Flawed lenses make for bad focus?

HeroOfSpielburg wrote:
Hello,

I inherited a Canon A-1 from my grandfather along with three lenses.
One is a 50mm F1.8 Canon that I had cleaned by the manufacturer when I
had the camera overhauled. The other two are brands I'm not familiar
with, one 135mm and one 21mm. The two off-brand lenses I cleaned as
best I could with lens cleaner and a cleaning cloth. However, the age
of the lenses and the environment they were kept in has produced a
number of defects, unfortunately. Several mold spots still remain on
even the overhauled lens, and the non-Canon lenses have several small
scratches on the camera body side of the lens, and an odd irisdescent
smudge I can't buff out, perhaps from a failed cleaning.

In any case, my question is, do lenses that appear like this make for
poor focus? I've heard a few specks of dust on the outside of the lens
will not produce artifacts under most lighting conditions, but perhaps
these aberrations are too much. I've taken a number of shots and been
disappointed to find that the focus on the outer areas of the images
are none too clear, even if I use a fairly small aperature upwards of
5.6. Am I better off just buying some "new" used lenses from a camera
shop which appear to be in pristine condition? Thanks for the help in
advance, and sorry if this is an obvious question. I just wanted to
confirm my suspicions.


"Sharpness" is generally used to describe what you mean rather than "focus".

1) Older, "off-brand" lenses - esp. super-wides like the 21mm - often
weren't that good. There are of course many exceptions to this rule
(for example, the Vivitar/Tokina 20/21mm 3.8 wasn't too bad).

2) Scratches, cleaning marks, fungus and separation are especially bad
if they are on the rear elements of a lens (=camera body side).

3) 5.6 isn't an especially small aperture. Try f/8.0 with the 21mm and
f/8.0 or even 11.0 with the 135mm. With lenses of this kind, there may
be an improvement.

4) From your description, it does sound as if the lenses are probably
not worth saving.

5) "Newness" or "better condition" aren't the only factors involved in
producing sharp images. A very good lens with some defects will
generally still give much better results than a perfect condition poor
quality lens.
You need to decide what you want and = at what cost.

You'll probably need to ask more questions....

HeroOfSpielburg wrote:
Chris,

Thank you for the correction and advice. I'm sorry, I did mean
sharpness and rear elements. I also made a mistake about the lens
length of the wide-angle (it was a long day at work).

Aside from the 50mm Canon, the other two are both Super Albinar, one
28mm, the other 135, both are F2.8.

Are these good lenses gone bad, or were they not much to start with?
From a quick glance around the brand seems to carry a reputation for
being "low-end".

I guess I will have to do a little research on some better brands and
go look again for two replacement lenses. The shots from the Canon
lens are fairly good, actually. I was just concerned about the mold
spots on what appears to be the inside of the element.


No problem with not knowing the terminology - everyone starts somewhere...
;-)

Assuming you want to replace your old lenses (I have no personal
experience with them, but Albinar is not considered to be very good),
you should decide *which* focal length lenses you want.

There is the classic 28 + 50 + 135mm combination.
On the plus side, it gives you a normal, a moderate wide and a moderate
tele.
On the negative side, I (and many others) find that the 28 & 135mm focal
lengths are not the most useful. This is fully in the realm of taste &
philosophy.
That said, an ideal portrait lens is usually considered to be somewhere
between 80 and 105mm, while a "real" telephoto starts at about 180mm.
Similar arguments can be used against 28mm - not really "wide" but too
wide to be "normal".

My own (minimal) kit is 35mm (normal), 21mm (wide) and 90(or 85 or
105)mm (tele).

Again, that is *my* own take, and tastes can vary.

Many people simply stick with the 50mm and have great results.

No one-size-fits-all here...

Ultimately, it depends on what and how *you* want to take photographs.

When you decide which focal lengths (if any) you want to buy, I - and
many others here - can certainly give you some good advice.

