[dipo 1]

So Ive been looking for a good large (telephoto) lens and all or just about all of them have fungus or dust inside. Question how much junk is too much, if you look at a lens what do you look for to determine if it has fungus or dust? I have been reading on this Forum about various lens and am restricted to those on the lower end of the dollar scale. Once again any and all advice is greatly appreciated.

[pschlute]

So Ive been looking for a good large (telephoto) lens and all or just about all of them have fungus or dust inside. Question how much junk is too much, if you look at a lens what do you look for to determine if it has fungus or dust? I have been reading on this Forum about various lens and am restricted to those on the lower end of the dollar scale. Once again any and all advice is greatly appreciated.

First. a lens that has been properly looked after is unlikely to have any fungus inside. Fungus grows in damp humid conditions. If a lens has fungus it is potentially serious. The fungus can eat into the lens coating. I would reject any lens described or being found to have fungus.

Dust is completely different. Every lens ever made has dust inside, even new ones. Unless the dust is so voluminous that it creates a hazy appearance when a torch light is shined though, do not concern yourself with it.

ps. as an aside....I once bought a lens (M 40mm f2.8) that was described as having a spider in it. the advert was accompanied by a photograph of said spider. On arrival I took some pictures with it. Then disassembled it to remove the dead beast. Took some more pictures with the now spider-less lens. Identical to the arachnid infested pictures

[jatrax]

Dust is not really a problem. Fungus however should be avoided. It is possible to clean a lens of fungus but it takes skill, knowledge, specialized tools and some luck. Not really worth it IMHO.

A little advice on telephoto lenses. If your budget is insufficient at this time save up until it is. A cheap telephoto is (IMHO) a waste of time and money. That doesn't mean you have to buy the newest and most expensive, there are lots of good manual focus ones available. Just don't go cheap thinking it can't be that bad. I promise: it will be that bad and you will regret the purchase. I speak from experience as I went through far too many lenses, each time getting one a little better and more expensive than the last but still ultimately disappointed. When I finally saved up and bought a quality lens the difference was striking and easily noticeable.

[aslyfox]

on the issue of dust in a camera lens, a member once posted a link to this:

Lens Rentals | Blog

The Apocalypse of Lens Dust
By Roger Cicala Published August 2, 2011
Apocalypse (from the Greek apokálypsis; “lifting of the veil” or “revelation”):

An event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale.
A disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind.
How appropriate the word apocalypse is for this little article. At least once a week I see a post somewhere from a fairly inexperienced photographer who thinks a definition 1 apocalypse has occurred: “OMG, my lens has dust inside!!!! How did it get there??? What will I do?? My shoot is ruiiinned!!!!!”

Pretty soon a more experienced photographer posts a definition 2 apocalypse to try to calm the first photographer down: “Lens dust is insignificant, you can never see it, it has no effect on your pictures.”

Well, the second post is far more realistic than the first. Every lens has dust inside and you can almost never see it in a picture (99% of the time you can’t). But obviously there must be some point where dust is either big enough or there’s just enough of it to become visible, otherwise we could fill our lenses with mud and then go take pictures.

Before we get into that, I’ll answer a few questions for those who are not experienced in the ways of lens dust: . . .

unfortunately I cannot remember who brought to my attention by posting it originally

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 07-26-2020 at 07:24 PM.

[pepperberry farm]

A little advice on telephoto lenses. If your budget is insufficient at this time save up until it is. A cheap telephoto is (IMHO) a waste of time and money. That doesn't mean you have to buy the newest and most expensive, there are lots of good manual focus ones available. Just don't go cheap thinking it can't be that bad. I promise: it will be that bad and you will regret the purchase. I speak from experience as I went through far too many lenses, each time getting one a little better and more expensive than the last but still ultimately disappointed. When I finally saved up and bought a quality lens the difference was striking and easily noticeable.

