Hasselblad Distagon 4/40 FLE - internal damage? (pictures)

[ola_tuvesson]

<p>I was <em>devastated</em> to receive the lens of my dreams today only to find that there appears to be some damage to one of the internal elements. The front and rear glass is spotless, and the lens exterior is near mint. Focus, FLE control, aperture and shutter all appear to be functioning perfectly. But when I look through the lens from certain angles, an ugly scratch appears in the central field, and to me it looks like an impact damage. Holding the lens in my hand and moving it around somewhat vigorously there is a very faint mechanical clunking coming from inside. I would greatly value opinions on the likely cause, severity and potential remedies from those more experienced! Some photos:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18236749-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="510" /><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18236751-lg.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18236746-md.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18236748-lg.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18236740-md.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18236743-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I'd return it for a refund. In my experience, it is just not worth it to try to have things like this "fixed" when there are plenty of great lenses out there for good prices that won't need this kind of service.</p>

[ola_tuvesson]

<p>It's on its way back for a refund. Heartbreaking stuff; the lens almost looked like new, and came with the dedicated (and quite rare!) Hasselblad polariser and original "drop-in" UV filter. All absolutely perfect in every way, apart from the internal damage. I had been on the look out for one of these at a reasonable price for *two years* - god knows how long it will be before I manage to locate another one that doesn't require donating a kidney to pay for it.</p>

[ola_tuvesson]

<p>The plot thickens. Having returned the lens to the seller he took it to the Camera Museum in London to have it examined, and the techie there said there was fungus in the lens, opened it and cleaned it. Now the seller is offering it back to me. I would love to accept, but I'm very hesitant; could this really have been a fungus "infection" on the glass? I've never actually seen this in real life, so don't know what it looks like, but to me the glass looks cracked/scratched? Can anyone here offer some opinion on this? </p>

[ola_tuvesson]

<p>And then it gets even weirder. I decided to call the Camera Museum myself to hear first hand what the techie had to say - and guess what, he goes "oh no, there was <em>nothing wrong with that lens at all, no fungus or anything.</em>" I tried to explain to him that I had photos showing the damage quite clearly, but he was, shall we say, less than interested. I asked him if I could get him to evaluate the lens for me (for a fee) and he said they'd have to send it off(?) elsewhere to do that, which I thought was rather odd since he had just done an evaluation of it for someone else! I asked him to confirm that he had taken no action other than opening and inspecting the lens, and again that there was no fungus, scratching, or other damage to any of the elements, which he confirmed. Then I got a pretty angry "look, this has nothing to do with me, it's not my problem, don't get me involved" - funny considering he's had the lens apart on his workbench just hours earlier... This whole thing stinks to high heaven - I'm puling out!</p>

[ola_tuvesson]

<p>Doesn't <em>anyone</em> have an opinion on this? Surely there must be someone here who has dealt with damaged/mouldy lenses? The deal may be off, but I still want to know: could this <em>really</em> be "fungus" on the glass? Or do you agree with my assessment that it looks more like some form of impact damage? I did an image search for "lens fungus" and couldn't find anything that looked even remotely similar... I feel like I have been taken for a ride, and would like to settle the matter - if nothing else, it will help knowing what to look out for in the future!</p>

[tom_chow]

<p>It's really difficult to tell from those pictures whether it is fungus, dust, or a scratch. The focus and resolution is not good enough to tell, it's one of those things you have to see in person, so a local repair person would be the best to tell you. But if it looks like a chip to you, it probably is, you have the best unobstructed view.</p>

<p>The Camera Museum in London sounds like a legitimate camera repair business, so they should know. However, you are not a paying customer (or the owner of the lens), so I'm not sure how much they were willing to disclose. I repair a similar equipment, and I would not tell someone about the issues with someone else’s property, that information is confidential unless permission has been given to disclose it.</p>

<p> </p>

[ola_tuvesson]

<p>Look,<em> it's cracked glass</em>. There are tiny shards sprinkled all over the element. Sharp geometrical lines around a darker centre. No way this is a mould, or any other kind of organic structure. I was hoping I could get some confirmation on this, but really, it's quite plain to see. Add to that that there appeared to be some movement inside the lens when handled and I'm pretty convinced that my initial assessment is correct - and that the seller and/or Camera Museum were taking me for a fool.<br /> <br /> You might want to have a look at some pictures of mouldy lenses to see just how ridiculous the suggestion that this would be a fungus is: <a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=lens+fungus">https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=lens+fungus</a> Tell me if you spot anything that looks remotely similar - I sure as hell can't.<br /> <br /> So having serviced a lens that someone is selling - a $1500 lens - you would not be able to say to a prospective buyer what service you performed on it? To me that would be quite worrying, and I would stay away from any such equipment. As I chose to do in this case - precisely because details of the fault and the servicing done to remedy it were not disclosed in an honest way. I'd advise anyone else thinking about parting of a huge chunk of their hard-earneds to do the same. It is worth remembering, when it comes to collector's class lenses, that damaged glass is basically impossible to restore to factory condition - spare elements are unlikely to be available, and a lens with a damage such as this one, however nice in other respects, has in effect a market value only equal to that of the spare parts that can be scavenged from it. I count myself very fortunate indeed that I spotted this flaw in time.</p>

[tom_chow]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6220319">Ola Tuvesson</a> , May 29, 2016; 07:12 a.m. Look,<em> it's cracked glass</em>. There are tiny shards sprinkled all over the element. Sharp geometrical lines around a darker centre. No way this is a mould, or any other kind of organic structure. I was hoping I could get some confirmation on this, but really, it's quite plain to see.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>If it is plain to see, then I'm not sure why you are asking. And if the seller will not let you talk to the service technician, then I'm not sure why you are still pursuing this.</p>

<p>You said it two days ago: "This whole thing stinks to high heaven - I'm puling out!"</p>

 

[richard_lane3]

Indeed, tom chow.

 

Ola, it is time to move on no matter what this issue turns out to be, and short of having an independent inspection made by a qualified/experienced technician with a good reputation, then you will never know for sure what the issue is/was.

 

There are plenty of other Hasselblad Zeiss Distagon f/4 40mm lenses out there. (By the way, I have this lens - a CF T* FLE version from 1996, and it is simply wonderful - the only pity being the filter size - that it is an uncommon size - but then again, I am not into filters).

 

I always buy my gear from reputable sellers, the larger the organization or the more sales from an individual, the better.

Never from an individual as a one-off bargain! The online sellers (the major camera stores, and eBay sellers with 100's of

sales behind them) provide reports on the condition, especially in the case of lenses whether haze, dust, cracks,

scratches, or fungus are present. This information is irrefutable, so my experience has been tat they have no reason to

misrepresent things. Also, before I will purchase, I must satisfy myself that they have a well defined return policy in the

event of finding a discrepancy between the description of the item and the reality.

 

If I saw a problem of the magnitude as displayed by this lens, I would have absolutely no interest in it. An expensive

ecosystem like the Hasselblad V system, where excellence, reliability, and quality are has no place for mixing a quality

body, back, and viewfinder with a substandard lens - all components must be in good order to make the photographic

expereince worthwhile.

 

A cautionary experience for all of us, Ola. Thank-you for sharing it with us.

[ola_tuvesson]

<p>Thanks guys. I agree Tom; I've let this get to me more than it should have. But I'm sure you know what it's like when you fall in love with a magnificent piece of glass like this, only to have to see it go. And technically, I was still the legal owner of this lens until Friday afternoon, since I had not yet received a refund. So when the technician looked at it, he was really looking at <em>my</em> lens - it was only some hours <em>after</em> the inspection that a final decision was made, and I asked for my money back. I guess that's what really pissed me off; had the technician said "I can't answer your questions because it's not your lens" then I could have explained that actually it <em>was</em> my lens, but instead he gave me this nonsense about not finding any fault, when I <em>knew</em> that there was <em>something</em> wrong with it. I found that rather insulting.</p>

<p>As to my certainty regarding <em>what exactly </em> it was that caused the damage shown in my photos, I confess to having some doubts. That's why I posted here. I just wanted certainty. I <em>still</em> think it looked like some kind of impact damage, but of course, had a qualified lens technician said to me that it was fungus and given me his word that he'd been able to remove it without any lasting impact, then who am I to argue? Lens technician I am not. I don't know if it's even possible for two elements to collide inside a lens like this - though having looked at a cross-section view it sure looks pretty cramped in there. The only glass I have with fungus damage is a Hasselblad chimney finder, where the attack has left permanent marks on the coating. It doesn't affect the use of the finder at all (it's invisible when looking through it), but it also looks <em>nothing</em> like what you see in the photos above. So I really just wanted to settle this in my own mind. What if the seller was telling the truth? I never saw the lens again after the "servicing", so short of getting a professional opinion from someone here, based on my blurry photos, I guess I'll have to live with the possibility that I may have missed out on the deal of the century instead.</p>

[ola_tuvesson]

<blockquote>

<p>I have this lens - a CF T* FLE version from 1996, and it is simply wonderful - the only pity being the filter size - that it is an uncommon size</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed. So imagine how amazing it was to get hold of one that came with <em>both</em> the original UV drop-in filter AND the dedicated polarizer (which doubles as an adapter for the Proshade, which I also have, allowing you to adjust the filter with the hood attached). The polarizer even came in the original box. These filters are like the proverbial hen's teeth, and both were absolutely spotless. Alone they are probably worth $300-500. And a mint condition 4/40 CF FLE maybe $1500. But I paid <em>a lot</em> less than $2000. I also wasted $90 on a Proshade adapter for it, which I now have no use for. Now do you see why I'm frustrated?</p>

<p>Then again, I'm not a big filter user either, though I do like a #22 orange when the Simpson's clouds are out, and with lenses as expensive as this I consider an UV filter to be mandatory.</p>

<p>To cheer myself up I used the refund to buy an Imacon Flextight Photo instead - finally able to scan my Hasselblad negs! Time. To. Let. It. Go.</p>