I thought you'd already had quite a lot

Two classic lines in that.

"The key to it is using the right tools, and not being a tool yourself."

and

"Be quite cautious about the way you do it, there's no point arsing up your sensor for the sake of convenience"

Other than that, I shall be contacting my lawyers in relation to suing you for the wasted minutes of my life watching that. Not the whole of it, thankfully, I did fast forward through most of it

My bottle of Eclipse doesn't have such a warning.

Photographic Solutions have this page, where they talk about using Eclipse on lenses.

They also make PEC-12, for cleaning film, which they specifically do warn not to use on lenses (under 'When NOT to use PEC-12'), since it can dissolve the cement between the elements.

This is an example of a comment that illustrates the fact that you really can't tell much about the sharpness of a lens from an image that isn't a 100% crop, posted on the web.

In that image, the only things that are at the same distance from the camera that would allow you to make a sensible estimate of sharpness are the cobbles in the extreme foreground. Other than that, all the things you'd estimate sharpness from are either at different distances, or have different brightness and/or contrast.

For the cobbles in the foreground, on the left, there's a lot more light reflecting off them than on the right, so you can't tell anything about the sharpness from the detail visible in them.

Possibly you could, from the joins between the cobbles, but they don't look much different to me.

Personally, I don't think any of those images tell you anything useful about the lens whatsoever, other than there's nothing obviously wrong with it, or with the photographer's technique.

Algi, I hate to keep banging this gong, but you're driving me bonkers!

Are you aware that a 1.5 stop gain means almost 3 times more light?

So if the cleaning fluid gains you 1.5 stops just by removing muck from the surface, that muck would have had to be cutting out very nearly two thirds (yes, 67%) of the light.

It's just not a believable claim. 1.5 stops is darker than one of these.


I tell you what, if you believe this sort of marketing claptrap, I have a marvellous universal solvent that I'm sure you'll love. It's non-toxic, odourless, you can mix it with any cheap detergent to enhance its effect, it's safe to use it on your skin, even your lawn, and when you're done with it, you can just pour it safely down the sink.

I can sell you some at the remarkable rock-bottom price of £10 for a 10ml bottle, and for £20 I can sell it in a compact, dehydrated form - all you need to do to restore it to full effectiveness is add some water.

A bargain, I reckon. You up for a few bottles?

Wow, that went quickly. You had in on as a BIN, I take it?

You should have a go at the moon with your 80-400 if you haven't already.

Tripod, careful focusing, 2s delayed/3s remote mode, trial and error on the exposure, but aim for around 1/100. It's not difficult, but it does require patience.

Great that we have an actual user!

Can you be a bit more specific, about why it's so good (and what are sight trials?)?

I take it these lenses don't really let three times as much light through after cleaning with ROR??!!

Did you have to give your review copy back then? That's a bit mean!

Ah, I see. Yes, I agree. Don't worry, I wasn't planning to

Absolutely.