Hello,

I inherited a Canon A-1 from my grandfather along with three lenses.
One is a 50mm F1.8 Canon that I had cleaned by the manufacturer when I
had the camera overhauled. The other two are brands I'm not familiar
with, one 135mm and one 21mm. The two off-brand lenses I cleaned as
best I could with lens cleaner and a cleaning cloth. However, the age
of the lenses and the environment they were kept in has produced a
number of defects, unfortunately. Several mold spots still remain on
even the overhauled lens, and the non-Canon lenses have several small
scratches on the camera body side of the lens, and an odd irisdescent
smudge I can't buff out, perhaps from a failed cleaning.

In any case, my question is, do lenses that appear like this make for
poor focus? I've heard a few specks of dust on the outside of the lens
will not produce artifacts under most lighting conditions, but perhaps
these aberrations are too much. I've taken a number of shots and been
disappointed to find that the focus on the outer areas of the images
are none too clear, even if I use a fairly small aperature upwards of
5.6. Am I better off just buying some "new" used lenses from a camera
shop which appear to be in pristine condition? Thanks for the help in
advance, and sorry if this is an obvious question. I just wanted to
confirm my suspicions.

"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello,

I inherited a Canon A-1 from my grandfather along with three lenses.
One is a 50mm F1.8 Canon that I had cleaned by the manufacturer when I
had the camera overhauled. The other two are brands I'm not familiar
with, one 135mm and one 21mm. The two off-brand lenses I cleaned as
best I could with lens cleaner and a cleaning cloth. However, the age
of the lenses and the environment they were kept in has produced a
number of defects, unfortunately. Several mold spots still remain on
even the overhauled lens, and the non-Canon lenses have several small
scratches on the camera body side of the lens, and an odd irisdescent
smudge I can't buff out, perhaps from a failed cleaning.

In any case, my question is, do lenses that appear like this make for
poor focus? I've heard a few specks of dust on the outside of the lens
will not produce artifacts under most lighting conditions, but perhaps
these aberrations are too much. I've taken a number of shots and been
disappointed to find that the focus on the outer areas of the images
are none too clear, even if I use a fairly small aperature upwards of
5.6. Am I better off just buying some "new" used lenses from a camera
shop which appear to be in pristine condition? Thanks for the help in
advance, and sorry if this is an obvious question. I just wanted to
confirm my suspicions.

The only way determine whether the old lenses are still useful or not is to
make some photographs with them.

You are describing what is called "cleaning marks", and they usually degrade
the picture.

You seem to also be describing curvature of field which is a lens flaw that
cannot be improved. I would replace such lenses with better ones. I am not
aware of any new FD lenses; hence you must buy them used.

Jim

"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote

50mm F1.8 Canon lens and two brands I'm not familiar with,
one 135mm and one 21mm ... I cleaned as best I could ...
Several mold spots still remain ... several small
scratches on the camera body side of the lens, and an odd irisdescent
smudge I can't buff out

What do the 'mold spots' look like: spidery dentridic marks or little
round spots? How much of the lens area do they cover?

Spots on/in the lens normally result in loss of contrast and not
sharpness. A plague of spots results in a 'soft focus' effect where
the image is sharp but surrounded by a halo of fuzzy.

I've taken a number of shots and been disappointed to find that the
focus on the outer areas of the images are none too clear, even if
I use a fairly small aperture upwards of 5.6.

What is it that you are taking pictures of? A good test target
is to tape the classifieds page from the newspaper, set the
camera up on a tripod parallel to the newspaper. For distance
testing tape up pages at the edge of the field of view; I use
the fence or the side of the house.

The Canon lens should be sharp everywhere. If it isn't then there is
something else wrong with the system.

Just about all 135mm after-market telephotos produce OK results.
There are exceptions, and I owned one once -- horrid thing,
"Cambron" brand. The f3.5's tended to be sharper than the f2.8's.
Stopped down to f8-f11 [or even f5.6] the image should be
reasonably sharp in the corners.

