Lens Question

[Arnold F.]

I have been shopping for old Russian lenses, which I'm finding to be a minefield. One phenomenon I keep seeing is cases where there might be internal dust, or cleaning marks, or scratches or, in one case, an bubble in the glass!

In each case the seller says it won't affect image. I'm not sure I understand or believe this repeated assertion. If something is on the lens how can it not affect the image? And, if not, is the lens-cleaning-industrial-complex a scam?

 

[Andy White]

Bubbles happened quite a bit in the old Lomo anamorphics - quality control wasn't super high and the cut off point when the lenses would be junked wasn't the same - so lots of anas had bubbles.

To be honest, there's not a lot of good stuff left anymore (unless you're buying from somebody who purchased their lenses a few years ago)... as there's always a run on these cine lenses when there's a need for PL (or easy to convert to PL) cine lenses... prices now are really high and you stand a good chance of getting a lemon... or a lens that will end up costing twice the price you paid after a proper servicing.

Depending on the stop you're shooting (and iso on camera) you might well not see a lot of the dust or scratches... it all depends on position of these too. Cleaning marks might appear - or might not... but, if you're letting more light into the lens, it'll disguise a lot of the dust.

Also, bear in mid the sellers may have tested the lens - but probably just by putting it on a camera and making sure it works... they won;t have collimated it.

I have a 35mm Squarefront that has dust... but it's not visible so long as I stay under T8... and I'd normally look for T4/5 on this lens anyway.

 

[Rob Gardner]

Looking for Russian lenses is not for the timid or risk averse. I think Andy is probably right in that most of the low-hanging fruit is gone. The newest any lens can be is 22 years old (the Soviet enterprise having ended in 1991) and both the construction of these lenses and their maintenance took place in a professional culture where precision and care were not particularly valued. That said, there are good Russian lenses, but they need to be carefully chosen and selected with the recognition that some will end up being most effective as paperweights. All will need cleaning and service after you buy them, no matter what the seller tells you (unless you are buying them from an American or European seller who has already had the lenses serviced). Buying outside of the old Soviet Union is probably the best bet, but you can't go into the purchase without a good deal of care in any event. The simple rule seems to be -- good glass, bad mechanics. If the glass is clean (or can be cleaned) the mechanics can be improved upon, but all that effort needs to be added to the price one way or another.

 

[Arnold F.]

Let me re-focus the subject to my real question, which is does something on or in a lens affect the image. Many people say it doesn't and I'm not sure how that could be.

The cause of the question is that I bought a Russian lens from Europe on eBay.
The item description said the glass was "clean and clear" but there is a bubble in the glass. The seller has implied that it's so normal that it's beneath noting.

Again, let's not get into the subject of buying at auction. The question is does something on or in the lens affect the image.

 

[Rob Gardner]

You have to shoot a test with it or take it to a Technician for evaluation on a bench. To a large degree, whether it affects the image or not will be subjective to you and how it compares to another lens. And where the bubble is, and how big it is makes a difference. If the only problem with the lens is that it has a tiny bubble in it, it is probably not a big deal, in the universe of old Russian lenses. But it will probably not be as sharp as a brand new Ultra-prime. In the end, I'm afraid you usually get what you pay for...

 

[Andy White]

As I said in my original reply, bubbles are considered normal/acceptable (especially in anamorphic)... depending on the lens price/quality etc (eg it could be a b grade lens that's seen lots of use).

If the glass is clean and clear, the seller may well be right. The bubble is a defect at the manufacturing stage and is something he/she doesn't have any control over (and the bubble will have been there since day one - when the lens was assembled)... so, whilst it should have been listed (IMO), that's not a defect you can call them over.

What is the lens and have you tested it yourself? Surely your questions will be answered (in terms of bubbles of scratches/dust) simply by throwing it you camera?

Edit - Rob beat me to it and said basically the same thing

 

[Arnold F.]

Many thanks for the replies. I have to be careful how to ask questions. I should never have mentioned Russian or eBay, but kept the question as specific as possible. I've learned this lesson before here but always make the same mistake.

That said, here's my opinion auction description. If there is a defect in the lens there is absolutely no doubt it should be noted in an auction description, particularly if the lens condition in general is covered. This seller knew enough about the concerns of a potential lens buyer to address the glass, aperture smoothness of mechanics, etc., in the description. A bubble in the glass is an unambiguous omission. If I'm selling I car I can't omit that it doesn't back up because that model was known to have transmission problems.

