Nikon 20mm f2.8 AF - haze issue

[Zang]

So to sum up.....there was no Haze issue?
The lens is optical perfect but electronics does not work and to overcome this you have set camera to treat the lens as a lens without chip.....so just as a normal AIS lens?

If the electronics made to much troubles and made the camera show "ERR" a way to avoid this was to completely cut the connection to chip. Then lens should work as a normal AIS lens without changing anything in the menus?      …...you should just not lock the aperture ring to f22?

But if you can use the lens now as a G-lens with aperture ring locked and manuel focus this is of course the best solution but that requires that some part of the electronics work?

I am a bit confused of what the fault was on the lens?

Hi there,

I know there were too many posts The haze issue was claimed by the seller himself. The electronics has not issue, it was just my bad knowledge. The lens looks news and functions as expected. The pictures are as shown.

Cheers,
Zang

[MEPER]

Ok....then it was a pretty good buy :-)

[Zang]

Yeah, I can't believe... the deal was just unreal.

Even if the lens breaks tomorrow, I have had lots of fun with it today

And I still can turn it to a cool coffee mug LOL

[Matthew Currie]

Hey Matt, when looking through the (bad) lens, did you see the glue?

Mine looks crystal clear.

I'll take some test picture soon after my work, but it seems like you guys will not see the coffee mug.

Thanks,
Zang

I presume it was the glue I saw.  It was quite cloudy, and immediately obvious that there was a problem.  I had hoped initially it was fungus on the outside of an element, but it was not.  There was certainly no mistaking this for a clear lens.  When I looked through it it was really awful.

As for continuing to try for clarity (other post) maybe I'll try one day, but I don't need the focal length that badly, and I'm pretty sure the repairman did all he could to try to get it right.  He's cemented lenses before, and though he doesn't like doing it, he's likely to have done it right.

[Zang]

I presume it was the glue I saw.  It was quite cloudy, and immediately obvious that there was a problem...

I see... Before I bought the lens, I tried to imagine all possible bad cases. One of the worst one I was thinking of is issue with the inner surface of the objective assembly. It turned out it is not the case.

[Zang]

Nothing is wrong, but 1 more image to infinity, wide open, and the same, at 5.6.  LZ

Infinity does not look bad to me but you tell me

#1 infinity at 5.6
#2 infinity at 2.8
#3 another candid shot

I notice the lens flare very easily, even with a brighter object.

Look at picture #4. There is red-ish haze around the boy.

[longzoom]

It is a good copy, of what it really is, especially for the money you paid. If possible, avoid using it wide open, f4.0, at least. Yea, there are some optical imperfections, but anything looks worse than any old lens of its kind!  LZ

[Zang]

It is a good copy, of what it really is, especially for the money you paid. If possible, avoid using it wide open, f4.0, at least. Yea, there are some optical imperfections, but anything looks worse than any old lens of its kind!  LZ

Yeah, the final price was merely 30usd. I expected it as unusable lens.