to keep or not to keep? lens pix included

hello all.
found this lens ( schneider 100mm 5.6) on the bay.
but after cleaning and some flashlight examination i am not sure whether to start working with it - or not.
as i have never used a lens of this category i would like some opinion..
its from the beginning of eighties.
the front element looks a touch hazy from micro-scratches. will this effect print quality (6x7 negs) or rather not?


well.
here are the pix.

thanks!
chris

It will affect print quality.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

It will affect print quality.

Ian

Click to expand...

well, my question was not precise enough.

will it affect print quality to a degree that i will notice without using a loupe?
talking about 10x14 prints.

Yes if will, there will be a significant degradation in print quality.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Yes if will, there will be a significant degradation in print quality.

Ian

Click to expand...

ok. well then. i will keep on searching

Actually, the only way to tell if it is any good is to try it, comparing the results with the lens you use now or a good one you borrow. Compare like prints from the same negatives using the same general exposure techniques. I'm not sure what kind of a lens you have there, but a somewhat degraded image from a good lens is still usually better than an image from a not so good lens. The amount of embedded crud looks pretty significant, which probably means pretty significant image degradation. But you can't really tell by looking, especially on line. You have to try it.

return it. Some slob does not know how to clean a lens

Not trying to be snarky - but I swear, at least a third of posts on APUG could be answered by testing!

I imagine it's not a keeper... but still, every time I do some sort of test, I seem to learn a couple more things. And (unless you're really a B&W god or just a casual shooter), testing seems to do something for my confidence and general enthusiasm... maybe it's a feeling that I'm doing the grunt work towards becoming better at all of this.

M Carter said:

Not trying to be snarky - but I swear, at least a third of posts on APUG could be answered by testing!
ne it's not a keeper... but still, every time I do some sort of test, I seem to learn a couple more things. And (unless you're really a B&W god or just a casual shooter), testing seems to do something for my confidence and general enthusiasm... maybe it's a feeling that I'm doing the grunt work towards becoming better at all of this.

Click to expand...

Yes, but some new to photography or darkroom work will not know how to properly test equipment. On the other hand there are those that can only do testing and all they do is testing, never taking a real photograph. One of those suggested that I shoot my entire last roll of HIE on a tripod through all f stops and all shutter speeds of one subject! Then I would know how to expose HIE but not have any HIE left to shoot!

Idont think that's a terribly dirty lens. The flash light test always makes things seem a lot worse. If you really want to clean it, these enlarging lenses are not hard to take apart with a good spanner and a rubber sheet. The haze might be cleanable but if it's etched in the glass it's a lost cause.

will this effect print quality

Click to expand...

When you get the lens, try it out and let us know.

I have many enlarging lenses, some worse than that. I find it difficult to detect differences unless testing conditions are controlled very well. Since negatives have about six-tenths the overall contrast of a scene, flare may not be noticeable in your prints with that lens. Only you can determine that.

Enlarging lenses I have come across that fit in the FAIL category frequently have some botched repair or a mis-assembled lens element. Scratches, dust and low levels of fog can be compensated sometimes by increasing printing contrast.

so, some results - finally.

yesterday i finally had the time to compare
a) the already shown componon-s 100mm f5.6
b) a decent but not excellent rodagon 105mm f5.6 (slight cleaning marks on front element. not as "hazy" looking as the componon, but not mint either - ok)
c) a mamiya sekor-z 110mm f2.8 taking lens
d) my old rodenstock trinar 105mm f4.5

i dont have a scanner atm, so i will just comment briefly.
did enlargemenst on 8x10 paper.
100% and crops from max. column height (100cm) on a durst m800.

trinar is the softest, lacks contrast and sharpness. already loses in the 100%

sekor-z is second best. it is obviously not corrected for such tasks? maybe i could have gotten better results by opening the lens more? tested it at f8. had good results with this lens on bigger enlargements though! great piece of glass.

the componon-s (at least my copy) loses in the direct comparison. BUT i'd say it loses by 5 points in a race to 100.
so, although this lens with all it's cleaning-marks looks pretty bad on the torch-test the image is very acceptable to say the least!

the rodagon (glass is in better condition) wins with a touch more crispness and contrast. but its really not that obvious to pick a winner here.

is this difference worth 150 euros (what the shopkeeper wants for the rodagon) ??
my answer is no. stepping up would mean to go for the next level of lenses (apo or hm).
but thats just me.

good times
c