The dreaded "flashlight" lens test

kkdanamatt

kkdanamatt

Well-known
Local time
3:04 AM
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
328
I'd like some advice on selling some of my Leica lenses.
I have several Leica lenses from the '60's, '70's. '80's and '90's that perform very well but they do not pass the "flashlight" test.
There is visible the slightest bit of haze and dust revealed by the flashlight.

I could have each lens cleaned, but the cost of service often doesn't pay with common lenses like a 90mm screw-mount Elmar, for example.

What is the best way to advertise and explain that the flashlight test is not always an accurate measure of how the lens will perform?

I don't want to sell the lens and then have the buyer ask for a return.
 
I guess the best option would be explain what you see on the lens, include photos of the flashlight test and most importantly, include photos taken with lens on various scenarios (like getting light flares and on shadow situation). Also, if selling on the bay, state that there won't be returns. AS IS or so.


I believe there may be people willing to buy the lens if given the appropiate price. Problem with Leica equipment prices are driven by collectible and condition value. If condition is on the lower end side it may be sold but not on the commonly seen prices.

By the way, it is my experience that buyers on this site Classified will pay more for good usable equipment. I would sell the lower end conditions equipment on the bay.

Regards

Marcelo
 
describing it accurately is the key, often it's very difficult to photograph lens imperfections and many imperfections that the flashlight test reveals have zero effect on photos. older low contrast lenses often are minimally affected by faint haze, as they are already low contrast.


Internal dust is pretty much irrelevant. Glass-side-up in an attic for a few decades where the dust is measurably thick is another matter. :)
 
Never!
N-E-V-E-R!!
Shine a flashlight through a lens. Even a new lens just out of the box.
Back in the day, mid70’s we had an OCD customer come into the store to buy a Nikkor zoom for his absolutely pristine F2. Trouble was, none of the lenses he looked at came up to his standard of ‘flawless’.
After the sales person had unboxed a third new lens the owner, Mr. Altman came down from his office and informed aforementioned customer that he could look at one more lens, if it wasn’t good enough he would just have to take his business elsewhere.
The customer was looking through each lens against a clear blue sunlit sky, and always finding a fleck or something in every lens.
Yes, I know, we all probably have some form of mental illness but hopefully we don’t try to ruin others day with it.
 
zuiko85 said:
Never!
N-E-V-E-R!!
Shine a flashlight through a lens. Even a new lens just out of the box.
Back in the day, mid70’s we had an OCD customer come into the store to buy a Nikkor zoom for his absolutely pristine F2. Trouble was, none of the lenses he looked at came up to his standard of ‘flawless’.
After the sales person had unboxed a third new lens the owner, Mr. Altman came down from his office and informed aforementioned customer that he could look at one more lens, if it wasn’t good enough he would just have to take his business elsewhere.
The customer was looking through each lens against a clear blue sunlit sky, and always finding a fleck or something in every lens.
Yes, I know, we all probably have some form of mental illness but hopefully we don’t try to ruin others day with it.
Click to expand...

I am sure Ralph would not take guff from anyone.
 
My 90mm Elmar had slight haze and I sent it to Sherry for cleaning, that was close to 15 years ago and it has not returned. Thinking back I'm not even sure I needed to do it. I had never had a photo that demonstrated the existence haze.

I have had return of noticeable haze on another lens, but I can clean that one myself.
 
I think that you describe the condition as best you can. As Ronald M points out, I think we sometimes confuse "minimal impact in most situations" to be the same as "no impact in all situations." If you do the test, take the pictures, and describe it as best as you can, you are accurately describing the lens. Otherwise, you are just setting yourself up to someone buying the lens, doing it themselves, and returning it.
 
mpaniagua said:
state that there won't be returns. AS IS or so.
Click to expand...

This doesn't fly with eBay. The buyer can always return an item if it's not as described (and often can get away with a lot if it is as described, too). Writing AS IS in caps doesn't change it. You'd need to sell as defective, you probably don't want that.
 
This is the photography gearhead version of body dysmorphic disorder.
Perhaps, lens dysmorphic disorder; then again, this would also be applicable to other gear as well, but the lenses are the pieces most obsessed over in this way.

