would you buy a fungus infected lens

thanks kirks, that one looks nice, have you ever order from japan, and i assume they will want import duty?.

seanE, I personally have not ordered from Japan, but many others here have, and have had good experiences. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
As for import duty, I have no clue. Sorry I'm no help in that regard, but they do talk about it in the aforementioned thread.

seanE said:

I know this sounds stupid, But I'm on a tight budget, I know if the acid has eaten the coatings its bad news.
But would it be good enough, il be mostly using it on B/W inferred film.


http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Voigtlander-...892018?hash=item1c604002b2:g:zucAAOSwX~dWo-Oi

Click to expand...

First Cosina lens I even seen with fungus. Where are slightly more expensive, issues free, with VF (expensive item) on ebay. But if they are going to hit you with duties and taxes on import...
If it is the only spot which is shown... On regular lens it isn't bad. But I have no idea how insane wide lens is going to affected.

The 1st version of the 15mm Voigtlander is a pain to use filters with. I had a Voigtlander 12mm lens filter holder modded to fit the 15mm lens and also had a special rear mount adapter made that uses 30.5mm filters including IR. Using IR film without an IR filter is a waste of film.

The later versions of the 15mm Voigtlander use 52mm filters IIRC.

And I would pass unless the price was a lot lower. Having a LTM lens cleaned runs about $85 in the USA. So I would not spend more than $75 for it.

If you have sufficient time, waiting for a fungus free lens is always the better option. The question is how long will it take, and what will it cost when it comes up for sale? Generally speaking, nice examples of the more popular/common lenses are available with and without defects like fungus, and the price difference isn't sufficient to opt for a defective lens. In other words wait for a good 'un.

Regarding "cult" lenses such as Leitz and Zeiss, very clean examples may be beyond your budget. Whether the potential impairment outweighs the quality of the lens is a decision for the individual purchaser. There are videos available with owners extolling the virtues of their lenses, which show sufficient internal fogging to be rendered unusable, and certainly beyond the reputation of the lens to overcome. On the other hand spots of fungus, especially towards the front elements, will only be discernible directly into the sun, and not always then.

Some people will put up with any optical or mechanical shortcoming so long as the right name is on the front of the lens. Then it becomes a question not of photography, but of jewellery.

Normally I'd say yes, especially to LF and MF, and the longer the lens the better.
I've shot some great photos on a 180/2.8 Sonnar for P6 with fungus-acid-etchings all under the rim of the front element.
I could almost convince myself that it even makes the bokeh a tiny bit softer (but in reality I can't see any difference between it and my non-fungus red-MC version on Delta 3200).

Shooting with some 100-year-old tarnished/scratched/uncoated LF lenses is almost indistiguishable on an 8x10 contact print.

But for a 15mm, ultra-wide, 35mm lens, where the DOF extends down to macro, even if it's just a few hairs under the front, I'd keep looking.
It's priced about 2/3rds of a decent clean 2nd-hand copy, but I wouldn't pay more than 1/3rd (ie, half what he's asking) without seeing it in person to see how bad it really is.

Even if you're planning on taking it apart and cleaning, that's just so much easier on MF and LF where tolerances aren't as tight.
Get even a half a mm out on an old LF lens and you won't notice, get a quarter of that again wrong on a 35mm lens and you'll get decentering like crazy.

seanE said:

I know this sounds stupid, But I'm on a tight budget, I know if the acid has eaten the coatings its bad news.
But would it be good enough, il be mostly using it on B/W inferred film.


http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Voigtlander-...892018?hash=item1c604002b2:g:zucAAOSwX~dWo-Oi

Click to expand...

There is a risk you need to factor in that it might be damaged as well as the cost of stripping it and reassembling it.
But I've never found fungus to have damaged a lens!
People give me boxes of kit stored in loft to salve and sell for charity. Normally the camera bodies get given away for parts.
Yes I've got damaged lenses from out gassing of lube or condensation that are useless but spidery fungus just wipes off with zippo or a magic anti fungal no traces no chance of return...
I'm busy don't think I'm touting for business or kit to salve.
The Cosina lenses I've had are all good quality.

Absolutely not.