35-70 lens fog

<p>Hello All<br>

I am going to check a used 35-70 nikkor AF-D 2.8 lens. Have been reading in the forum that this lens is prone to fogging. What is a permanent lens fogging? It seems that shining a light through is the way to detect it (same as fungus). Does this soften the light shining through? What should I be looking for? Feedback's greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Just look through the lens; shine a flashlight into the lens if necessary. Should be very obvious.</p>

<p>The fogged lens element is quite obvious when you look through the lens.<br>

Contrast is somewhat reduced when you take pictures with a fogged 35-70/2.8. This only really becomes an issue if you are shooting directly into the sunlight.</p>

<p>In my case the fogging is pretty bad that image quality is greatly affected.</p>

<p>There is usually a distinction between haze and fogging, with fogging usually being the worse of the two due to moisture being inside the lens.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of your responses.</p>

<p>It can, in most cases, be fixed. My 35-70 developed the misty element syndrome (dunno whether it qualified as haze or fog, not sure what the distinction is visually--although mine appeared to be unconnected to moisture) and I sent it off to the repairer.</p>

<p>It took about three months to get it back. Cleaning the element wasn't a problem, once he could get at it. But that proved to be very difficult--apparently there was some sort of retaining ring inside the lens (the innards are quite complex--I've got a PDF lying around somewhere that shows the parts in exploded view) that had become frozen in place, and he had to immerse it in penetrating oil for several weeks before it could be removed without damaging it.</p>

<p>Nice thing was, when the lens came back, it worked just as good as new.</p>

<p>If you can get a copy of the lens without the fog, that's the way to go. But it's not necessarily fatal if it does develop the misting later. And it's a great lens for the price--mine was a real workhorse on DX format cameras for years, everything from live music to pro boxing and studio work. I shot many tens of thousands of photos with mine.</p>

<p>I've now got the 24-70/2.8, which is a great lens--but at three times the price. The 35-70 is pretty much as sharp (under most circumstances) as the newest lens. For what I do, the 24-70 has been a worthwhile (if breathtakingly expensive) upgrade. But I've kept my 35-70, and I wouldn't hesitate to put it back to work again if needed. If you can get it for a good price--and it's clean--go for it!</p>