- Messages
- 661
- Edit My Images
- No
There seems to be a regular preoccupation with specks of dust inside a lens, both on the small ads here, and elsewhere.
I suppose with the growing complexity of lenses (especially zooms) which have groups moving relative to one another (and thereby creating suction) it's an increasing problem. But minor obstructions in an optical system have a negligible effect on resolution (after all, reflecting telescopes work despite 30% obstructions!) and, although dust may lower contrast very slightly, that's hardly a problem in a digital context. Most serious planetary imaging (the most demanding of all applications?) is regularly done with obstructed designs. My own 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor is afflicted with a shovel load of detritus, but even so, it remains searingly sharp, and I'm going to to have to buy a Zeiss Milvus to out-perform it.
So, while dust shouldn't be there - and a new lens should never have it - in real life it makes bugg*er all difference. Dust happens.
Or can anyone demonstrate a real-life problem that results from it?
Neil
I suppose with the growing complexity of lenses (especially zooms) which have groups moving relative to one another (and thereby creating suction) it's an increasing problem. But minor obstructions in an optical system have a negligible effect on resolution (after all, reflecting telescopes work despite 30% obstructions!) and, although dust may lower contrast very slightly, that's hardly a problem in a digital context. Most serious planetary imaging (the most demanding of all applications?) is regularly done with obstructed designs. My own 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor is afflicted with a shovel load of detritus, but even so, it remains searingly sharp, and I'm going to to have to buy a Zeiss Milvus to out-perform it.
So, while dust shouldn't be there - and a new lens should never have it - in real life it makes bugg*er all difference. Dust happens.
Or can anyone demonstrate a real-life problem that results from it?
Neil
Last edited: