Haze on the rear element, is it much of an issue?

ZombieArmy · 08-23-2014, 11:49 AM

Hello everyone, I just purchased a quite literally new, never been used Pentax-A 50mm F2.0, but the problem is due to the warehouse it was sitting in I believe it got some haze on the rear element. When I first got it I made sure to open the aperture wide open to inspect for dust and fungus, and loe and behold with a flashlight test it looked dirty on the rear element! (Flawless on the front) At first I thought it was fungus but I dunno, it just looks "dirty" across the lens, not really "fungusy" if you know what I mean (though I guess it "could" be fungus I just can't seem to get a decent photo to show you

)

Any insight on this, should I just return it? The seller did make no guarantee of its actual quality and did charge fairly in my opinion.

---------- Post added 08-23-14 at 03:34 PM ----------

imgur: the simple image sharer

I created an imgur for it so you guys can see what I mean. The first 2 are of the 50mm and the rest are taken by the lens, you can click to zoom.

Last edited by ZombieArmy; 08-23-2014 at 01:30 PM.

PePe · 08-23-2014, 12:37 PM

In the best case this could be just dust. Just strange that the dirt is on the rear element!
However, it is pretty obvious that if it was advertised as a new unused lens, it should be in good working order. Therefore I would take it back to be either replaced or cleaned.
Of course you could try cleaning it youself If you have lens cleaning paper and - liquid. It is not rocket science, just use materials specificly made for this and be gentle!

ZombieArmy · 08-23-2014, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by PePe

In the best case this could be just dust. Just strange that the dirt is on the rear element!
However, it is pretty obvious that if it was advertised as a new unused lens, it should be in good working order. Therefore I would take it back to be either replaced or cleaned.
If you have lens cleaning paper and - liquid you could try cleaning it youself.

Well it was more me taking a risk than the seller lying or anything. The guy didn't really sell lenses this is just back stock of an abandoned warehouse. Mechanically this lens is absolutely perfect, the front element is absolutely perfect, really the only issue is that "mystery" crud on the back element

ZombieArmy · 08-23-2014, 01:28 PM

I'm just not sure if it would even be worth it to return this lens, the images seem fine to me

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

hcarvalhoalves · 08-23-2014, 01:38 PM

I have a M 50 mm with fungus in the rear elements. It's not the usual web pattern you see in funginous lenses. Only by looking really close I can see tiny semi-transparent spots very tight together, making the element appear foggy.

It takes fine pictures still. This one with a macro tube:

I believe the haziness doesn't affect as much when it's on the rear element since there's no stray light coming in.

stevebrot · 08-23-2014, 01:41 PM

The thread title says "haze" and the text says "dirty" and "crud".

The linked photo appears to be gross contamination of some sort on the inner surface of the rear element. I cannot say fungus without actually seeing the lens, but that would be my first guess. The photos you posted are far below what this lens should be able to deliver if not sullied.

As for the seller's claim that the lens is new and unused from a warehouse somewhere...Unless the lens was delivered in its original box and packing materials with the original literature (guide and warranty card) any claim to its being NOS (new old stock) is simply a blowing of smoke.

The fix would be disassembly and cleaning, though there would be no guaranty that the glass surface and coatings would still be in good condition. Fair price for a lens in this condition would be under $10 USD.

If you should decide to send it back and/or try a different lens, I would suggest the A 50/1.7. It is a better lens optically with similar construction at a similar price point.

Steve

ZombieArmy · 08-23-2014, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

The thread title say "haze" and the text says "dirty" and "crud".

The linked photo appears to be gross contamination of some sort on the inner surface of the rear element. I cannot say fungus without actually seeing the lens, but that would be my first guess. The photos you posted are far below what this lens should be able to deliver if not sullied.

As for the seller's claim that the lens is new and unused from a warehouse somewhere...Unless the lens was delivered in its original box and packing materials with the original literature (guide and warranty card) any claim to its being NOS (new old stock) is simply a blowing of smoke.

