Should I buy a lens with a nick in the rear element?

[sophia_martin]

<p>Hello!<br /> I was wondering how much a nick in the rear element truly matters. I have no way of testing the lens with the nick because we are not in the same city. I'm hoping to get some useful input here. I want to use this L lens exclusively for portraits. Would it be visible in the photos? Here are some pics:</p>

<p><img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img593/4559/hfqr.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img24/5789/y1s4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[SCL]

<p>Rear element chips, nicks & scratches are much more likely to show up on the image than those on the front elements, and it will also be more prominent if your shooting aperture is small rather than large. Since you can't try it out in advance, I would ask if you can get full return priviledges if it does affect your pictures. If not, I, personally, would take a pass.</p>

[robert_turner5]

<p><strong>Only</strong> if either the price is<strong> truly reflective</strong> of the lack of marketability attributable to the damage (you will have to discount that 85L heavily if/when you sell it) AND the seller gives you trial period to evaluate/return same if it disappoints. If you have the option to try and test, I'd suggest finding tricky lighting situations (shooting into bright lights at center and peripheral of image) at small apertures to flesh out potential anomalies.<br /> Generally, buying damaged gear is a false economy, but you may be able to manage this if you are careful and a tough negotiator.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Alternatively you could buy it and get the rear element replaced for a fee. I doubt it will show up in the shots to be honest. Still you would expect a reasonable discount on the price. I would be tempted to buy and see, you can always send it for repair in the future if it really worries you.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Looks like an 85mm f/1.2. I would only buy it at a steep discount.</p>

<p>If it's the mk I version, Canon probably won't/can't fix it anymore.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>It's an 85mm f/1.2 version II shown in the image. Standard used selling price is around $1600 for a clean copy. Repair cost is likely in the $400ish range for a rear element replacement.</p>

<p>I did a quick test with my 85mm f/f1.2 to see what you could expect for image effects. I stuck a piece of paper on the rear element, about the same size as the rear element chip shown, perhaps slightly larger. Shooting at f/1.2 through f/2.8 you likely won't notice any difference in the images at all. At f/5.6 and higher you will probably see the effect, definitely noticeable at f/11. </p>

<p>If you can get the lens for $1100 or cheaper, and only plan on using it wide open (which you should, it's the reason to buy the 85L instead of the cheaper 85 f/1.8) then I'd see no reason not to move forward with the purchase. </p>

 

[john_h.1]

<p>A better value... http://i.imgur.com/C0N97BM.jpg</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>A lens that badly damaged would be very difficult to resale if you ever wanted to. Also the chip is very large and close to the center which will definitely affect image quality. I personally wouldn't buy it unless it's really cheap. </p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>One other thing to consider is whether that is mostly a coating mark or if it's significantly deep into the element, altering the optical path. There's a big difference between the two. If it's mostly a coating mark and not a big gouge then I doubt you'll see any effect in the image. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that with my brief test I used an opaque object about twice the size of the mark, in the same position on the lens and it wasn't noticeable at f/2.8. I'd venture to guess that this lens will perform much better. </p>

<p>If you really want to know the effect, have the seller shoot a series of identical test images for you, f/2, f/5.6, f/11 and f/16. If there's any effect you'll see it in the images by comparing them. If it's not affecting the image, then it's just a cosmetic blemish affecting resale value and you can adjust your offer accordingly. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>deleted</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>A possibly useful series of tests with dust and post-it notes stuck on a lens. By happy chance, the lens they were messing with is an 85mm f/1.2.</p>

<p>http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust</p>

<p>They found, in short, that markings on the lens surface matter less than you might expect. But regardless of that, this is a very expensive lens, and it's sane to be picky about the condition.</p>

[don_gillette1]

<p>That lens would have some degradation to the image, but how much? To use it for portraiture would be ok ,it would possibly add some softness, I once had a chipped lens similar to that and I took matte paint to the chip area that way it wouldn't add to the degradation . It worked for me on a view camera. The final question is what price they are asking for the lens versus one in better condition. And as was mentioned above if you want to sell it the price would have to be very low.</p>

[JamesFarabaugh]

<p>I have bought three used lenses...</p>

<p>17-55mm f/2.8 IS EF-S (Craigslist, sold as "great condition") - some time after purchase it started occasionally jittering during half-press, a problem with the IS.</p>

<p>10-22mm EF-S (local photo community board, sold as "excellent condition") - the barrel came apart without any dropping or rough handling from me before I even got to use it.</p>

<p>100mm f/2.8 macro EF (Craigslist, sold as "excellent condition") - This lens has been perfect.</p>

<p>So 2 out of 3 times a lens that was sold to me as used but with no visible or known problems has ended up costing me more for repairs shortly after purchase. I hope you have better luck buying used lenses than I do - especially ones that have known damage!</p>

[pics]

<p>Unless he is giving it away I would pass. That's a pretty sizable chip out of the glass IMO. As others have said, damage to the rear element is much more likely to affect image quality than damage to the front element. Also, depending on how the nick was created (was it dropped?), it could also be a sign of more problems internally. The lens mount or internal elements could be knocked out of alignment. I would take a cheaper (but mechanically sound) non "L" lens of an equivalent focal length over that thing any day. </p>

