How much dust inside a lens is too much? Your advice, please

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Planapo
Posts: 1581
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:33 am
Location: Germany, in the United States of Europe

How much dust inside a lens is too much? Your advice, please

Post by Planapo »

Hi there guys,

I´ve tracked down a Canon Macro Photo Lens 35 mm 1:2.8. This is the lens with an RMS thread, mainly thought to be used with a bellows.
Got it from a dealer whom, in advance, I had asked my elaborate standard questionnaire about glass surfaces, coatings, separation/delamination, aperture blades etc. that I always ask before buying a used lens, at least trying to assure that it is described truthfully.

The answer I got from the dealer in this case was: "The lens is like new". :smt017 :roll:

It came in its original plastic bubble container where it is safely locked in an RMS to FD adapter. Came with an original Canon instruction sheet that seems to be printed in 05/1979. Hence, provided that this is the sheet the lens was delivered with when new, the lens should have been manufactured around that time. The serial-no. engraved on the lens reads 12754.

On first glance the lens looks quite clean and in good condition, but on closer inspection a little "heap" of fine dust can be seen right in the center on an inner element. And on even closer inspection dust and some fibres on different elements inside the lens are visible all over. Let alone when having a look at the lens under my stereomicroscope :shock: : At once my ablutomania arises :wink: , and I wish to grab for my hoover. (But maybe one should not look at one´s lenses through a stereomicroscope, right?!) :D

The following photos may give you some impression of the dust inside. Though, it´s tricky as more or less dust specks ´n fibres flash up depending on the angle of the light and how many surfaces come halfway in focus.

Here the little dust heap OOF in the center
Image

Dust inside shows up under "oblique illumination"
Image

Even more dust shows up depending on the angle of illumination
Image


Now boys, how would you proceed with that lens in such a condition?
From your experience, would you say this is too much dust, and that accordingly it will deteriorate image quality, and hence I should give the lens back and try to find one in better condition?
Or do you think that this amount of dust won´t matter, and that I should keep this lens? The price was 107.- Euro (incl. VAT and shipping).

Do you have any experience what a professional disassembling, cleaning and re-assembling of such a lens would cost? (It´s a 6 element 4 group design.) Or would that be too costly, anyway?
The Canon service that I had sent an e-mail to wasn´t of much help in this respect: They responded that I have to send the lens in first, and then they would tell me how much they are going to charge.

Hoping for your answers that will help me with decision making and thanking you in advance

--Betty :-k

Mike B in OKlahoma
Posts: 1048
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:32 pm
Location: Oklahoma City

Post by Mike B in OKlahoma »

I have a Canon 100-400L zoom (which is notoriously known as a "dust pump" which has much worse dust than that inside after several years of use. I've never found it to have an effect I could identify. My understanding is that in theory, the dust should reduce contrast somewhat, and especially if shooting near the direction of the Sun, when it could lead to flare. I'm careful to always use the 100-400L with its lens hood which probably helps. You might want to consider how much this lens might be used in flare-producing conditions.

As I understand it, Canon USA charges a set price for a minor repair to a lens and a different price for a major repair (I'm not sure how they set that), and decides whether the repair is minor or major after looking at it. The price for a minor repair isn't too bad, fortunately I've never encountered the price for a major repair. I'm assuming your lens would fall under "minor repair". Whether Canon in Europe has the same practice, I don't know.

My advice in your situation is to consider the answers to the following questions:

1) Is this lens a rare find (in either type of lens or price), or are there many other fish in the sea?