The fix would be disassembly and cleaning, though there would be no guaranty that the glass surface and coatings would still be in good condition. Fair price for a lens in this condition would be under $10 USD.

If you should decide to send it back or try a different lens, I would suggest the A 50/1.7. It is a better lens at a similar price point.

Steve

Alright thanks for the input, I will most certainly get in contact with the seller for a full refund.

And sorry for the title, I was just confused about what the stuff was since it really wasn't clear cut based on the lens resources I had.

Last edited by ZombieArmy; 08-23-2014 at 01:59 PM.

6BQ5 · 08-23-2014, 04:45 PM

Haze and fungus usually don't show up on images like the way it shows up to eyes when looking at the lens. It doesn't exactly cast a perfect shadow. However, it does reduce light transmission and it also reduces contrast. You can correct for some of this in post processing but it will blur the images ever so slightly due to the disruption in the path of the light. Some people can still make great images from severely infected lenses. Be your own judge of the IQ. If you pixel peep and don't like what you see then try again. if you print 4"x6" photos and like the result then you're golden.

ZombieArmy · 08-23-2014, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by 6BQ5

Haze and fungus usually don't show up on images like the way it shows up to eyes when looking at the lens. It doesn't exactly cast a perfect shadow. However, it does reduce light transmission and it also reduces contrast. You can correct for some of this in post processing but it will blur the images ever so slightly due to the disruption in the path of the light. Some people can still make great images from severely infected lenses. Be your own judge of the IQ. If you pixel peep and don't like what you see then try again. if you print 4"x6" photos and like the result then you're golden.

I just decided I'd be better off just returning it since I just bought it, 30 dollars isn't exactly on the cheap side for this lens. I'll just save up for the 1.7 after I return this for the sharper image at a larger aperture

I mean the Sears 80-200mm F4 Macro that I'm getting will be all the softness I need.

08-23-2014, 11:49 AM	#1
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	Haze on the rear element, is it much of an issue? Hello everyone, I just purchased a quite literally new, never been used Pentax-A 50mm F2.0, but the problem is due to the warehouse it was sitting in I believe it got some haze on the rear element. When I first got it I made sure to open the aperture wide open to inspect for dust and fungus, and loe and behold with a flashlight test it looked dirty on the rear element! (Flawless on the front) At first I thought it was fungus but I dunno, it just looks "dirty" across the lens, not really "fungusy" if you know what I mean (though I guess it "could" be fungus I just can't seem to get a decent photo to show you ) Any insight on this, should I just return it? The seller did make no guarantee of its actual quality and did charge fairly in my opinion. ---------- Post added 08-23-14 at 03:34 PM ---------- imgur: the simple image sharer I created an imgur for it so you guys can see what I mean. The first 2 are of the 50mm and the rest are taken by the lens, you can click to zoom. Last edited by ZombieArmy; 08-23-2014 at 01:30 PM.

08-23-2014, 12:37 PM	#2
PePe Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Helsinki, Finland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 597	In the best case this could be just dust. Just strange that the dirt is on the rear element! However, it is pretty obvious that if it was advertised as a new unused lens, it should be in good working order. Therefore I would take it back to be either replaced or cleaned. Of course you could try cleaning it youself If you have lens cleaning paper and - liquid. It is not rocket science, just use materials specificly made for this and be gentle! Last edited by PePe; 08-23-2014 at 12:47 PM.

08-23-2014, 01:41 PM	#6
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	The thread title says "haze" and the text says "dirty" and "crud". The linked photo appears to be gross contamination of some sort on the inner surface of the rear element. I cannot say fungus without actually seeing the lens, but that would be my first guess. The photos you posted are far below what this lens should be able to deliver if not sullied. As for the seller's claim that the lens is new and unused from a warehouse somewhere...Unless the lens was delivered in its original box and packing materials with the original literature (guide and warranty card) any claim to its being NOS (new old stock) is simply a blowing of smoke. The fix would be disassembly and cleaning, though there would be no guaranty that the glass surface and coatings would still be in good condition. Fair price for a lens in this condition would be under $10 USD. If you should decide to send it back and/or try a different lens, I would suggest the A 50/1.7. It is a better lens optically with similar construction at a similar price point. Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 08-23-2014 at 01:56 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Got a finger print on my rear element, best way to remove it?	Zealex	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	07-17-2014 05:47 PM
50mm 1.7 rear element yellowish haze	lo3ll	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	05-05-2012 07:45 PM
What is this on an internal element of my FA77? Thoughts?	jurysi	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-02-2011 11:03 PM
How much of an issue is fungus?	Vormulac	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	02-03-2010 08:33 AM
Damaged rear lens element on F70-210, can the element be replaced?	WendyB	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	01-05-2008 08:41 AM