Phil Forrest
 
Leitz from early to late and flashlight test is scary often. Fungus, separation, soft glass, soft coatings scratches and so on.
Yet, performance wise, often, no effect.
Why?
I just have to see fogged Canon 50 1.8 LTM once. The thing was solidly fogged, but only flashlight would reveal it. Lots of eBay sales where it is not recognized. Murky images with light up-front as result.

I had Summar with thin layer of evaporation and gunky Ektar LF lens... cleared and it was super.
Canon 50 1.8 LTM, they even came with special third party service to get rid of it.
 
Most vintage lenses can't "pass" this "test". Many of the same lenses will appear to be perfectly clear and defect free (or almost so) under any lighting conditions they are ever likely to be actually used under (and work like new). It's the sort of high bar of perfection that collectors fawn over.

If a lens clearly shows haze, fungus, and/or layered dust when viewed from behind with the iris open and pointed at a typical day lit scene on a normal day, it would benefit from a CLA.
 
I don't know if anyone has said this. But my one lens that had haze that reoccurs would many times not show any adverse effects of haze. But I you would shoot somewhat into the sun then I would see the problem. I'll present an image that shows the angle that I was shooting.

Puerto Vallarta 2010 by John Carter, on Flickr

The sun was to the right of the frame but some sunlight must have been hitting the glass.
 
I bought very cheaply a chrome Schneider 240mm Symmar. I sent it to Dan Daniels who cleaned and timed the shutter. Then I sent it to Jason Lane (the dry plate manufacturer) who disassembled the front and rear groups and cleaned a fair amount of milkiness from each element. Then reassembled it and it is now "best possible". I'm cool with that cause I saved a lot of money over buying a better looking lens.
 
Accurate descriptions are key.

I would much prefer to spend $900 on a lens that has a detailed descriptions of the checks conducted and all issues found, than $900 on a lens vaguely described as ‘mint’.
 
Ronald M said:
I am sure Ralph would not take guff from anyone.
Click to expand...

Correct. I was there for a couple of years and at the end, early May, 1975, when he sold everything and quit the business.
There never was any camera store like Altman’s, a most amazing place.
Never have visited B&H and likely never will given it’s on the opposite coast. But from photos of the store front they look fairly large. Of course they also ship everywhere which just wasn’t done as much in the 70’s with thousands of camera stores in every city and town in the US. There are now what, 200-250 brick and mortar camera stores left in the whole country.
 
I do the flashlight test, and have done it on every lens, camera etc I own. Blaming the test for people not being able to gauge what it shows isn't helpful in my humble opinion.

I have several very scratched, light hazed, separating lenses in my collection that I bought despite them "failing" the test. They are completely usable. I also had several lenses that were as clear as a bell but had other issues (focus misalignment, de-centering of elements, etc.)

I do the test to know what I am getting into with a certain lens. There's also the fact that not all lenses will react equally to the same defects. A 50/1.5 Sonnar can take a lot of "cleaning marks" and internal crud before it's put out of commission, a 50/2 Sonnar with comparatively light front "cleaning marks" will now render in a pictorial fashion, etc. etc. If a lens has separation that is creeping towards the image center, I would want a significant reduction in price, because there is a 50/50 chance it will worsen over time. So, I'm definitely going to very carefully inspect the optical and mechanical condition of each item I buy.

In conclusion I think the "flashlight mania" is mainly due to bad sellers (on eB... and so forth) selling lenses with grading and descriptions that range from trustworthy to what amounts to outright falsehoods.

Edit: In conclusion I would advocate to perhaps show a flashlight test, but also images taken with the lens and stress that these were taken with the lens in this condition. In my experience the only people turned off by this were problematic buyers in the first place. I never had any issues and sold some lenses in "so-so" condition for a lot of money, simply because I kept the description as detailed and honest as I could. While also including practical use pictures that showed both nice and worst case scenarios.
 
kkdanamatt said:
I'd like some advice on selling some of my Leica lenses. ... There is visible the slightest bit of haze and dust revealed by the flashlight. ... What is the best way to advertise and explain that the flashlight test is not always an accurate measure of how the lens will perform? ...
Click to expand...
Simply be honest about what you see with the flashlight, how the lens performs, and post lots of pictures. However, contrary to what some others have said, I find it completely unnecessary to post pictures taken with a lens.

Use closed eBay auctions to determine a BIN price, or use auction-style and start bidding at $1.00.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top