2) I'd (treating the lens with loving care) try taking some photos with it under controlled conditions and see if you can detect any problems. If you can't, you're probably doing great. If you can detect any problems, unless the lens is a rare find as described in question 1, I'd box it up and send it back.
Mike Broderick
Oklahoma City, OK, USA

Constructive critiques of my pictures, and reposts in this forum for purposes of critique are welcome

"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul....My mandate includes weird bugs."
--Calvin

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

Are you sure it is all dust and the "fibres" are not fungus Betty?

http://www.chem.helsinki.fi/~toomas/photo/fungus/

DaveW

NikonUser
Posts: 2693
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:03 am
Location: southern New Brunswick, Canada

Post by NikonUser »

The 2 slots, clearly seen in the 1st image, suggest that this inner ring in a retaining ring. It looks as though it will unscrew (with the correct tool, try a watch repairer). The front lens should then just pop out. Cleaning the inside may then be simple.
Caveat: don't try this at home.
NU.
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.

Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives

g4lab
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 11:07 am

Post by g4lab »

The lens is not that rare. I would send it back. He said "like new" ,it isn't, end of story. Your photos tell the story quite adequately. When you request a refund send the seller the same photos.

I am of the opinion that people competent to repair lenses like this are very few and far between. Sometimes lenses are assembled on fixtures which never are seen outside the factory. If they sold millions of copies of the model then such fixtures could be distributed to arthurized service centers.
But I don't think they sold that many of these lenses.

That said I do agree with both other comments made.

If I had purchased that lens on an ebay auction and it was as-is no returns, I would probably clean it myself.

You need a dust free white surface to work on. Freshly wiped formica is nice.
If there is a lit laminar flow hood where you work that is even better. (I suspect you of being a biological scientist)

The optical spanner wrench as referred to by NikonUser needs to have bits to go in the slots or holes that are exactly the right size. Ones that are smaller will slip and mark the ring and look bad. Yes I learned that the hard way. :roll:

During disassembly use a vacuum suction cup pickup to lift the lens out.
http://www.virtual-ii.com/index.php

Lenses elements are not always symmetrical. You have to be able to put them back exactly as you took them out. Sometimes this involves making a little mark or dot on the edge. There may already be one there from the original assembler. An extra fine sharpie is good for that purpose. Also a paper and pen for notes and diagrams.

When you have the dirty surface exposed use a lint free swab from the semiconductor or optics industry to clean. Use Kodak lens cleaning solution or similar products from Zeiss or other major optical firm. A heat gun or hair dryer will help make sure all the cleaner is gone. Use an upside down bowl or jar to keep dust from settling on the naked components while disassembled.

Wearing white nylon gloves which you can get from your friendly electron microscopy tech or supplier is not a bad idea either.

Mike B's suggestion to just live with it might be the way to go too depending on the test results. In surgery there is a saying "Sometimes better is the enemy of good."

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Betty,

I'd pass on it. Bellows lenses tend to get a lot of air "pumped" around them, but that does not look like "basic", or regular dust.

Didn't you pick up a 28mm or 35mm Componon? That will perform as well or better.

g4lab
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 11:07 am

Post by g4lab »

In your top photo at the bottom of the front element is a rainbow ring that is suggestive of the Newton ringing of element separation. It could be a variation in the coating but it looks like a Newton's ring to me. I had a lens do that once. It has to be recemented.

Planapo
Posts: 1581
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:33 am
Location: Germany, in the United States of Europe

Post by Planapo »

Mike, Dave, NU, Gene and Charlie, thanks much for your help, boys!
Now I know that I´m not too nit-picky. The lens is on its way back to that visually handicapped dealer.

Gene and NU, thanks for the "surgical instructions" but being fully aware of my abilities in this respect :lol:, I should better not try executing such an "operation" myself.

Dave, couldn´t see any fungal hyphae under the stereomicroscope, hence I don´t think it´s fungus.

Yes Charles, I have got a 35 mm Componon. The three 28 mm lenses I´ve tested were all fungus-infested and hence returned. Seems quite some sellers have an eyesight impediment when it comes to describing lenses. :smt009
But I had thought that the faster special Canon macro lens could perform better than the slower Componons. Thanks for your comparative evaluation. :D

--Betty
Last edited by Planapo on Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Betty,

After about 5X it would be nice to have an extra stop ( f2.8 versus f4... if the lens itself performs well at f2.8 )


Some Componon musings...

