Does A Lens CLA Cause More Harm Than Good.

[Richard Jepsen]

I recently had a leica 50/2.0 collapsible Summicron professionally cleaned. It came back sparkling. The lens had no apparent defects except for dust when sent for a service.

When a skilled tech takes apart a lens is there low risk they will damage the lens and alter its recording qualities?

I ask as internal dust is unlikely to alter my print quality. My film is FP4 and Tri-X and print size small.

I have an ex +++ condition Fat 90/2.8 and 35/2 v 2 I’m thinking of servicing. However if cleaning tends to mess up optics I may leave well enough alone. I’m considering cleaning the lenses for resale.

 

[cliveh]

Defiantly not.

 

[Paul Howell]

My guess it depends on the tech, does he/she have charts to test a lens after work to make sure it is alined. Swiss Alpa did not make their own lens but used lens from the best lens makers of the day. Each lens was tested at the factory and glass plate negative with a test chart was taken and kept so if a lens was returned for work it had the reference negative. So how does the tech make sure the lens is put back together insuring that all the elements are in tolerance. How does Nikon, Canon, Sony CLA modern lens?

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I recently had a leica 50/2.0 collapsible Summicron professionally cleaned. It came back sparkling. The lens had no apparent defects except for dust when sent for a service.

When a skilled tech takes apart a lens is there low risk they will damage the lens and alter its recording qualities?

I ask as internal dust is unlikely to alter my print quality. My film is FP4 and Tri-X and print size small.

I have an ex +++ condition Fat 90/2.8 and 35/2 v 2 I’m thinking of servicing. However if cleaning tends to mess up optics I may leave well enough alone. I’m considering cleaning the lenses for resale

Paul, i have read Mr. Ye in MA tests using the lens on a digital camera.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I’m considering cleaning the lenses for resale.

always a bad idea IMO. It raises your price and doesn't make it sell any quicker either. Let the buyer do that if they feel they must.

 

[BradS]

I’m considering cleaning the lenses for resale.

That's awfully generous of you...especially if there's nothing wrong with them.
From a potential buyer's point of view, the problem buying a "CLA'd" lens (or camera) from a private party comes down to trust. Because repair shops do not typically provide any physical evidence (like a receipt) that the item was serviced, one must trust the seller...and so, the seller can never really hope to recover the price of the CLA.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I am thinking of selling my mint 11116 which has an interesting ownership history and a M-Hex 50/2. I want to replace the two with a 11817. I’ve owned the 11116 for 20 years. It came from a LHS Col Moss estate.

 

[Paul Howell]

Paul, i have read Mr. Ye in MA tests using the lens on a digital camera.

As long as the lens is tested I dont think a CLA will harm the lens, might help if the lens has internal haze or a lot of dust. Otherwise if shoot sharp focuses smoothly and the aperture ring is not too tight or too lose, why take the chance of it getting lost in the in the mail, getting dropped, or any of the other bad things that happen in transit? .

 

[Richard Jepsen]

On the other hand I have a report on the lens condition, the optics of a 1956 lens look new. A buyer can have high confidence and since its freshly serviced the buyer avoids the inconvenience of sending a lens out for service. My buying philosophy is to buy the highest quality thats fairly priced because exceptional clean equipment is uncommon and it presents better in images. At least that worked when I sold my MF gear.

 

[MattKing]

If your thread title was something like:
"Does the risk involved in handing a lens off for a CLA outweigh the sale price benefit I might receive?"
it might more closely match what I think you are asking about.

 

[Mike Lopez]

If your thread title was something like:
"Does the risk involved in handing a lens off for a CLA outweigh the sale price benefit I might receive?"
it might more closely match what I think you are asking about.

But then it couldn’t be read on a cell phone.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Matt, ultimately equipment is sold. People who buy Leica are picky. So your title may be more appropriate. I use my camera and darkroom so #1 I want a lens to perform as it should. I have an esthetic preference for medium contrast optics so I shoot with Walter Mandler designed lenses. They are now 40 years old.

Let’s be clear, internal dust at a reasonable level will not affect lens performance. Haze on the other hand lowers contrast and may be noticeable.

Is lens centering by a professional like DAG an issue when cleaning? I have read it both ways.

 

[loccdor]

It can. I once sent a lens off for a CLA to well regarded repairer because the aperture pin sometimes got stuck. Seemed to be fixed, but a few years later the same problem came back, until eventually the aperture wouldn't work at all. I ended up selling the lens. So the CLA cost money without providing any benefit. It happens.

 

[MattKing]

But then it couldn’t be read on a cell phone.

