How does a dead fly in a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II affect image quality?

Funnily enough a few months ago, I discovered a small moth inside my 24-105L lens. How and why it got in there I don't know, but its body was loose inside and clearly visible. The lens was old and I wasn't going to sell it, so I decided to open it up to remove the moth and clean it. But first I took some shots to see what effect it had, and I couldn't detect much, and decided that I was likely to make the lens worse by fiddling with it, so I didn't bother. I've been using it ever since and can't say the images are any worse than before.
 
Upvote 0

Hector1970

CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,554
1,162
I changed my lens one time on my 5D III and placed the camera face down on a piece of furniture. When I got the new lens on when I looked through the viewfinder I could see a little insect walking around. It appeared for a few days and I couldn't get rid of it. Eventually it died and it remained in the view finder for a while until I managed to shake it out.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 12, 2016
910
615
Had a tiny spider in the viewfinder when I had my 1D4 - ruined loads of images! It was just too much fun watching the antics of this tiny fella so I missed lots of birdies:(

I often wonder what happened to him/her - was it the Sensor Cleaning Monster:alien:
Um yeah if using my camera required me to have a tiny spider that close to my eye every time I looked through the viewfinder that camera would be sold very quickly. :sick:
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 91053

Guest
Um yeah if using my camera required me to have a tiny spider that close to my eye every time I looked through the viewfinder that camera would be sold very quickly. :sick:

Why? That tiny spider gave so much entertainment when waiting for subjects to show! We all know how boring wildlife photography can be at times.

Agoraphobic? It was a VERY small spidey............
 
Upvote 0
Of course it does, just not measurably so. But by the time we're using half-gigapixel sensors then we'll have to reassess.

I do hate the 'generalisation' of language. When I see a lens listing that says 'mark on objective has no effect on image', I know they're lying and I move to the next listing. Everything in a lens has an effect on image quality. Just because we can't see it right now doesn't make it acceptable to lie.
No, they are not automatically lying. I have an old Kodak lens on a medium format camera. The lens has bubbles in it. I defy anyone to find evidence in the photos it has taken. You can even use a microscope. Short FL lenses are a different story, but this post is about a longer lens..
 
Upvote 0