Used lenses: What does a scratch mean in practice?

[mike3996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When buying used lenses where the seller describes the front/back elements exhibiting "minor" scratches, what kind of a deal that can be? Will the scatches affect anything else than flare resistance? Perhaps when shooting at tighter apertures?

Is there a difference between a scratch in an UWA/normal/tele lens?

I'm a bit paranoid about stuff like this because I'm new to RF cameras. Used to shoot TTL Thank you

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Front element shouldn't be a problem, a scratch on the rear element may impair image quality. ln general, they should be substantially discounted, as the resale value will take a hit.

[dkmoore]

Is the scratch in the coating or the actual lens element? The impact of said scratches is higher if the scratch is on the actual lens element which would typically indicate a deeper and larger scratch.

Scratches in the coating or cleaning marks may be less impactful, especially on the front glass.

Scratches are more apparent in wider lenses. Example, a 90mm lens will show less imperfections than a 28mm lens for front element scratches.

Regardless, JAAP is right in that the lens should be significantly discounted. For instance, If you were buying a 35 Summicron ASPH V1 I would expect to pay $2k for a MINT copy.

If the lens had cleaning marks I wouldn't pay anything over $1.2k (I just wouldn't buy it).

Now, if I was buying an old vintage 50 Rigid or something else, a few cleaning marks would be ok to me but that is personal taste (front element only).

I wouldn't buy any lens that has rear element damage regardless.

[pgk]

'Minor' marks or scratches should have very little impact on images - there may be a slight increase in flare, and thus shadow detail will be marginally reduced, but 'minor' optical damage should be just that - small. Scratches should not be significant. If they are in the glass as opposed to the coating then I wouldn't touch the lens unless its very cheap indeed. I have a 90mm Elmarit-M bought with substantial, obvious coating damage (clear and very evident). Its very 'sharp' but contrast is reduced and there is significant bleed around highlights. It was very cheap, needs a new front element and will be repaired idc.

The problem you have is determining just how 'minor' the scratches actually are. Do you have any photos or links?

[mike3996]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

The problem you have is determining just how 'minor' the scratches actually are. Do you have any photos or links?

This is a general wondering-about. I have to be going but I can perhaps provide a couple of examples tomorrow about some offerings that triggered my question.

[adan]

1 hour ago, mike3996 said:

I'm a bit paranoid about stuff like this because I'm new to RF cameras. Used to shoot TTL Thank you

Not really much difference between RF and TTL lenses. Scratches on the optics are scratches on the optics (and personally I don't distinguish between "coating" and "glass" scratches - either can affect image quality).

In grad school, one of my fellow students created a "24mm Thambar/Nikkor" by being sloppy in his lens changing, and scratching the back element coating of his Nikon lens. Talk about "glow!"

For a lens to use (as opposed to put in a glass case for display) I mostly avoid scratched glass altogether. No price is low enough. I might accept a very small (proportional to element area), front-element scratch. I'd expect a 50% discount over an otherwise-identical unscratched lens.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FWIW, glass scratches can indicate substantially harsh abuse to me, which is the reason that I'd avoid a lens which had a scratch right into the glass. That said I once owned a 135mm Takumar lens with a 5mm deep glass scratch on the front element (it was otherwise pristine). Once this scratch had been filled with black ink I could see no effect on the images (surprisingly good).

[Photoskeptic]

I once had an 50 R lens with a giant scratch (and I mean GIANT!) on the front element. Made no difference unless you shot it into the sun then the effects could be quite interesting. 

That is my personal experience. But don’t take my word for it, try a “bad” lens out for yourself.

[jaapv]

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

[pico]

My father was a joker and told his children not to buy a used radio because it might have played all the music in it. I would entertain the same silly fallacy for a used lens. Gads, I hope I awake from this terrible dream.

[spydrxx]

I would insist on good pictures of the "scratch". some people are loose in their use of language and may describe light cleaning marks as scratches. Big, deep scratches should be avoided at all costs. Scratches on rear elements are more of an issue than on front elements, usually. All said and done, the above guidance is good. But a light scratch can sometimes be minimized by darkening it with a Sharpie to reduce internal flare. The usual effect of a scratch, beyond possibly introducing flare, is to reduce contrast somewhat.

[pico]

My father-in-law left us an early Leica that I care not to try to identify. Its front element is a constellation of scratches so that we did not dare to enlarge images much larger than contact prints. (That is me darlin Molly and me :))

 

Edited January 2, 2019 by pico

[earleygallery]

Scratched lenses can be the best bargains about if priced accordingly of course. Most times the scratch/es won't make any difference at all to image quality and can be considered as purely cosmetic.

Of course a very badly scratched lens is another matter.

[easy_action]

Ideally test the lens in the conditions in which you intend to use it to see if you are happy with the results.

If so, make sure you don't over pay as the resale value is likely to be substantially less than a clean example.  You might also be more likely to have future buyers returning it even if well described, as they might be less happy with the lens once it is in their hands than they thought based on your description.

[250swb]

12 hours ago, adan said:

I'd expect a 50% discount over an otherwise-identical unscratched lens.

With older Leica lenses it's going to get harder and harder to find examples without cleaning marks or the odd scratch. I think like classic cars, there comes a time where there is a base value where buyers accept it's a runner, with a few faults, but they can have fun, and then the immaculate cars that command a disproportionate premium to the runners. Everybody is talking down the price but it is already apparent that older perfect lenses are commanding a premium in the second hand market and the base value 'user' lenses are now those with a few small faults. Expectations of a 50% discount I would think apply to a current lens from the catalogue or very recent history, older lenses are valued on a case by case basis.

[pgk]

9 hours ago, earleygallery said:

Of course a very badly scratched lens is another matter.

Whilst a single, bad scratch or number of bad scratches may not actually have a great effect on the images produced by a lens, how they got there might. Contrary to some opinions, whilst its relatively easy to produce coating damage, scuffs or scratches, actually making a distinct scratch in the glass itself requires quite some effort. The question is whether that effort also did other, mechanical damage. Has the focus helicoil been distorted (it may have uneven focus), has the aperture mechanism been bent or is the lens mount out of true? So a significantly scratched lens is suspect and its price needs to reflect both the damage and the cost of potential repair, so should be very low.

[easy_action]

And if there are scratches or coating damage are there also other signs that the lens has been carelessly treated?  There might be other problems stored up for later.

I think you have to be honest with yourself and your ability to live with a less than perfect lens.  I have occasionally bought these in the past and told myself that it's a good price for a 'user' lens, only to become disatisfied later and either pay for a repair or sell it on and pay the extra for a nicer example.  In both cases it would probably have made more sense just to buy the nice one in the first place.

[pgk]

51 minutes ago, easy_action said:

And if there are scratches or coating damage are there also other signs that the lens has been carelessly treated?  There might be other problems stored up for later.

I think you have to be honest with yourself and your ability to live with a less than perfect lens.  I have occasionally bought these in the past and told myself that it's a good price for a 'user' lens, only to become disatisfied later and either pay for a repair or sell it on and pay the extra for a nicer example.  In both cases it would probably have made more sense just to buy the nice one in the first place.

Yes, I've bought less than perfect lenses, but only when I've factored in a CLA and the eventual resale value. If you do so you can end up with a 'bargain' user - which is great. But all too often the magic of having 'Leica' inscribed on a lens makes the seller think that it must be worth far more than it is in reality. Bargains are to be had, but they are rather thin on the ground in Leica-land.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[albertknappmd]

I would never buy a lens with a rear element scratch.

As to a front element scratch, the problem is not really the scratch itself in most cases but the potential dislocation of other elements that may have occurred when the lens was traumatized. Therefore, if you must buy it, first shoot with it closed down and assess for resolution, contrast and absence of flare.

Caveat emptor!

Albert 😒

[pico]

There is something just wrong imagining a Leica Scratch & Dent sale!