Is this scratches?

[Tor1Amos]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

I recently sold (cheap) an old Leica Elmarit M 28mm.

The coating had cleaning marks but the class was clean and without scratches.

 

The seller complains and say the lens has "deep scratches" and provides this photo to back her up:

 

p.jpeg

 

Is this a picture of scratches?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pico]

No. Actually it is a photograph of our near neighborhood in the galaxy.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[adan]

For most practical purposes, a "cleaning mark" that can't be removed with additional simple cleaning (soft cloth and lens fluid) - and a "scratch" - are effectively the same. They both degrade image contrast, and sometimes resolution, and they both are expensive to repair.

 

The only difference is that a cleaning mark is a scratch that only affects the coating layer, and a scratch penetrates to the glass underneath. To repair the first requires disassembly and removal of the affected element to have the damaged coating removed chemically, and then recoated. To repair the second requires the same process plus repolishing the glass and recoating - or replacing the element completely. For a deep scratch, replacement is the only option - polishing away more than a small fraction of a mm will change the optical formula (it is no longer the shape the designer calculated).

 

There is a lot going on with that lens. The hair-like lines are either scratches or cleaning marks, the simple small dots could be just dust specks or pin-prick scratches, or possibly "etching" of the coating or glass by fungus at some point in its life. There are also some roughly oval or rectangular pale-gray "smudges" in the left-center that are probably abrasions ("wide" cleaning marks or scratches, depending on how deep the abrasion is).

 

I would not want to use a lens in that condition, and would not buy it without getting a firm estimate as to the likely expense for disassembly and cleaning (for dust/smudges) and, if needed, recoating or repolishing or a new replacement element altogether. Without a pro estimate, my shirt-cuff estimate is that I'd want at least a $1000/€850 discount over an equivalent lens in "clean condition," to cover any possible servicing and replacement parts required (assuming replacement glass is even available any more).

Edited August 4, 2018 by adan

[spydrxx]

I would not say the glass was clean, a little dust is normal, but that lens, although not a disaster, is far from clean. If I was buying, I'd want a discount, If I was selling, I'd describe it as "user condition with above normal dust and marks".

[250swb]

 

The seller complains and say the lens has "deep scratches" and provides this photo to back her up:

 

 

If you sold it cheap she bought it for what it's worth. She's probably complaining now because she thought she'd got one over on you and is upset when it turns out not to be so.

 

As for the lens itself I've seen far worse and used far worse and to be honest those sort of marks will only make a mild difference to the contrast wide open and in certain light conditions, possibly. I would bet that nobody here could tell the difference in a photo, nobody would be able to say 'the lens used here must have some scratches on it', but it's up to you if you want to give her money back.

[Ecar]

How did you describe the lens? How good were the pictures you provided?

Based on the picture posted above, I wouldn't call this lens clean - although the various issues that can be seen are unlikely to have a big effect on pictures taken with it.

If you sold it really cheap, perhaps you should allow the buyer to return it, have it cleaned and sell it again at a higher price.

[Hello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you didn't properly describe the lens and it's an eBay auction she's got most of the power. In your case, maybe she's not aware of this so she won't pursue it further but if she's opened a case, they will decide in her favor regardless. So if she wants to return it, then accept the return and move along. You won't win regardless of what the truth is.

[Frase]

I think I found the sold item on ebay and it does seem quite a good price, but I can see the buyers point of view I would call that scratches but I also think its a mistake to ever shine a torch or light through an old lens as you will always be disappointed!

[dkmoore]

Could that also be the flash light? Marks and dust on the lens of a flash light could also create the appearance.

[Hello]

Could that also be the flash light? Marks and dust on the lens of a flash light could also create the appearance.

 

The light is coming in from the side so no.

[Tor1Amos]

This is a picture taken this summer with the Elmarit/M9

 

[pgk]

I ..... think its a mistake to ever shine a torch or light through an old lens as you will always be disappointed!