^^^ this ^^^

100% agree with you, mainly because I did it to myself, that same way - buying on the cheap, trying to make it work on the cheap, etc.... and never, ever being happy with the results....

until I saved enough to buy an FA* 300/4.5, my long-lens history was atrocious...


I always respond to this question the same way: save up until you can get the lens you want, do not settle for a lens that may or may not get you there, because you'll end up buying that same mediocre-quality lens over and over and over.....

[Alex645]

So Ive been looking for a good large (telephoto) lens and all or just about all of them have fungus or dust inside. Question how much junk is too much, if you look at a lens what do you look for to determine if it has fungus or dust?

I agree with earlier posts about fungus being more problematic than dust.

There are different types of fungus, but generally fungus usually has a pattern to it or can appear like haze unless it's caused by two elements in a group delaminating or separating (not good). Dust will appear more randomly as singular anomalies. Fungus can be more translucent whereas dust is usually opaque.

If the lens has dust, dust that is more centered in the lens is worse than dust toward the outer edges.

Dust becomes more problematic at smaller apertures such as f/11-f/32. Fortunately, with most telephoto lenses you won't be shooting with smaller apertures because of the need for more light and speed.

[AstroDave]

QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
A little advice on telephoto lenses. If your budget is insufficient at this time save up until it is. A cheap telephoto is (IMHO) a waste of time and money. That doesn't mean you have to buy the newest and most expensive, there are lots of good manual focus ones available. Just don't go cheap thinking it can't be that bad. I promise: it will be that bad and you will regret the purchase. I speak from experience as I went through far too many lenses, each time getting one a little better and more expensive than the last but still ultimately disappointed. When I finally saved up and bought a quality lens the difference was striking and easily noticeable.

^^^ this ^^^

100% agree with you, mainly because I did it to myself, that same way - buying on the cheap, trying to make it work on the cheap, etc.... and never, ever being happy with the results....

^^^ this ^^^ !!

I, too, have been down that road, and agree completely! I wasn't happy until my DA* 60-250 and 300 lenses.Unfortunately, not cheap.

[marcusBMG]

Well I have to beg to differ just a little to prev posts....
- A cheap telephoto, if you can't at the mo afford a good one, is not a waste of money. The satisfaction of taking pictures vs not taking pictures! Results may actually surprise you, and you'll learn something and acquire experience. Most of the tokina made MF 400's are quite decently sharp stopped down to f8 and f11. And the tamron "nestar" is a distinctive and surprisingly sharp in-your-pocket 400mm. Mirror lenses are ticklish to use but have their own cachet and distinctive character - see mirror lens thread.
- I for one do not go bananas over a few tendrils or smidgens of fungus - no more noticeable than dust, probably been there for years with no effect on anything. Don't worry about it IMO. If it's pervasive well that's different. Similarly dust - all vintage lenses are likely to have visible dust particles, even dust mites. I have never felt that dust/mites have had any effect on iq/images. There is some interesting info online illustrating just how much it takes to really affect iq - broken front elements for example. Haze is much more problematical, the sigma apo 400mm would be an immediate recommendation as a vintage tp of choice except it invariably suffers from haze caused by balsam separation of an internal group.

Browse my posts in the 300mm lens club to see a lot of MF vintage tp's in action.

[dipo 1]

Wonderful advice as always and thanks to all. I'm 72 and my wife (75)and I have had custody of 2 of our grandchildren, near 15 years now, The one still at home is 17 male and eats like a pig in slop, very difficult to save money even for important stuff, (food, milk, cloths etc). Right now I am reading the lens section of this forum to try to find a lens I can afford, $300 to $1200 lenses are just not in the equation. Still love this site and all of the very good advise I get here. Have learned more in the last 2 years or so than in the first 40 odd years using my old Spotmatic. THANK YOU ALL!

