What is this in my lens? is it separation?

Cinema · Feb 17, 2011

At first I thought it was separation but it doesn't look like any example of separation that i've come up with, as there is no rainbow-like coloring to the substance. it's a metallic white color. You can see it just on the outer edge of the element. For your viewing pleasure:

it's easy to see from the front but more difficult to see looking through the rear, but you can catch it at the right angle.

softshock · Feb 17, 2011

Do your photos look abnormal when using this? Could it be glue?

Cinema · Feb 17, 2011

I have not shot with it yet, i just received it to find it looking this way :\
I tried to take some better pictures of this, here goes:

Ian Grant · Feb 17, 2011

My three lenses with separation,, all Rodenstock, look different to those, far worse, but there's no problems with images made/printed with them. It maybe but look up Schneideritis which is where the black paint on the edges of the glass elements bubbles away. It can look terrible yet have absolutely no effects on the image quality.

Ian

softshock · Feb 17, 2011

Hmm I don't know if I have any better suggestion. You might want to take a few test shots with it. I'm not sure where you are, but I do several rolls of either Gold 200 or Ultramax 400 just as tests and have them dev'd scanned at a CVS. It may not be the highest quality developing and scanning, but I'm confident it will determine how you feel about the look along with a comparison to other examples on Flickr or elsewhere.

Klainmeister · Feb 17, 2011

The uniformity of it suggests cement separation of the elements to me. I couldn't imagine fungus growing in that fashion, although it's not totally unheard of.

Ian David · Feb 17, 2011

Hard to tell, but it looks similar to Schneideritis to me. I have that with a couple of my LF lenses and it causes no problems at all.

Ian

Cinema · Feb 17, 2011

looked it up, apparently this is from paint flaking from inside the lens barrel onto to glass or something? if this is indeed what's going on, i would assume that there is some optical drawback, but that's just a conjecture. i'll see how the test roll comes out and then decide if I want to try and get a refund. it kills the resale value but i would like to shoot with it for years to come anyway.

Ian Grant · Feb 17, 2011

It probably is very slight balsam separation looking at the second set of images, I was replying when you posted them. My lenses with separation are the first synthetic cements which is why they look quite different.

In your lens this is all well outside the taking area and will have no effects at all. Unfortunately Balham Optical in London ceased trading before Christmas last year but they had a very good reputation for restoring Leitz lenses.

Ian

Cinema · Feb 17, 2011

Thanks Ian Grant for your insight. In your experience or others that you are aware of, does this tend to get worse over time? if not I think i'll hold onto the lens, if so maybe i should just send it back.

Ian Grant · Feb 17, 2011

Cinema said:
Thanks Ian Grant for your insight. In your experience or others that you are aware of, does this tend to get worse over time? if not I think i'll hold onto the lens, if so maybe i should just send it back.

It needs looking at properly. Images on sites like this aren't ideal for making judgements.

It depends what you paid for the lens ? a Summicron from the 1950s ? perhaps early 60's, the SN will tell you what year.

It could remain like it is for years or get worse if storage isn't ideal. If you paid a high price then send it back but get someone else with experience to check it first, if it was a bargain then just keep it and use it.

Ian

Cinema · Feb 17, 2011

it was a good price. not exactly a steal, but i haven't really seen a well functioning summicron 50 under $600. Paid 450, no haze/fungus/etc except this. perhaps i will have a technician in the area look over it.

Rol_Lei Nut · Feb 17, 2011

Cinema said:
it was a good price. not exactly a steal, but i haven't really seen a well functioning summicron 50 under $600. Paid 450, no haze/fungus/etc except this. perhaps i will have a technician in the area look over it.

While from the pictures it seems as though it shouldn't have much effect on image quality, except perhaps very minimally at full aperture, it *is* a good reason to send the lens back or get a hefty discount.

Also, $450 for an old 'cron does seem a lot! Maybe living in Germany has spoiled me, but take a look at these shops: I've had good experiences with both, their descriptions are conservative and they ship internationally:
http://www.meister-camera.com
http://www.photohaus.de/index.php?id=62&tx_trproduktgalerie_pi1[cat]=43&tx_trproduktgalerie_pi1[page_nr]=0&cHash=95913a2d3c

Steve Roberts · Feb 18, 2011

I had a Summitar showing similar symptoms. It was dealt with by Malcolm Taylor as part of a refurbishment of the whole camera and turned out to be missing blacking from the edge of one of the groups, as per Ian's earlier suggestion.
Steve

Ian Grant · Feb 18, 2011

Steve Roberts said:
I had a Summitar showing similar symptoms. It was dealt with by Malcolm Taylor as part of a refurbishment of the whole camera and turned out to be missing blacking from the edge of one of the groups, as per Ian's earlier suggestion.
Steve

Malcolm Taylor is probably the worlds leading repair/restoration technician, the Leica factory use him to restore the more important cameras from their own collection

Ian

What is this in my lens? is it separation?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency