which is worse?

[lxdude]

Who is "you people" ?

The two that made the claim.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I don't have any scratches on my lenses, but I do scratch my a$$ once in a while!

Jeff

 

[summicron1]

While it all makes sense in theory I think the scratch on the rear is better and have shot lenses with such scratches with seemingly no issues. The front scratches make the lens more prone to flare in my experience.

my brother once had a nikon lens that was not just scratched on the rear element, it was abraded in a huge chunk of the center of the element, but he still said it was one of the sharpest lenses he had and used it for commercial work.

we tend to think something on the lens will block light going to part of the film, but I suspect it does not work that way. I would suspect, but have no proof, that a front element scratch would cause more flare if in direct bright light.

 

[ambaker]

Here is an interesting article on a lens rentals site about scratches on the front element. Sadly the did not offer a rear element comparison.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches

 

[Alan Gales]

A scratch on the rear element is worse then the same size scratch on the front element. Also it is much worse to have the scratch near the center of the lens then towards the edge.

 

[Chris Nielsen]

I have a Nikon 20-35 2.8 with a nasty scratch on the rear element. No idea how it got there. Lens flares like a b*tch but I am led to believe that might be normal for that lens. I really hate taking it out at night because of the flare

 

[j-dogg]

I have a Nikkor 50 f2 that is the poster child for lens condition, it is absolutely LOADED down with fungus, scratches, the coatings are almost gone on some parts and it's generally horrible, yet it still produces tack sharp images, I have a shot in the Gallery with it in a hallway wide open and the results are phenomenal, so much that I use it more than my 50 1.4

 

[j-dogg]

I have a Nikon 20-35 2.8 with a nasty scratch on the rear element. No idea how it got there. Lens flares like a b*tch but I am led to believe that might be normal for that lens. I really hate taking it out at night because of the flare

If it is anything like my Canon 20-35 f3.5-4.5, it flares like a bitch too. The hood helps, and stopping down does a bit too, but at night I can see it pretty bad, that is the one good thing about digital is the coatings on the newer lenses focus on flare reduction because of the design on the sensors and how well they reflect light, my 24-105L is the go-to lens for night photography.

I still like the 20-35 for landscapes, I've seen a few samples with it on here so I know I'm not the only user with one kicking around in their bag

 

[E. von Hoegh]

A scratch on the rear element is worse then the same size scratch on the front element. Also it is much worse to have the scratch near the center of the lens then towards the edge.

As I indicated in my post #18, the effects of a scratch - gouge in my case - can be eliminated for practical purposes with the black paint/India ink trick. I'd not have spent what an undamaged lens is worth, but I got a perfectly good lens for virtually nothing and two minutes of effort with a 5-0 brush.

 

[Alan Gales]

I have seen scratches on rear elements that have caused soft spots on the image. I have never tried the India ink trick. I have heard before that sometimes it works. I generally stay away form scratched lenses.

I also saw a photograph shot by Jim Galli where the front element of the lens that he used looked like it had been through World War 3 and the image it created looked quite nice. Of course he didn't shoot it into the sun!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have seen scratches on rear elements that have caused soft spots on the image. I have never tried the India ink trick. I have heard before that sometimes it works. I generally stay away form scratched lenses.

I also saw a photograph shot by Jim Galli where the front element of the lens that he used looked like it had been through World War 3 and the image it created looked quite nice. Of course he didn't shoot it into the sun!

I just about always avoid scratched lenses, the Dagor was a special case for a couple reasons.
What I will not buy, period, is a lens that has been dropped - dents in the filter ring. It's too easy to screw up the alignment of the lens in the shutter. Also, I do not like to see signs of abuse on any of my gear, be it photographic or anything else.

I like the testimonials to horribly damaged lenses though, a little like saying "I have an old Roadrunner, the valves are shot and it has bad rings, but it will still eat a brand-new Maserati".

 

[Alan Gales]

I just about always avoid scratched lenses, the Dagor was a special case for a couple reasons.
What I will not buy, period, is a lens that has been dropped - dents in the filter ring. It's too easy to screw up the alignment of the lens in the shutter. Also, I do not like to see signs of abuse on any of my gear, be it photographic or anything else.

Sage advice!

 

[Alan Gales]

I like the testimonials to horribly damaged lenses though, a little like saying "I have an old Roadrunner, the valves are shot and it has bad rings, but it will still eat a brand-new Maserati".

I like your analogy!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I just about always avoid scratched lenses, the Dagor was a special case for a couple reasons.
What I will not buy, period, is a lens that has been dropped - dents in the filter ring. It's too easy to screw up the alignment of the lens in the shutter. Also, I do not like to see signs of abuse on any of my gear, be it photographic or anything else.

But...but....., what if the seller says "....but it should not affect performance"? ???

 

[E. von Hoegh]

But...but....., what if the seller says "....but it should not affect performance"? ???

I don't walk, I run.

 

[Alan Gales]

I don't walk, I run.

But E. von Hoegh, the scratches and separation are not that bad. Plus the lens has plenty of fungus which adds an earthy feel so necessary to your landscape photography!