less important and have even less impact on image quality than haze which causes loss of contrast.
You will see nothing whatsoever in your pictures that would indicate that the lens is scratched.

Yes i'm always careful not to overclean my equipment as that can only cause more problems... and can live with dust on the lens. For some reason I thought the rear lens was much more detrimental than having issues with the front element. But it's good to know that this is not the case and I will just learn to live with it.

 

[OlyMan]

Thomas you're basically a perpetual worrier and if you can't find anything to worry about it worries you. Some of the teeny weeny things you properly stress about don't even register on most people's radar.

Really curious to know what lens you've bought seeing that both your cameras are fixed lens...let's have a butchers at it

 

[Thomas King]

Thomas you're basically a perpetual worrier and if you can't find anything to worry about it worries you. Some of the teeny weeny things you properly stress about don't even register on most people's radar.

Really curious to know what lens you've bought seeing that both your cameras are fixed lens...let's have a butchers at it

Thanks, I was trying to come across as not worried because I didn't think it was a big issue... but from the reading i've been doing it seems as if people go crazy when they have marks on their rear lenses! It's an olympus mju ii... a tiny point and shoot thing!

 

[OlyMan]

Don't leave us in suspense, what have you bought

 

[Thomas King]

Don't leave us in suspense, what have you bought

I'm planning on putting my first roll through it tomorrow... its an Olympus Mju II (I can't remember whether I've mentioned it before). Basically, I purchased one for a very reasonable price and sold it... with the profit I bought one described as near mint! It arrived today so very excited to put some Kodak Gold 200 through it and then some Portra 160!

 

[OlyMan]

Ah right, when you said you had noticed the rear element had tiny marks on it when you shone a light through it I was thinking you'd bought something with an interchangeable lens.

 

[Thomas King]

Ah right, when you said you had noticed the rear element had tiny marks on it when you shone a light through it I was thinking you'd bought something with an interchangeable lens.

My mum just got me a Panasonic Lumix GX800 as an early present if that counts haha! I got the 20mm pancake lens with it so it is most definitely interchangeable!

 

[NJH]

I have really bright kitchen LED lights which I use for this sort of test. To be honest you have to be prepared for things to look much worse than you will ever see under other circumstances, and likely issues that will never cause a problem. Case in point I have the simple Leica 50 Elmarit M, doing this test I get 2 or 3 faint lines which I determined must be fine scratches inside the lens, it drove me crazy trying to clean the outer surfaces and re-inspect but those surfaces look mint, moving the lens around under a light indicates those marks must be inside the lens. I reckon someone took her apart in the past and put those fine scratches in there 'servicing' the lens. I have taken some of my favourite photographs with that lens and scanned at a real 5400 dpi it shows the best results I have ever got from a film camera along side my other Leica lens. Its an amazing little lens, I can't seem to get a hint of anything amiss into a photograph. The typical case for a flash light test is for it to light up any and all tiny bits of dust in a lens, also any kind of oil or smearing will show up as a faint ghosting. I have bought quite a few secondhand lenses and typically the rear element lights up like a snow storm as most people never clean it. You have to decide if its worthwhile bothering cleaning a lens surface if it looks mint under reflected light and only looks dirty/dusty under a flash light through the lens test. Personally I wouldn't bother unless it was really bad.

By the way I did this test to a fair level of attention on an SWC I recently bought following the Ken Rockwell note about the old Compur shutter scratching the inside elements in the lens. Wow does that lens look clean inside, its a lovely remarkable thing to see a 40 year old lens which optically looks really close to mint. This is what I love about the secondhand market. People rate and price based largely IMHE on physical cosmetic condition which is irrelevant, so you can find something marked exc because of cosmetic wear but with mint optics. Also some shops don't seem to bother cleaning lenses so you can get some real bargains where the lens has been marked down but only needs a gentle clean to return to near mint (why on earth would folks trade in a dirty lens?).

Its always difficult to predict what will show up in a photograph, dust almost certainly doesn't, ever IMHE. I have a big piece of dark dust inside a lens which doesn't (as yet!) show up. Contrary to what some say though I did have a case several years ago where an oil spot on the outer lens element was showing up in many photographs (digital) as a small smeared area, therefore I clean those off unless its right near the edge.

 

[anfenglin]

A guy brought a lens to me for cleaning recently (a Meyer-Optik Primoplan 1.9/75, the original one), it had oily blades and thus a slight oil smudge on the first rear lens, counting from the diaphragm towards the rear.
He said that he would not see anything when taking „normal“ pictures put the smudge produces stars or spikes in the bright lights when shooting fully open and the oily blades produced slight internal reflections which showed up as minimal to slight ghost and / or stray light.
But he uses digital full frame cameras and shoots in RAW AND is a perfectionist, so he sees things like that.
I never actually saw a picture he took with the lens but he was trying to decide between the Primoplan 75 and the Zeiss Jena Biotar 1.5/75.
If you‘re spending that kind of money I suspect you get picky. Or maybe he has seen enough to know what he wants or does not like in a lens, who knows.