[grahame]

DA 50-135 is a great lens but is just too heavy to carry around. So I want to buy an FA/F 135mm 2.8 lens to replace the bulky 50-135, since I have nice primes 55/1.4, 77, sigma 105 macro already.
I managed to purchase two copies. One FA and one F version. One from the market place here and one from ebay.
Unfortunately, and surprisingly, both copies I bought had a similar problem: an internal element exhibits bad foggy rings. One copy was worse, only 1/2-2/3 of the center is still clear. At first I thought it was dust and unprofessional cleaning. But the 2nd copy came in today and I saw three rings affecting ~1/5 area. See photos. When I saw the second copy, I realized both lenses might have element separation.
both sellers are nice and responsible. I am not complaining here.
But I am really surprised both copies I got had this problem. Is it a common issue for this lens? I did a search online and found nothing.
Any inputs here? AM I wrong that these are not separation but dust?

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Falke]

Any examples of photos taken with these lenses?

[grahame]

Images taken from them are still very good, wonderful shall I say. A little CA at 2.8, but resolution is very good already. My 50-135, which is very strong at 135 end, produced comparable resolution in the center @ 2.8, but the edges are much better for prime. Stop down to 4, the prime is much sharper than DA* ZOOM, from edge to edge. I just got the lens, and don;t have any photo that can share, expect some boring testing shoots.

I was expecting some sort of "soft-focus" effect from the haze, but was surprised not seeing that. Of course I don;t have a good copy to compare. maybe a clean copy can produce even better.

If I can confirm that the haze at the edge is from dust, I will keep the lens. They really doesn't affect IQ too much, if any. But I am afraid the separation, if it is, would get worse and worse, the 2nd copy will become 1st copy and eventually covered by haze in the entire glass.

Any thoughts?

[Eric L]

My copy does not show any separation of the elements or dust, and is very sharp with nice bokeh, but can exhibit a fair amount of PF wide open.

[17dew]

Can't comment on the F 135 2.8 , but I've owned two copies of the F 100 2.8 macro and they both had the foggy rings on an internal element.Could they possibly share the same
internal components?They were both plenty sharp,despite the haze.Just my two cents.

[grahame]

Also both of your copies? That is sad.
Are the foggy rings stay like the first day you saw them? Or they are slowly progressing?
i am still debating whether or not to return the lens. It is still very sharp lens, and I really like the compact size and fast AF. I planned to replace my 50-135 with this. If the rings, once they show up, will stay stable for very long time (many years), I will probably keep it. The rings do not affect IQ, at least on APC cameras.

[17dew]

Also both of your copies? That is sad.
Are the foggy rings stay like the first day you saw them? Or they are slowly progressing?
i am still debating whether or not to return the lens. It is still very sharp lens, and I really like the compact size and fast AF. I planned to replace my 50-135 with this. If the rings, once they show up, will stay stable for very long time (many years), I will probably keep it. The rings do not affect IQ, at least on APC cameras.

Yes,both copies.I had them a couple of years and they never seemed to progress any further.I think it would be a slow process to degrade to the point
of non-useability IMO.

[grahame]

think it would be a slow process to degrade to the point of non-useability IMO.

Thanks. That is what I want to know. If the lens will have 5-10 years of life left, I will probably keep it. It is a quite rare lens and performance very well.