[sophia_martin]

<p>Thank you everybody for all the input. I truly appreciate every single comment. Especially Sheldon for going above and beyond and actually doing a test. I'm still not sure if I should buy the lens considering the damage, especially since some of you say it will affect image quality. It seems that some comments suggest for me to pass while others say it depends on the price and that it won't have much of an effect. The seller is asking $1500. Would you personally buy it?</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I agree with Stephan that anything wrong with the rear element is a red flag.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I would not pay $1,500.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<blockquote>

<p>The seller is asking $1500. Would you personally buy it?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No. Assuming it's even a cosmetic fault with no effect whatsover on image quality under any situation, that's still perhaps $100 high. If the chip is big enough that it has optical effects on the lens' performance, then I would value it at $1600 less the cost of repair (perhaps $400) less another $100 for the inconvenience of having to send it to Canon. </p>

<p> </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Would you personally buy it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no way I'd pay $1500 for it, Sophia. I often see EF 85/1.2 L II's here on our local craigslist for $1800 or less, and that's in Canadian dollars. So for me, the relatively small savings wouldn't be worth the relatively large risk. </p>

[robert_turner5]

<p>$1,500 is absurd considering that damage, no offense. Run away. Sheldon's commentary is spot on, though he is more charitable than I. $900 sounds about right. <br>

The chip is most likely due to the protrusion of the rear element in that specific lens that makes it a bit more tricky to mount- if one isn't careful there can be impact on the mirror. So, while that lens may not be mishandled too badly, $1,500 is a ridiculous price for a lens you would have extreme difficulty reselling if you didn't like it. And for whatever it is worth, the 85 1.2L is a special, but very particular lens. Many buy it and aren't inclined to deal with the mass and slow focus to get the magical end result. Good luck in any case.</p>

[robert_turner5]

<p>$1,500 is<strong> absurd</strong> considering that damage, no offense. Run away. Sheldon's commentary is spot on, though he is more charitable than I. $900 sounds about right. Especially considering $1,650 buys that lens mint from multiple CL sellers.<br>

The chip is most likely due to the protrusion of the rear element in that specific lens that makes it a bit more tricky to mount- if one isn't careful there can be impact on the mirror. So, while that lens may not be mishandled too badly, $1,500 is a ridiculous price for a lens you would have extreme difficulty reselling if you didn't like it. And for whatever it is worth, the 85 1.2L is a special, but very particular lens. Many buy it and aren't inclined to deal with the mass and slow focus to get the magical end result. Good luck in any case.</p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"The seller is asking $1500. Would you personally buy it?"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Not a chance, not anything close to that. It's just too risky to front that kind of money. Even if you don't notice any apparent loss of image quality, you will probably always be wondering if the images would be better without a gouge in the rear element. (at least I would) Secondly who knows if Cannon would charge $100 or $1000 to repair it. It could be just a superficial scratch but anything more than that and you just bought a money pit that could rival or exceed the cost of a brand new model. If you are looking at "L" lenses, you are presumably interested in build and image quality. There are serious question marks in both of those categories for this particular lens.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>You could offer the seller $1000: that's over 50% reduction over the list price. I reckon you will find the lens works fine in practice, and if you need to get the element replaced you are still ahead assuming that costs around $500.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>The seller is asking $1500. Would you personally buy it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, but, as Robin pointed out, it's a very legitimate reason to talk the price down. Personally I'd pay up to ~$1100 for it. But of course I'm the type of person who would attempt a repair to the glass in an attempt to minimize the impact on shooting.<br>

I would (hypothetically) remove any chips still remaining, and fill the chip with a clear epoxy/resin - say the kind used for repairing windshields Can't say it would work for sure, especially if I had to get rid of excess (might do more damage) filler, but it could work well enough to minimize the impact on the actual photographs). The reason to get that lens is it's f2.8-f1.2 capability, so, the biggest impact is likely to be (in it's current condition - in this range), weird reflections of incoming light - especially if a light source is in the frame. filling the chip with not enough filler to make the surface smooth, but enough to coat the chip smoothly would minimize that impact, though perhaps not eliminate it.<br>

If that failed, then you'd have to send it in anyway...</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>You can buy a used 85 1.2 right now from KEH for 1369 that is rated EX (might be a version I) and there is one at Lens Rentals (Lens Authority is their used outlet) for 1625 (version II). It would be easy to return to either of these places and they have limited warranties. <br>

I'm thinking.. what happened to get that chip and what else might be a bit off? I would have little confidence in the lens and even if there wasn't noticeable image changes I'm sure I'd spend too much time looking for them.<br>

I've purchased cameras and lenses used and I want them near perfect.<br>

Me.. I wouldn't give 500 dollars for that lens beause 1. I would have no confidence in other aspects of the lens, i.e. focus, shaprness, centering etc. 2. I wouldn't use it as is 3. I wouldn't want the hassle of having it repaired even if the original cost + repairs was much lower than a near perfect lens. <br>

The seller is way off on his price which is another red flag to me.<br>

Thumbs Down!<br>

Richard</p>