soft elmar 5cm 2.8 (1958 model)

[patrickallo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently bought an M2 with an 50mm elmar. My main problem with this lens is that even though the seller had it cleaned, I have the impression that the results are still too soft and that the lens has a huge problem with flare.

 

Here's a bit more information:

- despite the cleaning, the lens still doesn't seem perfectly clean.

- softness is a problem between 2.8 and 5.6, once I reach 8 things get better.

- when I picked up the lens after the cleaning, the seller clearly stated that I should come back if I wasn't happy with the quality of the lens.

- I know I shouldn't expect the same contrast as from a modern lens, but the difference with my nikon 50/1.8 is really huge.

 

So here's my dilemma: should I go back to the shop to ask to have the lens cleaned once more, or should I just go back to exchange it for another lens?

 

Basically, what I'd like to know is whether the softness and the flare are also due to the elmar-construction, or only because of the remaining fogging of the lens.

 

Any thoughts?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[scsambrook]

If you shine a light through the lens and look into it, it should be as clear as any other satisfactory lens you have. If it looks 'misty' then either the cleaning was not done properly or the lens has some other problem such as fine scratching on the exterior surfaces or surface etching due to fungus, perhaps. Small dust spots internally can usually be disregarded, but if it's just been cleaned there ought not to be any.

 

Your Elmar should give you bright clean images - when reviewers write about its 'lower contrast' that is a very fine distinction. A summicron may give higher contrast, but that is not to say the Elmar is inferior in a practical, everyday photographic sense.

 

It might be safest to see if you can return the lens for a refund so you can start again with one in better condition.

[earleygallery]

+1

 

Perhaps you could post an image however, as everyones opinion of 'soft' is different. The Elmar is a fine lens, certainly it shouldn't be noticeably soft.

[patrickallo]

Thanks for the feedback.

 

The results are soft by any standard *and* some internal lenses clearly aren't clean.

So I guess cleaning should be the first option.

[lct]

Your Nikkor 50/1.8 is one of the sharpest lenses ever and your early Elmar will never be as sharp as that. For a similar sharpness the latest version of the Elmar (since 1994) is mandatory.

[MPerson]

I have a 1959 Elmar-M 50/2.8 and love it. Not encountered any problems with flare - it doesn't have a hood.

 

This was taken at 2.8. The print of this is sharp where I focused - the eyes. As usual the web doesn't convey this. Without seeing one of yours it is hard to say.

 

Elmar-M 50/2.8

[scsambrook]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the feedback.

 

The results are soft by any standard *and* some internal lenses clearly aren't clean.

So I guess cleaning should be the first option.

 

I would be a bit worried that the first attempt at cleaning had been a failure as it suggests a lack of ability on the part of whoever did it. A professional repairer ought to be able to do such a task successfully without the need to try again.

[earleygallery]

It depends what was meant by 'cleaning' - they may just have wiped the front optic and polished the chrome!

 

It sounds like the lens is probably suffering from internal haze/fogging and needs dismantling/cleaning. It could even be worse, i.e. fungus damage, or excessive cleaning marks, in which case just look for a better example.

[patrickallo]

@Ict: I do not expect it to be as sharp as my Nikon lens, so I'm fine with that.

 

@MPerson: Thanks for the example! Now I know what to expect from a clean lens.

 

@scsambrook & earleygallery: I'm beginning to suspect that the technician may not have received the right instructions. Two things had to be done: make the aperture-ring work smoothly and clean the internal lenses. Only the former was done properly.

 

Tomorrow, I'll be heading back to the shop.

[patrickallo]

In the end I decided to exchange the elmar for a second-hand but recent summicron in chrome/silver finish (and had to pay for the difference...).

 

I'll probably miss the compactness of the elmar, but will also enjoy the closer focus capability, the larger aperture and the built-in hood of the cron. Alas, I'll never know whether the problems with the elmar could be solved by a more thorough cleaning.

[farnz]

Carbolic soap and a good wire brush would've done it. That'll clean pretty much anything including gum off your shoe and oil stains off your driveway!

 

 

 

 

Yes, I am joking.

 

Pete.