Rear element scratches, how bad are they?

[film_man]

Rant on:

So I bought a 50CT* mail order from a shop. The girl on the phone said it was good, my impression is she didn't bother even looking at it saying "if you don't like it send it for a refund". The thing had a huge, wide scratch (nearly across from one side to the other) of the rear element so I sent it back and got my money back. Not before missing out on another two mint condition 50s though and I'm off on a trip in 5 days...grrrrrrr

Rant off

So anyway, this got me thinking, how bad are scratches on the rear element? I mean, I know that small one on the front element are basically irrelevant and at worst you might get a bit more flare but what about the rear ones? Is that really affecting sharpness? Does anyone have any photos or links that show what the effect is?

And does anyone know how much it costs to replace a rear element on a Hasselblad lens?

 

[ic-racer]

And does anyone know how much it costs to replace a rear element on a Hasselblad lens?

Could be cheap if you can find one with that big scratch on the front element .

 

[PaulMD]

I picked up a Nikkor 105/2.5 with some pitting on the rear element for a song and it shoots just fine. Maybe the bokeh's funny or it would show up if you pointed it at a featureless wall, but I can't see anything in the actual pictures. Shooting it is really the only way to tell.

That said, it could potentially flare out, so I've heard you might want to fill it in with black marker. And wherever you shopped, I'd think twice about buying there again.

 

[film_man]

Could be cheap if you can find one with that big scratch on the front element .

 

[film_man]

And wherever you shopped, I'd think twice about buying there again.

The funny thing is, I bought my 250CT* from there really cheap because they said there were some scratches on the front element....which I removed in 2 minutes with a lens cloth and some cleaning fluid. Guess that makes us even...

I don't have a problem trying them again, their return policy is ok, no questions asked, it's just that I won't be buying from there if I'm in a rush.

 

[EdSawyer]

theoretically the rear element would be a worse place for scratches, but usually it's hard to see in the results, no matter where the scratches are.

 

[Klainmeister]

I'm personally always amazed how little scratches, dust, smudges, ect actually affect image quality. I've had some of the downright shittiest lenses with scratches, markings from fungus, etc that still produced excellent images.

???

 

[JeffGreene]

The attached image was made with a rolleiflex MX-EVS, recently sold. The rear element had several long deep scratches in it. Despite that, it made very good pictures. I sold it to trade up to my current 2.8F.

 

[BetterSense]

Flare will be somewhat increased and transmission will be somewhat decreased. Neither one should be a big deal for photography.

 

[Stan160]

I picked up a Nikkor 105/2.5 with some pitting on the rear element for a song and it shoots just fine. Maybe the bokeh's funny or it would show up if you pointed it at a featureless wall, but I can't see anything in the actual pictures. Shooting it is really the only way to tell.

That said, it could potentially flare out, so I've heard you might want to fill it in with black marker. And wherever you shopped, I'd think twice about buying there again.

I've got the same lens, with very noticeable scratching on the rear element. I was sent it on approval and before accepting it set the Nikkor 80-200/2.8 AF-D I owned at the time to 105mm, DSLR body on a tripod and took plenty of comparison shots.

Result: If anything the shots from the 105 were very slightly sharper than the (still pin sharp) 80-200. Apart from that, couldn't tell a difference between the two. Maybe a mint condition 105/2,5 is even better, but mine is more than good enough for me!

Ian

 

[blockend]

Depends how much you paid. If it was bought cheap and damaged and works fine, one up to you. If it was bought at market rate for a good one, the scratch will effect re-sale value.

I have various lenses with fungus and scratches that take great pictures but I paid buttons for them. I bought a pre-AI 1.4 that was scratched to hell and returned it, even though it would have made a great portrait lens. I'd never get my money back and would always look at the scratches and want a nice one.

 

[film_man]

I can live with scratches but if it has any amount of fungus it is straight out of the door...

 

[darinwc]

Scratches can cause flare or ghost images by refracting light. This could be apparent in the viewfinder if aiming at the sun or a bright light source. Even a single deep scratch can cause this, but it all depends on the angle of the source.

In regard to overall image sharpness, scratches may have very little effect. I consider the damage of a lens based on a percentage.. So a single scratch may only affect about .1% of the lens surface and will probably not be noticeable. Numerous minor scratches or 'cleaning marks' may only affect 1-5% of the surface. And that is within the variation of different samples.

So I would not worry too much about scratches. As long as the surface does not look "worn".