08-23-2014, 12:48 PM	#3
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210 Original Poster	Originally posted by PePe In the best case this could be just dust. Just strange that the dirt is on the rear element! However, it is pretty obvious that if it was advertised as a new unused lens, it should be in good working order. Therefore I would take it back to be either replaced or cleaned. If you have lens cleaning paper and - liquid you could try cleaning it youself. Well it was more me taking a risk than the seller lying or anything. The guy didn't really sell lenses this is just back stock of an abandoned warehouse. Mechanically this lens is absolutely perfect, the front element is absolutely perfect, really the only issue is that "mystery" crud on the back element

08-23-2014, 01:38 PM	#5
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	I have a M 50 mm with fungus in the rear elements. It's not the usual web pattern you see in funginous lenses. Only by looking really close I can see tiny semi-transparent spots very tight together, making the element appear foggy. It takes fine pictures still. This one with a macro tube: I believe the haziness doesn't affect as much when it's on the rear element since there's no stray light coming in.

08-23-2014, 01:50 PM	#7
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevebrot The thread title say "haze" and the text says "dirty" and "crud". The linked photo appears to be gross contamination of some sort on the inner surface of the rear element. I cannot say fungus without actually seeing the lens, but that would be my first guess. The photos you posted are far below what this lens should be able to deliver if not sullied. As for the seller's claim that the lens is new and unused from a warehouse somewhere...Unless the lens was delivered in its original box and packing materials with the original literature (guide and warranty card) any claim to its being NOS (new old stock) is simply a blowing of smoke. The fix would be disassembly and cleaning, though there would be no guaranty that the glass surface and coatings would still be in good condition. Fair price for a lens in this condition would be under $10 USD. If you should decide to send it back or try a different lens, I would suggest the A 50/1.7. It is a better lens at a similar price point. Steve Alright thanks for the input, I will most certainly get in contact with the seller for a full refund. And sorry for the title, I was just confused about what the stuff was since it really wasn't clear cut based on the lens resources I had. Last edited by ZombieArmy; 08-23-2014 at 01:59 PM.

08-23-2014, 04:45 PM	#8
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	Haze and fungus usually don't show up on images like the way it shows up to eyes when looking at the lens. It doesn't exactly cast a perfect shadow. However, it does reduce light transmission and it also reduces contrast. You can correct for some of this in post processing but it will blur the images ever so slightly due to the disruption in the path of the light. Some people can still make great images from severely infected lenses. Be your own judge of the IQ. If you pixel peep and don't like what you see then try again. if you print 4"x6" photos and like the result then you're golden.

08-23-2014, 04:51 PM	#9
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210 Original Poster	Originally posted by 6BQ5 Haze and fungus usually don't show up on images like the way it shows up to eyes when looking at the lens. It doesn't exactly cast a perfect shadow. However, it does reduce light transmission and it also reduces contrast. You can correct for some of this in post processing but it will blur the images ever so slightly due to the disruption in the path of the light. Some people can still make great images from severely infected lenses. Be your own judge of the IQ. If you pixel peep and don't like what you see then try again. if you print 4"x6" photos and like the result then you're golden. I just decided I'd be better off just returning it since I just bought it, 30 dollars isn't exactly on the cheap side for this lens. I'll just save up for the 1.7 after I return this for the sharper image at a larger aperture I mean the Sears 80-200mm F4 Macro that I'm getting will be all the softness I need.