Hazy In Middle--Leica CL w/ 9cm Elmar

[wjlapier]

Took the CL and 9cm Elmar out for a few pics to test. Almost all photos with this lens have this hazy area in the center of the photos. I was shooting sunny 16 with Fujicolor 100 film. Any idea what this is? The lens looks pretty clean an I had a hood on. CL was CLA'd by DAG recently.

 

[wjlapier]

This shot shows it even more. I was shooting at f/16 the whole time. I don't know anything about issues with lenses. This particular one looks pretty clean even with light shined through it. I was using a FIKUS hood, but not fully extended to 9cm. It was collapsed to it's minimum.

 

[awty]

Was there any fog on the front element from the cold?
Also looks like the top of the film wasnt fully submerged in developer.

 

[Kino]

The rule of thumb is; Warm camera, cold day = no condensation. However, if you took the camera out long enough for it to get cold, brought it back indoors for a while and then went out again, condensation could have formed on a lens element while shooting. Of course, once the camera warms back up, it would disappear. If you didn't check the lens before it warms back up, you'd never know...

If you're going to be shooting in the cold, once the camera gets cold, you should secure it in the trunk of your car or glove box; somewhere it will remain cold until you are through shooting. If you must bring it back indoors briefly, take a large ziplock back and seal it up outside before entering a warm, humid environment.

 

[BAC1967]

Check the rear element for haze, that will have more effect on the image than anything on the front element.

 

[awty]

Check the rear element for haze, that will have more effect on the image than anything on the front element.

He says in the second post that he shone a light through the lens and it was clean.
What ever it is has caused over exposure, my hazy inner element Elmar doesn't do that, more of a slight sharpness issue and bad flare if pointed toward bright light.

 

[wjlapier]

The lens does have some haze upon further inspection. Especially when I took the front of the lens off the barrel. Temps been mild around here lately so I don't think it's condensation or fog due to extreme temperature change.

As for the film not fully submerged--I was developing two rolls in a Patterson tank with between 650ml and 700ml chems--the bottom of the container says 650ml. That's a odd one to me since I occasionally develop two rolls at a time.

 

[awty]

The lens does have some haze upon further inspection. Especially when I took the front of the lens off the barrel. Temps been mild around here lately so I don't think it's condensation or fog due to extreme temperature change.

As for the film not fully submerged--I was developing two rolls in a Patterson tank with between 650ml and 700ml chems--the bottom of the container says 650ml. That's a odd one to me since I occasionally develop two rolls at a time.

If the haze is even over the element I dont think it would cause that problem. It looks like some thing on the center of the lens. Thats why I thought it was a spot of condensation in the very middle. They come apart pretty easy for cleaning if you have the right tools and know what you are doing.
I had the same thing happen to me on a Patterson type tank, think one of the reels was a different brand and may of been slightly wider, or the reels weren't pushed all the way in. Could easily check. But that what causes that ribbing across the top if that reel was on top and its on all frames. Also if you adjust the scan setting to the right exposure the over exposed middle might not look so bad.

 

[rknewcomb]

Could there be a shiny spot of some type in the rear end of the lens that could be a source of reflection - like a small spot that is not blackened ?
Wouldn't think it is in the camera if DAG just serviced it and/or try a different lens.
Robert

 

[wjlapier]

DAG didn’t cla the lens. Just the CL. No marks on the rear of the lens. Could it be because the hood wasn’t fully extended to 9cm? Sun was at my back or mostly behind me. What about the aperture at f/16?

 

[BradS]

It sure looks a lot like flare to me but based upon the shadows in these two photos, the sun is more-or-less behind you in both of these photos...so, I'm kinda stumped.
However, in the second photo, it looks like the sun is reflecting off of that wall of glass in front of you right back into the lens....so that could be flare.

I almost feel like it could be a light leak or internal reflections too...but don't know how,where,why...

Do you see this "glow" in less harsh light, like under party cloudy or overcast skies ? How about in the light of early morning ?


Incidentally, how long did DAG have your camera?

 

[wjlapier]

These are from the same day same camera/roll but with a W-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 lens.

I've only used the 9cm lens this one time since it was new to me.

DAG had the CL about 7 weeks.

 

[BradS]

Hmmm... DAG has had my M4-P almost five months. I wonder what could be taking so long.

Anyway, those photos look good. So, I guess it is definitely something about that lens.

 

[Alex Varas]

Similar issue that I just found in my IIIa with nickel Elmar




Lens has only front mark cleaning marks but I have seen worst and perfect photos.

 

[MarkS]

Is this a 1950s 90/4 Elmar with the satin-chrome nameplate ring? I had one of those decades ago and had similar issues. (Couldn't find the proper lens hood in those pre-internet days, so traded it in.) Cured me of the "Leica lenses are perfect" syndrome, but I used them for another 30 years.

 

[wjlapier]

This is the lens and how I used the hood. I used it on a Fujifilm X-E3 and same issue. DAG says it looks like maybe haze and to send it in. I will eventually is I think I'll use it enough. Hoping DAG can clean the haze and it makes a difference. Focus is dry and the aperture blades could be cleaner.

 

[summicron1]

Oh, i thought this was the 90 that was made for the CL -- I have one of those.

Also have an uncoated 90 that I did use at one time, long time ago -- didn't see anything like what you got, but I didn't try it in different situations either. Did use a lens hood and the glass on it is clear, albeit uncoated.

interesting problem. If this is a length of lens you want to use a lot I can strongly recommend the 90 C that was specifically made for the CL -- nice little optic, lighter and very good.

 

[summicron1]

This is the lens and how I used the hood. I used it on a Fujifilm X-E3 and same issue. DAG says it looks like maybe haze and to send it in. I will eventually is I think I'll use it enough. Hoping DAG can clean the haze and it makes a difference. Focus is dry and the aperture blades could be cleaner.

and if the price that DAG charges to de-haze ur lens is scary, give me a shout. I never use that lens and it is nice and clear. I could dig it out. Perhaps a deal could be made ...

 

[Arvee]

DAG didn’t cla the lens. Just the CL. No marks on the rear of the lens. Could it be because the hood wasn’t fully extended to 9cm? Sun was at my back or mostly behind me. What about the aperture at f/16?

I am going with internal flare. Take a small flashlight and shine in the front element (at all angles) while looking through the back of the lens off camera focusing on possible shiny internal reflections. I feel strongly your going to find some 'blacking' that has flaked off of an internal ring/barrel that is causing the issue. It doesn't have to be sunlight sneaking in at an angle because of an inadequate lens shade, all it takes is a bright 'sunny 16' scene and a shiny internal surface (it could even be a blackened but no longer matte surface). Since it isn't an extremely intense flare, I'm thinking an internal surface that is blackened but still reflecting a small amount of light. This happens quite often with older lenses. Give that a shot and let us know what you find.

 

[02Pilot]

FWIW, the 90/4 Elmar is ridiculously easy to take apart for cleaning, and it's a very simple lens optically. If you're so inclined you can very likely clean it up yourself, or at least get inside for a closer look.

 

[Arvee]

OP, care to share any conclusions you may have reached?

 

[wjlapier]

Arvee, I looked into the tube and the only thing I could see that might reflect light are the "tracks" the barrel moves on while focusing. All lenses have these I assume. Nothing else seems overly shiny or flaking.

 

[Arvee]

Arvee, I looked into the tube and the only thing I could see that might reflect light are the "tracks" the barrel moves on while focusing. All lenses have these I assume. Nothing else seems overly shiny or flaking.

Any other observations that may reveal the cause? Are you considering the condensation theory credible? Thanks.

 

[wjlapier]

I don't consider the condensation idea credible. It was a pleasant day and no extreme in temperatures from my house to truck to outside shooting. The lens does have some haze but hard to say it if's a lot or not because I'm never really dealt with old lenses like this.

 

[darinwc]

Fog/haz can cause this. But some lenses, even absolutely clear with no haze or fungus, will exhibit this problem. Quite simply, light is reflected back and fourth from the glass surfaces. Just a small amount. Instead of being focused, the light 'shines through' and makes a light spot in the middle of the film.
I have found this to happen more with earlier lenses, as the coatings are not as good. But I had a Tamron 90mm f2.5 macro that had this problem, and it was in mint condition.

On your elmar, you may want to try it at different apertures. I bet f5.6-f8 will be less of a problem than f16+