I just bought a Nikon 28-105mm lens from B+H for $119 that was rated an "8+", which is defined as the item showing some wear or finish marks. Well, when the lens came, I discovered several long faint scratches on the front element, and one short deep one. Needless to say I was furious, but I decided to test it out during the day and found no problems with my images. Then last night I took it out to do some long exposures, to see if there would be any problems with flaring. So my question is about the following image: http://i36.tinypic.com/29dtyq9.jpg is this sort of flaring normal for this lens? Or is it caused by the scratches? It's an 8'' exposure at f/5

Here's another shot where the lens wasn't pointed at such a bright light,
http://i35.tinypic.com/4in1cp.jpg That flaring seems normal and is actually much more timid than what my other lenses produce.

So yeah, I'm just a bit confused. I suppose the flare in the first image could be just because I'm pointing it at such a bright light? I just want to be sure. I only have a few more days before I can make a return on this lens.

Thanks!

The flair is a bit odd.

Suggest you test it at F22 or the highest f-stop available on your lens to determine whether the scratches can be detected.

Here is one more shot... http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2626/4075613516_7ecf691c78_o.jpg

Hmm, at f/22 under what conditions? Day, night? Pointed directly at a light source?

You will never be happy with this lens, thinking about the scratches each time you use it. I have the same lens, and they are a steal on todays market. Return it, and find another. Check KEH.

Larry

Fishinfool wrote:
You will never be happy with this lens, thinking about the scratches each time you use it. I have the same lens, and they are a steal on todays market. Return it, and find another. Check KEH.

Larry

+1

What's the trouble? Just send it back if you're not okay with it.

Send it back - surely that should be an "amen" decision.
Slight wear on the paint work is one thing - marks on the front element are quite another - and completely unacceptable on an 8+ grading.

I agree with Len about lens condition being over rated.


Kent in SD

Thanks, everyone.

Larry, you're right, I feel like I wouldn't be happy with the lens even if the scratches don't cause any problems.

I emailed B+H saying their rating was inaccurate and that I'd like to exchange it for a scratch free lens. We'll see what they say...

Yeah, I'd say the flare is indicative of the scratches. Flare by it's nature is symmetric if the glass is defect free. This asymmetric flare tells you that the scratches are affecting the path of light passing through the front element.

However, if no specular light is in the shot, you'll likely not see any difference in a non-scratched vs scratched lens, as in your second shot.

Ok I see... Thank you.

Can someone who owns this lens (Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5) post some of their long exposures here? I'd like to see how this lens deals with night lights scratch-free.

Thanks!

I found a few on Flickr, but they weren't really what I was looking for.

The question on my mind now is the following: is the flare from the lights in this image typical for this lens?

It's very minimal, unlike the extreme flares produced by a Sigma zoom that I have, like so:

Or could it be that the unobtrusive flare of the first image is caused by the scratches? To clear things up, I like the minimal flare from the first image much better than the starbursts produced by the Sigma lens and might change my mind about returning if it a scratch-free 28-105mm produced flares like the Sigma.

Where is the flare in the Sigma photo? I see starbursts, but no flare. Be aware that there is a difference between flare and starbursts.

It's a perfect lens for the current kitschy fad in wedding photography - high key/overexposed images with as much lens flare as possible...

As for B&H's used equipment ratings, I learned a long time ago that anything rated "9" or lower is a bit of a gamble...