I'll repeat a line I learned when I was studying law:
"If I had more time, it would have been shorter"

 

[MagicTheAxe]

I had to have both my cron 50 and Elmarit 90 2.8 Canadian CLA’d for probably the most bizarre reason ever. Right here goes… I pee’d on them.. well not literally, I’m severely disabled and stuck in bed 24/7, one day I was attempting to put the pee jug on the side next to the bed when it fell over and whilst I mopped it up with some tissue fairly quickly I didn’t realise it had got my lenses. Several weeks later I put their cameras around cron on my M<10 and the focus is locked solid, I picked up the 90 and it was damp.. one sniff test later and urine is confirmed. Now for most this would be bad enough but I’m a diabetic and my urine is full of sugar so when it dried it literally glued the helicoil together. I laugh about it now but didnt at the time.

 

[Mike Lopez]

I'll repeat a line I learned when I was studying law:
"If I had more time, it would have been shorter"

One of my thesis supervisors said the same thing. It stung quite a bit because the implication was clear.

 

[warden]

I recently had a leica 50/2.0 collapsible Summicron professionally cleaned. It came back sparkling. The lens had no apparent defects except for dust when sent for a service.

When a skilled tech takes apart a lens is there low risk they will damage the lens and alter its recording qualities?

I ask as internal dust is unlikely to alter my print quality. My film is FP4 and Tri-X and print size small.

I have an ex +++ condition Fat 90/2.8 and 35/2 v 2 I’m thinking of servicing. However if cleaning tends to mess up optics I may leave well enough alone. I’m considering cleaning the lenses for resale.

There's a saying in the mechanical wristwatch community that I think applies to mechanical cameras: your watch is only as good as its last service.

If you service a lens or body choose your service provider carefully and hope for the best! (I know, obvious. But it helps to hear it sometimes.)

 

[lic4]

I've never got a lens back after cleaning to find that it takes better images. But servicing does help immensely for any lenses that are not focusing correctly, for obvious reasons.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have been looking at the owner's manual for a few lens and camera bodies that I still have documation for, there are no recommendations as to when to have a body or lens serviced. While in the Air Force we only sent broken gear in to be serviced. I was told that UPI had all of their bodies serviced once a year. As I owned my own bodies and lens I had the bodies serviced by Nikon once a year or so, but never a lens. Not sure about Reuters. I did use some of the cameras the Sacramento Union had, I doubt they were ever services, that included the Hasselblad they used for fashion shots. For lens, is there any best practice for lens maintenance?

 

[Harry Callahan]

In several manuals of old wind-up movie cameras it says to send the camera for service once a year. The cameras usually were opened and re-oiled.
Why it does not say so in manuals of photo cameras i only can guess, but i assume that the mechanics in a photo camera do not "run so many miles" as in a movie camera. In a movie camera all the gears are turning for minutes, to expose one roll of film, If you sum up time the mechanics move in a photo camera you probably get 36 seconds for one roll of still film.
So wear on the mechanics probably is higher with a movie camera than with a still camera, reducing necessity for service on a still camera.
With lenses i have read somewhere that for highest demands in image quality a lens should be cleaned after 20 years. As there are lubricants in the lens body which will evaporate and deposit on the lens elements. And after about 20 years degradation in image quality can be recognized (or at least measured), but only if you have highest demands.
I once cleaned a LF lens being about 40 years old and i indeed could see an increase in contrast - but only on a contact print and the increase was very faint. Therefore i wouldn`t worry too much about lens service, unless the lens had been stored bad and developed mold on the glass etc. .

 

[Paul Howell]

Every 20 years, I guess my Minolta G lens are overdue. Maybe Sony will still service them.

 

[Harry Callahan]

As said, for highest demands, maybe the improvement only is measurable... and probably only if aperture is wide open - as this is when a lens does produce most flare.

 

[F4U]

It's just a lens, not the camera itself. If it focuses smoothly and doesn't have haze or separation. but maybe it has a few tiny specks, use your money on something else. Use it as is. And if you don't know what you're doing, don't start fiddling with it. You wouldn't have made things markedly better either way.

 

[weatherproof]

When a skilled tech takes apart a lens is there low risk they will damage the lens and alter its recording qualities?

I ask as internal dust is unlikely to alter my print quality. My film is FP4 and Tri-X and print size small.

I have an ex +++ condition Fat 90/2.8 and 35/2 v 2 I’m thinking of servicing. However if cleaning tends to mess up optics I may leave well enough alone. I’m considering cleaning the lenses for resale.

I would personally disclose the dust, but leave it up to the buyer to determine if it needs a CLA.

Lower selling price is a benefit for a seller (wider audience of buyers), and the super picky buyers can pick a technician they prefer.