jaycoffsky

a few days ago I asked about my old nikon 28-70 f2.8 lens which lacked snap. Frankly I am old, stupid, dumb, and did not know how to download the image. I will try now. Both pics were just made. the first looks like someone with a mild cataract and made with the 28-70f. the second made a few seconds later was with a 70-200 f.2 latest version. everything else including hand held is the same. Both were at 70mm focal distance. The 70-200 has the snap i was referring too not present on the other lens. Any ideas. I hope the pics get downloaded.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Jay, I'd say it's time to have that lens looked at and possibly cleaned.
--Bob

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

quite possibly has fine internal dust which can be hard to see

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Thanks for posting a photo this time.
It helps a TON!
I agree with Bob, the 28-70 needs some attention.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a filter on it?

BB4A

Yep, looks like something nasty has wormed its way into and between several of the optical elements of this lens?

I’ve seen cheap filters give a similar effect, when they’ve been used past their “dust and dirt resistant coating” cleaning, but I’m assuming you’ve already removed all filters and checked to make sure front and back elements are all spotless.

At this point, you might want to weigh up local expert cleaning cost, manufacturers cleaning fees, and cost of replacement?

jaycoffsky

I do have a UV filter on. will take off right now and try another pic.

Wow, Cataract cured. Perfect pic with the UV filter off. We do not have a camera store in Atlanta any longer. No one to go to for this sort of thing. Wow thanks loads. Not only saved sending lens back but I was considering a replacement. Snap is back and looks just as good as the 70-200 pic I took. thanks loads.

jaycoffsky

This was a cheap filter that will be trashed. Reluctant to give manufacture unless it is ok to do so online.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Thanks for getting back to us !!
I will save this thread for future reference when the question is asked about pros and cons of filters. This is an extreme example but boy it sure is a great illustration!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I feel that the only point illustrated is that like lenses, filters must be cleaned and inspected.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

and it's a great illustration of just that. (and maybe what can happen with cheap filters)

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Jay,

Why did you have a UV filter on your lens? Was it to "protect" the front element of your lens? Using a UV filter to protect your lens is a fallacy that has been promoted by filter manufacturers and camera stores for years to sell a high profit product. Many photographers have bought into this disinformation because it has been repeated so many times over the years.

The fact is that UV filters on a digital camera add nothing to the photographs you are taking while cheap filters especially, can increase reflections and reduce contrast. The use of lens caps and a lens hood will protect your lens better than any filter. You should almost always use a lens hood to reduce side light from affecting pictures and protect your lens from the damage that can occur when your lens hits a hard object. It can also minimize damage if your lens is dropped. Although you will hear about a very few case where a UV filter broke and thus protected the front element, you will also here stories about lenses damaged by broken chars of glass from a filter that was struck by a hard object. There are far more stories of lenses being saved by the lens hood or lens caps.

My advice is to ditch UV filters, keep your lens clean all the time, use lens caps, and when possible, always use a lens hood when taking pictures.

Bill_de Loc: US

Glad to hear that the cure wasn't painful!

--

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

A decent UV or clear filter will minimize actual lens cleaning, protect it from abrasive airborne particles hitting or attaching themselves to the front element, and in some cases take the brunt of an impact - sometimes saving you $100s in lens repair.

And you don't need to spend a fortune to get a good filter. A midrange Hoya is optically better than the B&Ws, Heliopans, Schneider and other esoteric (and expensive) filters.

https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

My experience over the past 51 yrs with this has more than proven that using a filter can help.

Bill_de Loc: US

How come Nikon, and I believe Canon, put a clear glass 'filter' on the front of their big expensive lenses? I believe it's to protect the front element.

--

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Bill,

I just phoned Nikon and according to Nikon, none of their lenses come with a clear glass filter; although, they do sell clear glass filters. As I said, they are a large profit item.

Also, I stand by my statement that UV and glass filters should be avoided; assuming you take care of your lenses and clean them promptly when needed. As far as small pits and scratches on the front element, they have to be quite bad to even slightly affect picture quality. Lens caps and hoods provide the best protection.