 

Or indeed many not so old lenses (perhaps even a few nearly new ones too). Many lenses 'breathe' as they are focussed and in doing so dust gets in and accumulates. As for 'cleaning marks' and scratches, well lighting them with a torch will exaggerate them substantially. I've used (a lot) worse lenses without any problems, but buyers often cannot see the difference between blemishes which will show up in use and those that won't. 

[adan]

.... I also think its a mistake to ever shine a torch or light through an old lens as you will always be disappointed!

 

For a lens one already owns and knows and loves and plans to keep - definitely. Why torture yourself?

 

But I'll guarantee you that any dealer or individual buyer who knows what they're doing will do exactly such an examination on a prospective purchase lens. Simply to avoid expensive surprises. If one is planning to sell a lens, it is good to know what the buyer may see, and avoid your own surprises. Canon (among others) gives dealer staff little promotional high-intensity LED keychain flashlights, and I'm always seeing those whipped out to check incoming lenses. Scares me even when I know the lens I am selling/trading is good, but I understand completely - caveat emptor.

 

(I've still got the one I was given by a Canon rep when I worked at the shop: https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/canon-ois-lens-flashlight-keychain )

 

It is definitely "worst-case" lighting that will reveal everything, including things that may not make a difference or require expensive work. Sometimes I check a lens before buying, and see a fingerprint smudge, that comes off in an instant with a quick swipe from a microfiber cloth. OTOH, sometimes I've caught fingerprints on inner elements - some fumble-fingered pro tech or amateur DIYer left it behind trying to "fix" something else. Which sets off two alarm bells! How much to disassemble the lens and remove the fingerprint; and, what was the problem the fingerprint owner was trying to fix (and were they actually able to fix it, or is it still lurking?)

[jaapv]

I had such a fingerprint on the inside from Leica CS once 

[lct]

[...] The coating had cleaning marks but the class was clean and without scratches. [...]

 

This glass is neither clean nor w/o scratches i'm afraid. I would ask for a refund if i were the buyer and this notwithstanding the price due to material misrepresentation sorry but i'm an ugly lawyer.

[Tor1Amos]

This glass is neither clean nor w/o scratches i'm afraid. I would ask for a refund if i were the buyer and this notwithstanding the price due to material misrepresentation sorry but i'm an ugly lawyer.

The OUTSIDE of the glass IS clean. And without scratches. Using a torch an lighting up the inside of an old lens is just pure evil.

[spydrxx]

The OUTSIDE of the glass IS clean. And without scratches. Using a torch an lighting up the inside of an old lens is just pure evil.

That's like saying the outside of a beer mug is clean when the inside is fulled with crud. Come on, deal with the fact that knowledgible people are going to CAREFULLY inspect lenses in particular, and that includes having a means to check the insides of them. You wouldn't want a doctor to say  "You have great skin - so you're OK", when you have a cancer inside.

[Hello]

That's like saying the outside of a beer mug is clean when the inside is fulled with crud. Come on, deal with the fact that knowledgible people are going to CAREFULLY inspect lenses in particular, and that includes having a means to check the insides of them. You wouldn't want a doctor to say  "You have great skin - so you're OK", when you have a cancer inside.

 

Hopefully he's learned his lesson to better describe condition when selling. My guess is they haven't but we can hope.

[pgk]

Doesn't condition have two different requirements?

 

Is it fit for purpose (that is to say, will any dust/marks/scratches affect the images produced by the lens)?

 

And,

 

Is it worth what was paid for it?

 

Theses two are rather different questions and may or may not have answers which coincide.

 

Personally I'm happy to buy cheap and marked if it works. Or perfect condition at a higher price if I want to retain value. Buying perfect lenses cheaply is a nice idea but in all honesty you do get what you pay for. Description should be accurate and price reflect condition which I suppose is what this thread is all about?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ernstk]

The OUTSIDE of the glass IS clean. And without scratches. Using a torch an lighting up the inside of an old lens is just pure evil.

 

It's actually a perfectly normal and reasonable test when buying any lens. Not sure why you're so upset by this?

 

Ernst