[mkgd1]

Wonderful advice as always and thanks to all. I'm 72 and my wife (75)and I have had custody of 2 of our grandchildren, near 15 years now, The one still at home is 17 male and eats like a pig in slop, very difficult to save money even for important stuff, (food, milk, cloths etc). Right now I am reading the lens section of this forum to try to find a lens I can afford, $300 to $1200 lenses are just not in the equation. Still love this site and all of the very good advise I get here. Have learned more in the last 2 years or so than in the first 40 odd years using my old Spotmatic. THANK YOU ALL!

I've had good luck with several Sigma lenses used on ebay. I also got a nice pentax A series zoom lens with macro. It's auto except for focus. I got if with a couple of other items, bundled on shopgoodwill.com

[termy]

Wonderful advice as always and thanks to all. I'm 72 and my wife (75)and I have had custody of 2 of our grandchildren, near 15 years now, The one still at home is 17 male and eats like a pig in slop, very difficult to save money even for important stuff, (food, milk, cloths etc). Right now I am reading the lens section of this forum to try to find a lens I can afford, $300 to $1200 lenses are just not in the equation. Still love this site and all of the very good advise I get here. Have learned more in the last 2 years or so than in the first 40 odd years using my old Spotmatic. THANK YOU ALL!

g'day sir.

Was wanting to private message you but didn't have that option.

Wanted to ask a few questions (so that have an idea, what might be suitable).

1) any preference on whether manual focus lens, or autofocus lens?

2) any preference, whether prime, or zoom?

3) assuming, preference for zoom.
Any particular range preferred?
Perhaps a 70-300mm? 80-200mm.
Or a 70-210mm?
Or a all-in-one 28-200mm zoom?

4) if preference for prime.
200mm prime? 300mm prime?
400mm prime?

5) any preference on weight of lens?
I will suppose, preference will lean towards a relatively non-heavy lens?
Something below one kilogramme?
(One kilogramme is about 2.2 pounds).

Reason is, i might have a lens that you might be thinking of, and which i hardly use, and thus, be more than happy to gift it to someone who will make better use of it.
(Or perhaps we could work out some minimal token amount).

Hi Mods,
unfortunately, rules are such that i cannot provide my email contact here in the open.

If an exception could be made, perhaps any of the mods could help link me up with OP separately, so that this could proceed in private.

thanks a lot!

---------- Post added 07-28-20 at 09:00 AM ----------

Oh great.

I see that there is now an option to private message the OP.

---------- Post added 07-28-20 at 09:00 AM ----------

Oh great.

I see that there is now an option to private message the OP.

[dipo 1]

termy Sounds like we need to talk. Not real good at using this site. Preference is manual, m42 mount, possible k mount, aperture ring. Very basic lenses, I work very slowly and do not have any problem working this way, don't do sports at all. Since I started with my Spotmaic 40 odd years ago have always wanted a long lens probably 300 or 400mm. how do I get with you. Not too worried about weight but am not a weight lifter.

[termy]

termy Sounds like we need to talk. Not real good at using this site. Preference is manual, m42 mount, possible k mount, aperture ring. Very basic lenses, I work very slowly and do not have any problem working this way, don't do sports at all. Since I started with my Spotmaic 40 odd years ago have always wanted a long lens probably 300 or 400mm. how do I get with you. Not too worried about weight but am not a weight lifter.

g'day mr dipo1.

(Oh, i actually sent you a private message, but i surmise you have yet to figure out on that aspect. No worries though).

alrighty, we have some hiccups which will need the Mods to assist.

As it seems, even if i am fine to actually talk via long distance calls (i am from Singapore), we still got to have a contact number (and guidelines are such that contact information, be it residential addresses, email addresses or phone numbers, cannot be listed in the open).

Oddly though, isn't the lens to be used on a K-5?
If so, a K-mount lens will do fine.

Anyway, another forum member (atlrob) has gotten in touch with me, we'll see if something could work out.

But pretty sure will need assistance from the Mods.

Dear Forum members as well.
Might the Pentax community in the USA come in to see what we all could do, to work something out?
Perhaps someone living in the same state or city as mr dipo1?