 

[Andy White]

I don't think you made any mistake in the way you asked the question... it's simply (in my experience) I've only seen bubbles on Squarefronts - although all lenses can have them (but we're unlikely to see them, as they'll be rejected)... if you'd have said about a bubble on a lens, I'd have asked if it was anamorphic (without any mention of Russian glass).

Of course, I could still be wrong and it's a spherical... but, without a pic it's hard to guess if it'll be a problem.

Have you tried shooting with it yet?

Whilst the bubble is a defect in the lens, it's been there since it was 'born' (LOL!) - so all of it's previous owners will have used it. I agree it should have been mentioned in the description... but I'd only have an issue if it was visible when being used.

It sounds like you are unhappy with the sale - and that the bubble is something you can't work around. Maybe you need to discuss with the seller again and then look at Ebay's returns?

But, all your problems may melt away if you shoot with the lens and see the results it gives you.

Only trying to help

 

[Arnold F.]

I hear you. It was sent from I-don't-remember-where...the Ukraine perhaps. It took a while and wasn't cheap to ship, which complicates a return. It is by the way, an Industar and I purchased it primarily for use on my 5D, although it or another like it might be good in the right motion context.

I haven't tried shooting with it yet so it may be okay. I have been trying to get examples in particularly good condition and have been paying higher than normal prices for that. Moreover, to that end I read the descriptions carefully and ask detailed questions. The sellers' omitting a defect is an irksome result I was trying to avoid.

 

[Andy White]

Well - so much for my Squarefront theory - LOL!

I'd say you're best bet is a test shoot - hopefully (fingers crossed) you're happy with results.

I know what you mean re postage - and spiked prices, I've been stung by both.

 

[Arnold F.]

It's not even the price, really. The lens wasn't terribly expensive. It's depending on the thoroughness and conscientiousness of the seller and being let down.

 

[Nick Morrison]

It's not even the price, really. The lens wasn't terribly expensive. It's depending on the thoroughness and conscientiousness of the seller and being let down.

Did you get the Industar Macro? If so, good lens.

Arnold, "bubbles" are just part of life when dealing with Russian dealers and manufacturing quality. Don't feel let down. Getting bubbles in soviet stills (and cine) lenses is very common.

And...no...I don't believe it will affect your image. If it really did, the Russian lens market would probably collapse. Haha.

It's generally not considered a very big deal (air bubbles). They are usually deep inside in one of the elements, and not on the front of the lens.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I own over 15 soviet lenses, and have owned over a half dozen more than that, and I never saw a bubble in any of them. That may be part of the charm for some, but soviet glass in good shape makes pretty pictures. Post a picture of the defect. If it's small, probably no big deal. But it's not so common as to be acceptable.

Nick

 

[Nick Morrison]

I own over 15 soviet lenses, and have owned over a half dozen more than that, and I never saw a bubble in any of them. That may be part of the charm for some, but soviet glass in good shape makes pretty pictures. Post a picture of the defect. If it's small, probably no big deal. But it's not so common as to be acceptable.

Nick

Nick are you buying stills glass or cine? Some of the old biotars are well known for bubbles.

 

[Mike S. M.]

I have to agree that when it comes to Russian glass pretty much all the good stuff is already gone. Specially on Ebay, all that is left is old junk! Unless you buying from an actual user who got the lens a while ago and not a dealer. I got my set of Lomos way back in the early 2000's and for dirty cheap too. I didn't even pay $100 per lens back then. They were in great condition too and were the latest made. Now only the junk is left, unfortunately. I really love the look of them. Not really vintage, but not really the over-sharpened razor sharp cold contemporary look. The older OCT-19 (70's) and specially the even older OCT-18 lenses have too much of a vintage look to them. But the latest OCT-19 primes can look very contemporary. The best I can compare is to the look of the Cookes but not so warm. I really like shooting with them and they are among my favorite lenses look-wise. The mechanics don't compare to Zeiss or Cooke, not by a mile. But the glass is on pair with their lenses of the same time. When compared to cheaper contemporary glass such as the Zeiss CP.2s or ZFs, which are in my opinion really sterile and character-less, and the even cheaper Rockinons, which are becoming quite popular in the lower end of cinema lenses, the Lomos make much prettier images in my opinion and have some character too.