'Hazing' on internal elements (EF 24-85 aka "The Goldfinger")

Hey y'all

So I purchased a used 24-85 3.5-4.5 (champagne color version) from ebay and it arrived today. Overall the exterior, front and rear elements looks outstanding. I was pretty shocked and it was above my expectations since I know this lens is old and has been discontinued for quite some time.

However, upon further inspection with a flashlight I discovered some lens hazing on 2 of the elements closest to the rear element. It's pretty hard to get the flashlight angled right to see it, but it's definitely there. It looks like it's covering about 1/4 to 1/3 of the element (coming from the edges) and is pretty translucent.

Question is, is this inevitable on a lens this old? Will I see this on pretty much any one of these lenses I get? I know that it will happen to all lenses eventually, I just need to know if I should ask for a refund (or exchange, since he has 2 other copies) or leave it be.

I haven't had a change to test IQ yet because I am waiting for my new 5Dc to arrive also.

What do you think? Thx.

that sounds like fungus. don't store that lens anywhere close to the rest of your gear as the fungus can spread, and certain kinds can etch into the glass of lenses, permanently damaging them even if you open it up to remove it or kill the fungus through other means.

From the photos I've seen of lens fungus, it does not look line fungus. It has no color and is "cloudy" in appearence

Fungus grows in response to warmth and moisture. drying it out will arrest the process.

As for it spreading, fungus spores are microscopic and very numerous, so the problem is already there.

I have a 85mm f/1.2 Zeiss from my Contax days that I wanted to use and it had a similar problem and the cost to open it up, clean, lubricate and adjust it was only $40 more as I had a $300 repair to a 28mm f/2.0 I was considering. It looks great inside now and the sloppy focus problem on both lenses is fixed.

Even so, I couldn't see a noticeable improvement. I used the lens for astrophotography, found the problem and had it fixed.

It was sent back to the seller and he is sending me another one. Hopefully that one will be haze/fungus free.

Are you referring to the Champagne colored Canon lens? Since one of the lens has it , they might all have it. I'm guessing the person stored it all in the same location. Scary stuff might be better to get your money back.

I am referring to the Champagne colored Canon lens.

It seems that everyone has come to the assumption that it is fungus and not haze despite my description and opinion that it looked like haze rather than fungus. But I am inexperienced with these things so I will play it safe and also assume it was fungus.

Now I have 2 questions:

1. I stored the lens overnight in my camera bag with other lens. Do I need to worry that it has already spread in to my bag and other lenses? (assuming it was fungus)

2. How come everyone is automatically assuming that it is fungus, and not haze?

Thx everyone for the help.

Loxley wrote in post #16543051
2. How come everyone is automatically assuming that it is fungus, and not haze?

I will play it safe and also assume it was fungus.

I think you answered part of your question. Willing to risk it? Get rid of the Goldfinger... such a weird name and get the 17-40 f4.

kipliq wrote in post #16543441
I think you answered part of your question. Willing to risk it? Get rid of the Goldfinger... such a weird name and get the 17-40 f4.

As I stated before I sent it back for an exchange. I can't afford the extra $400 right now for a 17-40, and that is far off from the focal range I am looking for......….. not sure why you would recommend a super wide to wide when were discussing a wide to short telephoto

You are missing a large gap in your lens lineup 17-40 would work. In your wish to have gearlist you have the 17-40 listed... Save up the money for the lens. I saved up for a year on my 35L. You have a nice set of primes, foot zoom works. I'm mostly using my 100L and 35L. my 24-105 is sitting for mostly vacations.

kipliq wrote in post #16545114
You are missing a large gap in your lens lineup 17-40 would work. In your wish to have gearlist you have the 17-40 listed... Save up the money for the lens. I saved up for a year on my 35L. You have a nice set of primes, foot zoom works. I'm mostly using my 100L and 35L. my 24-105 is sitting for mostly vacations.

I understand that perspective and you're probably right. I just really want a decent general purpose for family gatherings or daily walks, etc. and this lens is cheap enough and has good enough performance that it should be a great fit. I have contemplated just getting the 17-40, but I have a feeling that it will sit and I'll end up with a zoom in the wide-short tele range anyway. Time will tell.

That lens is on its way back to the seller and he is claiming there is no way it has fungus but it's possible he may have missed the haze. If he sends a nice copy back that is clean i'll keep it and save for the 17-40 next. If he can't satisfy my needs I'll get a refund and put it towards the 17-40.