DavidBM Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.6 #3 · p.6 #3 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6 | |
philip_pj wrote:
David, who really knows? CZ may be candid if asked, but people choose for themselves. Cement tech was not new in 1996. Might be a case of internet hyperama too. Few pipe up with positive messages, most enjoy a good complaint session. Mine is producing glorious images, come what may. It sat in David Llado's workshop for a year, awaiting a full A mount conversion. Not sure of batch/age variation, CZ production data indicate just one batch, from memory. One of the last CY lenses, 1996. Too many people knock lenses around, I believe. Store incorrectly, knocks, drops, rough handle, etc. It's always the lens's fault, even after 20 years of (ab)use....Show more →
Maybe it's hype but whether people report when they look for copies of this it matches my experience over the years too: you search eBay, and most the cheaper ones report haze on rear element. No other fault crops up even a tenth as often. So in every other respect it has stood up well to all those knocks, drops, poor storage etc (and re storage, fungus comes up much less often)
This is not a complaint; the lens in most respects seems to have lasted well, especially given the complexity.
And I have no evidence that if you get a good one it'll go hazy (though that might weigh on my mind a bit if I got one)
But it does seem that there is something about that glued element. Of course cement tech was not new; but people are always trying different cement formulations so it's perfectly possible the cement on those elements responds to certain poor storage practices by hazing over after many years.
|