The 21mm could be a dog, depending on the brand. Some of the
3rd party WA lenses were very good [Vivitar, Tokina and ???],
most were average [sort of by the definition of average...].

Can you post scans of the images to a web page or one of the
photo-sites?

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Chris,

Thank you for the correction and advice. I'm sorry, I did mean
sharpness and rear elements. I also made a mistake about the lens
length of the wide-angle (it was a long day at work).

Aside from the 50mm Canon, the other two are both Super Albinar, one
28mm, the other 135, both are F2.8.

Are these good lenses gone bad, or were they not much to start with?
From a quick glance around the brand seems to carry a reputation for
being "low-end".

I guess I will have to do a little research on some better brands and
go look again for two replacement lenses. The shots from the Canon
lens are fairly good, actually. I was just concerned about the mold
spots on what appears to be the inside of the element.

You seem to also be describing curvature of field which is a lens flaw that
cannot be improved. I would replace such lenses with better ones.

Thanks Jim! I'm beginning to think that maybe it is a flaw of the lens
itself, and I should be looking for a better brand. I live in Tokyo,
and we have a lot of good used camera parts stores here, I should be
able to find a good deal.

"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote

...Super Albinar, one
28mm, the other 135, both are F2.8.

Albinar is _not_ one of the good off-brand
brands. I am sure sharp ones exist [though
maybe not] but most are really sub-par.

Get a pair of Canons: the consensus is 24mm
at the short end and 105 at the high end, but
it doesn't really matter. Pick focal lengths
that complement the subjects you shoot.

Of the 3rd party lenses Vivitar 'Series 1' are
probably the best, followed by the regular
Vivitar, Tokina and Tamron.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote:
You seem to also be describing curvature of field which is a lens flaw that
cannot be improved. I would replace such lenses with better ones.

Thanks Jim! I'm beginning to think that maybe it is a flaw of the lens
itself, and I should be looking for a better brand. I live in Tokyo,
and we have a lot of good used camera parts stores here, I should be
able to find a good deal.

Another response mentioned Vivitar Series 1 (as opposed to any
Vivitar that is not a Series 1), Tokina and Tamron brand lenses.

There are several others too, but to that list I would
specifically add Kiron (Kino Precision Optical), who actually
made many of the better Vivitar Series 1 lenses (if the serial
number starts with 22, it was made by Kiron).

Among the good lenses made by those companies are 70-210mm zooms
and 35-85mm zooms, plus others, that are considered excellent.
They virtually all made excellent 90 and 105 mm macro lenses
too.

And there are a few others, including some wide angle lenses,
that are considered "cult" lenses today.

But generally you can assume that any Canon lense in good
condition will probably be a good performer, while with the
manufacturers listed above their best lenses are as good as any,
but not everything they made was that good. As opposed to that,
Sigma, Cosina, Komine and others made a few really good ones,
but mostly their quality was not that good. And most of the
companies not mentioned yet... rarely if ever produced a high
quality lense.

You can find information on the web about almost any of them,
and get an idea which ones are worth trying. Here are two
useful web sites, but Google is your *best* friend!

http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html/
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/lenses/

As you noted, camera shops are one place to find old
lenses... and probably a good place too, as they most likely
will come with some warranty, and will have at least been
looked at by someone who knows how to evaluate them. Otherwise,
eBay is a huge source but the results are bound to be mixed...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

I can state rather authoritatively that the Albinar lenses are
mediocre, at very best. I sold a lot of them in the 70's and 80's, to
people who just HAD to have the cheapest lenses possible. (We used to
sell the FL's quoted for $30-$40, as I recall.

In good shape, they get halfway decent around f/8.0 - f/11, as long as
there's no possibility of flare. Me, I wouldn't waste a second piece
of lens issue on them.