How much should I worry about these front element scratches?

The seller has good photos on the website.

 

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=250328075705

 

How much should I worry about these scratches in terms of image quality? Of course they affect resell value, but

that's not something I'm concerned about if the selling price is right.

A small scratch like that won't have a major effect on your images. Generally the worst thing that will happen is a very slight reduction in contrast (probably need a densitometer to detect the loss.)

 

You can further minimize the effect of even deep scratches by filling the scratch with black paint or opaque. You'd obviously need a wee tiny paintbrush and steady hands to do that.

They won't show up in the image. The absolute worst under normal situations you'll see is some more flare than usual, but that can easily be avoided by using a shade properly.

I agree with the others above however it's a bit to much for my taste but if it's only the coating than its possible to recoate the lens. Rodenstock will do it for you.

You guys are the experts, but I bet little surface coating marks like that would have no detectable effect at the film gate, except under laboratory conditions. Bid on it and if you win the auction, just use it. The seller (Henry's, Toronto) is incidentally very reliable-- I've been buying stuff from them for over 25 years.

Well if the front of the lens has marks according to the description, why is there damage on the rear element according to the photos?

yes, the rear element damage caught my eye, too. "AS-IS" cannot be returned! I would rather pay more and be able to return if wasn't satisfied after testing. ala KEH. Tom

Thanks, gang. I may chance it. I've got a gap between my 55mm Grandagon and 90mm Schneider. Would like to fill with 72mm XL, of course, but at 1/6 the price...

<a href="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/biker/tripods-498.jpg?t=1227573499">Here is how a minor scratch ruined a great shot with a F2.8 Xenotar</a>

Who cares Kelly? The bike is nice! Lol.

I've become an inveterate large format lens bottom feeder and I'd be very surprised if you could demonstrate any of those defects under any condition. I have much much worse lenses that produce perfect negatives. I can appreciate the fact that some photographers demand flawless pristine glass and thank my luck when they sit out and don't bid against me.

Berry, what have you done?

 

"I can appreciate the fact that some photographers demand flawless pristine glass and thank my luck when they sit

out and don't bid against me."

 

With this statement got yourself a lots of new competitors and more money to the sellers.LOL..

Errr, what I meant to say is-- once a lens coating is breached, slightly scratched or even excessively dusty, the amount of flare, coma, spherical, and chromatic aberrations will obscure the drop in contrast, acutance and resolution. You get what you pay for--that's what I say. Might as well tape a piece of broken pickle jar to a lensboard, but the pickles only cost $1.89 and you get something to eat. :)

It's hard enough living in the real world, let alone this microscope world the world of computers seems to have imposed. Let's do an inspection of Weston's and Adam's lenses, Nadar, Atget, Brady, et al.