The 35mm and 28mm Componons are interesting in that the "mounts" start at f4, while there seems to be a lot more "glass" beyond the f4 aperture size.

Schneider made lenses they called the M-Componon. I always suspected the 28mm was little more than a 28mm Componon "reverse mounted" in the barrel at the factory. (But I don't know for sure). The specifications you usually find were 28mm f4, but I recall once seeing some Schneider literature that gave specs of 28/2.8 for an M Componon.

Schneider now has a 28/2.8 and 35/2.8 "Unifoc" ("industrial") lenses: http://www.schneideroptics.com/industri ... lenses.htm
Again, I suspect these are the same lenses. In the literature in the link they have a footnote that seems to indicate a smaller coverage at f2.8. But for the magnifications we use this would not be an issue. Schneider's pretty conservative, so it may be that they did not feel the quality at the edges of the images circle was adequate for a large image circle. So in the Componon enlarging lens they limited the max aperture to f4. But at magnifications of 5X and up ( which is where you would want to make use of f2.8 ) it might not be an issue since we would be working with a field size "circle" with a diameter of 5mm or less.
Last edited by Charles Krebs on Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Planapo
Posts: 1581
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:33 am
Location: Germany, in the United States of Europe

Post by Planapo »

Charlie, Thanks for the additional information. I - and I guess I'm not the only one - always appreciate listening when the Master is musing aloud... :D

Your schneider-optics.com link seems more informative than schneider-kreuznach.com that I used to consult until now. The different barrel versions these Componons have been manufactured in is a bit confusing.

On that schneider-optics.com site I`ve now found the 4/60 mm lens whose optic design I had asked you and Rik about lately, and that I had picked up from an institution. They had acquired it for a project that then wasn't realized, thus it came in unused condition together with an unifoc tube and M42 adapter.
It is this version with numbers instead of aperture values and no click stops but the stop-position is locked down with screws for a tiny hex-wrench, and "Makro-Iris" is additionally written on it. But in Schneider's macro brochure where lenses in such barrel designs are shown, it says that they should be reversely mounted when shooting over 1:1. Hence, I assume that, at least in this barrel design, the glass elements are assembled the same way round as in the Componon enlarging lenses.

--Betty

g4lab
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 11:07 am

Post by g4lab »

$1,308.00!?!?!?! :smt107

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Betty,

That 60mm should be outrageously good!!! (I'll give you a non-fungus infected 28mm Componon plus $10 for it... :wink: :wink: \:D/ )
Let's see some pix taken with it!!

Planapo
Posts: 1581
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:33 am
Location: Germany, in the United States of Europe

Post by Planapo »

Gene, well it´s a list price but my jaw dropped too when I saw it.

Charlie, actually your offer is not that bad considering the 40,- Euros I paid for the lens with tube and adapter.8-[ \:D/
I hope to find some time around christmas to test the lenses that have accumulated in my drawer. For a person without routine like me that kind of photography is really time consuming, but a pierid butterfly is already waiting to show its scales.

--Betty

augusthouse
Posts: 1195
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:39 am
Location: New South Wales Australia

Post by augusthouse »

Good for you Betty!

All things come to those who look, search and rummage diligently.

This thread started off sadly and has now become a celebration!

I'm very happy for you.

Craig
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"

dmillard
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Post by dmillard »

Charles Krebs wrote:Betty,


Schneider made lenses they called the M-Componon. I always suspected the 28mm was little more than a 28mm Componon "reverse mounted" in the barrel at the factory. (But I don't know for sure). The specifications you usually find were 28mm f4, but I recall once seeing some Schneider literature that gave specs of 28/2.8 for an M Componon.
This may be the lens you were referring to . . .

http://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerc ... 7&IID=6006

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic