Is There A Leica Tele-Elmarit-M F/2.8 Lens Modification For Flare?

[Certain Exposures]

I've read a few comments online that suggest the Leica Tele-Elmarit-M F/2.8 lens has its awful flare problem due to internal reflections. Has anyone ever offered a service to modify the lens and correct this?

I have tried a lens hood (IUFOO). However, the hood was not effective. This lens is so sensitive to bright light anywhere near it. I cannot see through the lens while using a rangefinder so it is a challenge to provide the right amount of shade with my stretched palm.

Please share if you have a 'trick' for judging just the right angle to cover the lens besides common sense!

I do use a B+W UV filter with it. I wonder if that makes the problem much worse?

 

[MFstooges]

I can only assume such modification will cost the same as the new lens.

 

[koraks]

Has anyone ever offered a service to modify the lens and correct this?

If there were, surely Leica would have designed it properly to begin with.

Such flare problems are usually not a matter of "dab a little black paint there and there and it'll be better." This involves all lens surfaces inside the assembly and their coatings, as well as lens geometry. Fixing this issue would involve redesigning and rebuilding the lens from the ground up.

I.e., there is actually a fix: buy a different lens that doesn't have this problem.

I do use a B+W UV filter with it. I wonder if that makes the problem much worse?

It will surely not help.

 

[loccdor]

Looks like it's part of the character of that lens.

There are situations where it can contribute to a picture but it's hard to predict in advance when using a rangefinder.



I like these. I think it's going to work better for portraiture or subject photography than landscape.

The 4 elements in 4 groups with a single coating makes it sound similar to my Jupiter-11 135mm f/4 which has those same characteristics and also is prone to flare.

I took this picture with that one: you can see some flare in it.

I think you should either try to work within its limitations and use it for what its best for, or decide the lens isn't for you and get something else.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I used a Tele-Elmarit for 25 years and do not recall any unusual flare. Does your lens have the internal degradation of glue/fog/haze? Many Tele-Elmarits suffered some type of decay. It was, I read, not repairable.

 

[Certain Exposures]

I.e., there is actually a fix: buy a different lens that doesn't have this problem.

Bummer! The lens is decent otherwise. I may have to.

I think you should either try to work within its limitations and use it for what its best for, or decide the lens isn't for you and get something else.

Nice frame there at the end. I may get a lens more flare resistant someday despite how much I enjoy this one. I like to be deliberate about introducing flares. That is too difficult for me with this particular lens on a film camera.

Has anyone done a great job of testing out the flare on the Voigtlander 90mm F/2.8 VM? So far I have not come across enough sample images to judge.

I used a Tele-Elmarit for 25 years and do not recall any unusual flare. Does your lens have the internal degradation of glue/fog/haze? Many Tele-Elmarits suffered some type of decay. It was, I read, not repairable.

@Kodachromeguy Could you share some backlit portraits you took in bright daylight with your lens? So far the comments online suggest this one has a reputation for flaring. Interior day images in locations with large reflective windows would be good too.

I will share if/when I get confirmation from the model or time to reshoot examples.

My copy's glass looks decent enough under a flashlight. I can share photos later.

 

[Certain Exposures]

^^^

 

[MarkS]

The flare made that lens useless for me, and eventually I sold it. I'd struggled against the flare for a long time, and eventually decided that it was caused by the visible "hammer-tone" finish on the diaphragm blades. That at least was partially shiny, unlike any other lens diaphragm in my experience. I didn't really bother to test that idea- I suppose if that were the case, there would be no flare at f/2.8. It was beautifully compact, and mechanically well-made, but couldn't deliver the results I wanted.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

@Kodachromeguy Could you share some backlit portraits you took in bright daylight with your lens? So far the comments online suggest this one has a reputation for flaring. Interior day images in locations with large reflective windows would be good too

I sold the Tele-Elmarit lens in 2005. I would need to look at old negatives or Kodachromes in my archives (stuff). I did not use that 90 much over the years. In contrast, recently, my 90mm f/4 Elmar has been busy. And I just bought a 90mm f/2.5 Elmarit.
Cheers

 

[beemermark]

I never had a problem with mine. I don't understand your comment "I cannot see through the lens while using a rangefinder so it is a challenge to provide the right amount of shade with my stretched palm." You don't look through the lens on a RF camera.

 

[Craig]

I never had a problem with mine. I don't understand your comment "I cannot see through the lens while using a rangefinder so it is a challenge to provide the right amount of shade with my stretched palm." You don't look through the lens on a RF camera.

I read it as he was attempting to shade the lens with his hand, but as you don't look through the lens, was unable to tell if his hand was getting in the frame or not, or if the shading was effective or not.

 

[Certain Exposures]

The flare made that lens useless for me, and eventually I sold it. I'd struggled against the flare for a long time, and eventually decided that it was caused by the visible "hammer-tone" finish on the diaphragm blades. That at least was partially shiny, unlike any other lens diaphragm in my experience. I didn't really bother to test that idea- I suppose if that were the case, there would be no flare at f/2.8. It was beautifully compact, and mechanically well-made, but couldn't deliver the results I wanted.

Yes, I am afraid this is the sign to follow your footsteps.

I read it as he was attempting to shade the lens with his hand, but as you don't look through the lens, was unable to tell if his hand was getting in the frame or not, or if the shading was effective or not.

@beemermark , Craig nailed it. THat's what I meant.

@Kodachromeguy pull out some slides for us some day! I would love to see what it can do on Kodachrome.

 

[GregY]

I've had a number of tele-elmarits from the fat one to the thin one. I always used the #12575 metal hood and never had an undue flare issues. Are there any signs of haze?

 

[Kodachromeguy]

@Kodachromeguy pull out some slides for us some day! I would love to see what it can do on Kodachrome.

As requested, 90m Tele-Elmarit frames on Kodachrome 25 film.

Grove Street, Vicksburg, Mississippi

Wood cottages on Pearl street, Vicksburg (taken from the railroad tracks)

Vicksburg National Military Park in the fog (Leica M3 tripod-mounted)

Beware, these have been scanned and then resized to display on a computer monitor through the APUG servers. I hesitate to say there is some special "look" to these pictures. I have thousands of Kodachrome slides. They will never all get scanned. Sigh.....

 

[Kodachromeguy]

The Tele-Elmarit was a convenient travel lens because it was compact.

Athinios Port, Thira, Greece