Good info, and the etching accurately describes what I saw on the
lens. It is different looking than a fogging by moisture.
BTW, does the physically similar 50-250mm f5 ever have this problem?
I notice it goes for considerably more $$ than the 65-200.
Don
--- Julian Davies <julian_davies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is a known and very common defect. The lens can't be
> effectively
> cleaned and no replacements are available. There seems to be no
> correlation
> between condition or age and haziness.
> Hopefully someone knows a really good storage method to avoid the
> problem,
> which seems to be an oil haze, rather than a fungus. Problem being
> that the
> oil etches the element the same as a fungus would. Since it's oil,
> the usual
> humidity control won't help.
> Personally, I've never seen one without haze to some degree. Bear
> in mind,
> however that it won't harm your images too much if the hazing is
> minor. Just
> make sure you don't pay "perfect" prices for anything but a
> perfectly clear
> lens. And never pay for one prior to inspection.
> Every time this subject comes up, and a reply like this is posted,
> there is
> a flood of "mine's ok" type replies. I regard this as an indication
> that you
> shouldn't give up all hope, but for how long are you prepared to
> look?
> For the record, I have a couple of these. They both have some
> moderate haze.
> I used that as a negotiating point. They take nice pictures. I
> don't do
> contre - jour with them.
>
> Julian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donald Shedrick" <shedridc@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 4:40 AM
> Subject: [OM] 65-200mm cloudy rear lens
>
>
> > How common is the problem with the rear element looking cloudy?
> Do I
> > have any hope of getting a good one? Is there any relation to
> serial
> > number with this defect? The only example of this lens I have
> ever
> > held had the problem - the rear element had fine specks all over
> it
> > when viewed from the front end with a light shining from the
> rear.
> > Cleaning was of no benefit. It appears to be inside - not on the
> > outer surface that is accessible to cleaning. The defect would
> not
> > be obvious on a casual look at the lens, so a careful inspection
> > seems to be required.
> > If a lens is OK now, what are the chances it will remain good, or
> do
> > I end up with a problem down the road?
> >
> >
=====
Don Shedrick
http://groups.msn.com/firstlightimaging
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|