When old lens is in pristine condition: CLA or just not used?

[darkosaric]

Hi all,

just wondering: When old lens is in pristine condition: was it CLA'd like every 10-20 years, or just not used a lot, or it is not possible to say ?

I have Summar from 1935, and Summitar from 1939, and both are in pristine condition, not a single cleaning mark, no fogging, almost like new (small dust only visible with flash lamp test). I did looked for great examples for years until I found them, but in any case I find it fascinating that 80-85 year old lenses are like new.



Thanks,

 

[blockend]

I find it fascinating that 80-85 year old lenses are like new.

There's usually a story behind pristine gear. Ten years ago I bought an immaculate Nikkormat. It didn't cost any more than the beat up Niks I acquired at the time, and all said and done it was only a Nikkormat. The base plate is one of the first places to pick up marks, even slight ones resting on a wooden table. Nothing, clean as the day it left the box. I assume someone bought it, died, divorced, moved house, lost interest, and it stayed in a drawer until the house was cleared. With high value gear like Leica lenses mystique builds up. It was Uncle Charlie's, he paid a lot of money for it in 1937, and not to touch kids. No one has an interest in photography so its a keepsake in a box. Those stories make the Antique Roadshow.

 

[neilt3]

Another reason I've found with some gear that is in pristine condition is it has a fault .
A lens that might not have been put together correctly makes out of the factory and gives poor results .
It might not have been returned or repaired then eventually gets sold on to someone who also finds it a poor performer .
So it stays in its box being passed from one owner to another .
I'm guessing this is less likely with an old Leica lens , modern stuff used by pixel peepers will be spotted to be duff much easier than postcard sized prints that were the common way to view pictures.

When I'm buying cameras or lenses , especially old gear , I'm more concerned about if it works when it looks pristine .
A worn item shows it is used and likely as not functions correctly and gave satisfactory results.

Dented abused gears a different thing altogether though .

 

[blockend]

Another reason I've found with some gear that is in pristine condition is it has a fault .

The Nikkormat I described above had irregular frame spacing. Not enough to overlap or anything close, nor the short walk between frames I've experienced on a Kiev rangefinder. Just less than exact. Over time and with use it has cured itself and the camera now frames precisely. It's possible the previous owner had machine prints made with black bands, and assumed the camera was faulty.

 

[Chan Tran]

The Nikkormat I described above had irregular frame spacing. Not enough to overlap or anything close, nor the short walk between frames I've experienced on a Kiev rangefinder. Just less than exact. Over time and with use it has cured itself and the camera now frames precisely. It's possible the previous owner had machine prints made with black bands, and assumed the camera was faulty.

I think the printing machine can accomodate uneven spacing.

 

[138S]

If there is internal haze or rings do not move smooth then you may CLA.

If not... why taking a risk?

Who is to CLA it ? Does he know well that gear ? What cost ?

If it's in pristine condition afer many years this means it was stored in right contitions. Humidity (condensation), dust, contamination, temperature... Imagine that gear is stored in a place with high humidity and fast temperature chages, you may get condensation. Also air varies its volume with temperature and if container is not sealed then very small dust particles circulates to the lens inside over time, if you also have condensation...

If gear is stored sealed in a zip bag with some silicagel then preservation is very good, single concern is degradation of the grease, depending on its kind. Instead, gear stored in bad conditions will suffer, even a fungus attack can be there.

 

[guangong]

I have several lenses dating from 1930s. The glass is pristine and doubt if any had. CLA before I got them over fifty years ago. And of course there are my own cameras bought in 1960s, all have pristine glass although exteriors show signs of use. Of course, some of my Kilfit lenses show a little separation at edges and spots where coating has disappeared, but still excellent lenses in use.
Cleaning marks are not a sign of age, but a sign of careless cleaning. (However, one seller on APUG tried to convince me that ALL used lenses have cleaning marks. I avoid anything he offers for sale.). So age has nothing to do with condition. A klutz can ruin a new lens right out of the box. The bodies of some cheaper lenses can show looseness because greases substituted for precision mechanical construction.
Care in use and maintenance, as well as storage conditions are more important than age.

 

[Alan Gales]

I sold my 5 Zeiss lenses a few years ago. They were all bought in the 1980's and were all in close to mint condition. I always kept a clear filter on the front so I just had to clean the filter and not the glass. I always wiped down the lens barrels with a lint free cloth after shooting outdoors. They were always stored in a camera bag with silica gell bags in a dry area. None were ever CLA'd. So if the owner was a bit anal like me, they could be in really nice shape. I did use them and I wore out my 139Q and replaced it with a pair of 167MT's

 

[John Koehrer]

Or owned by a doctor or lawyer.

 

[MattKing]

Or owned by a doctor or lawyer.

Actually, a dentist.
The (then) lawyer who owned this camera for over 20 years would beg to differ :

 

[StepheKoontz]

I echo that some of the best performing gear I have bought used was also in "well used" condition. I feel like that really good samples inspire regular use, where the duds, end up sitting on a shelf.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have bought pristine lenses that were jammed because they sat unused for too long and I sent them to be CLA'd. I have bought well used lenses that worked well and did not require CLAs and others need to be rebuilt. You pay your money and take your changes unless the seller will service the lens if necessary.

 

[138S]

I echo that some of the best performing gear I have bought used was also in "well used" condition. I feel like that really good samples inspire regular use, where the duds, end up sitting on a shelf.

Yes...

My Norma worked dayly for 4 decades, two photographers in a row made their career with it. Using gear that has worked hard is something special.

 

[Alan Gales]

Or owned by a doctor or lawyer.

I bought my pair of Contax 167MT's from a local doctor. Both looked close to new.