Condition, condition, condition......

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Following on from this thread http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/260776-acceptable-used-lens.html I started thinking about condition of equipment. Not in terms of that thread's reasons, but in more general terms. My own lenses are in what I would describe as very good but not mint condition. They are well looked after and anything but abused but they are used and there are signs of that use on them. optically however they are perfect as I protect them with filters and am very careful mounting and dismounting them. My old 21 SA has signs of fair usage and I suspect a little Schneideritis but it still delivers excellent image quality.

 

Which brings me around to the point of this post. What level of condition do others find acceptable in their lenses - forget value - I mean in terms of their usability. Is paint loss and chips on the metal acceptable? And is optical imperfection also acceptable and if so to what level? There have been threads posted here which have shown surprisingly good images from equally surprisingly damage lenses. Older lenses gather damage from both use and aging but how many people find that a good CLA results in improvements visible in their photographs?

 

My interest is somewhat because I have in mind to search for a 35/1.4 pre-asph and am wondering just how much wear/damage is worth accepting given that I will not use the lens a great deal.

[philipus]

Hi Paul and thanks for an interesting thread. I generally believe that the body/barrel is supposed to protect what is inside so I don't worry much about marks. So while I don't go around throwing the equipment around or treating it carelessly, I don't mind if there's a mark or paintloss or such. I would, however, be annoyed if the lens elements were damaged so I protect them using a hood or a filter depending on the lens.

 

I posted images in another thread of the front element of my 90 Elmarit-M which has a rather clear mark on the front element. I bought this lens when I moved to the M system with the intention of trying it out and got a good deal. If image quality would be affected, I told mysel, I would sell it and buy one in a better condition. I've kept it because there is no impact on image quality, so far so good.

 

But as for cosmetic condition, my Nikkor-P.C 8,5cm f2 is probably the worst of my lenses. Lots of chrome worn off and it also has a rather choppy focus movement. But the glass is pristine so I don't mind.

[earleygallery]

Likewise I look after my equipment and generally prefer to use a protective filter.

 

When I buy s/h lenses I don't worry too much about cosmetic condition, optical condition is obviously more important. I have bought lenses with minor optical imperfections/marks or internal dust but tend to avoid a lens with obvious scratches or haze, unless the price is such that it makes it a bargain to buy and repair.

 

My father used a Kodak Retina lllc for many years which has a small crack on the edge of one of the elements, which never caused a problem (I still have the camera).

 

Someone once remarked how carefully used equipment should be worth more than mint condition equipment, if it were viewed the same way as a musical instrument such as the more expensive violins - use improves the performance! Also a lens that has seen a lot of use is almost certainly because it produces excellent results - you know you have a good example.

[Tonki-M]

i am careful when it comes to all of my equipment, not in pampering sense but sensible care. what i look for in condition is that it has no chip or dent. those are the deal breaker for me. for lens, i look for one with no scratches (or minimal cleaning marks on old non-coated lens) in front and rear elements. for outside aesthetic, only thing i care for is again dents and chips.

[thighslapper]

I tend to buy as near mint as possible ..... purely for the reason that if I want to sell on as it's not what I want it makes it much easier....

 

When it comes to discontinued lenses I have bought and sold several copies of the same lens sequentially till I got the best I could find .... it is rare to lose much, if any, money doing this with Leica lenses.

 

I'm not averse to repairing minor cosmetic blemishes, and all my 'used' gear would pass as 'as new' on casual inspection.

 

Mechanical and optical condition is far more important and I wouldn't touch or keep anything that is remotely iffy.

 

Not being a photo pro, nothing is tax deductible, so I look after all my photo gear meticulously.

 

A good workman looks after his tools.

 

Theoretically, a well used lens with some cosmetic signs of use would be the best buy..... used enough to be sure it is correctly adjusted (and often returned for calibration), well enough looked after to be confident it has not been mechanically damaged, and enough cosmetic wear to drop the price to an affordable level.

 

Unfortunately, human nature usually drags you to the 'near mint' copy so you can delude yourself that it is as good as new

[Paul J]

I preferably buy new. Otherwise mint or mint minus.

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I look for as good condition as possible, interestingly when I have bought a lens in less than perfect condition a very careful clean and touchup using Casey touch up black and it's surprising how near mint they can be.

 

All of my lenses that are old go to Malcolm Taylor for a CLA and 6 bit code if appropriate. This sorts any minor issues with old lube, oil mist on the glass etc. My Elmar M had noticeable movement on the mount, it was better than the other 3 I tried, but it came back silky smooth and zero movement. That way I am confident all is okay, if there is a problem I can get it fixed. It usually costs about £75 per lens.

[andyedward]

Check out Garry Winogrand's M4 (Leica M4 Garry Winogrand). These images gave me pause for thought - perhaps cameras are for using instead of being mollycoddled

[Paul J]

I like to use AND mollycoddle Some scrapes are inevitable though.

[honcho]

Lenses are more important to me than the cosmetic condition of a camera body. I would not buy a lens that has obviously been heavily used. I have sold plenty that have!

[Messsucherkamera]

When I have invested in used M kit in the past, I have usually looked for the cleanest copy of a given body or lens I could find. My belief is that the mechanical soundness of a camera's internal works is reflected in its external appearance - generally speaking, that is.

 

I do want to get a well worn but mechanically sound "user" body for use in certain situations such as when scrapes/damage is a high possibility or in dicey environments where it is not wise to show an expensive looking camera in the presence of shifty types.

 

That having been said, I am not a camera polisher. I do not worship the flawless, shiny dark perfection of my black paint 2003 MP (it's no longer flawless) nor do I wear white cotton gloves when touching it. Cameras will show brass and get small scratches and flaws as a natural result of using them - and Leicas were built to be used, not shrink wrapped and locked away in a safe.

 

I say use your M cameras and lenses, don't worship them.

 

One exception - if you have an original MP of 1956/57 vintage, you may apply for a worship waiver from LHSA. And be sure to keep it locked in a safe when it is not on your person.

[pgk]

Interesting. I use my equipment but take care of it. So its usually got signs of use but is still pretty clean. That said I have a 21/3.4SA in somewhat less than mint condition and am torn on whether to look for a real 'user' 35/1.4 pre-asph. or whether to bite the bullet and look for a fairly clean one in the hope that its been treated in the same way that I treat equipment myself. I have used well worn lenses in the past and have had the odd mechanical (though not optical) issue which has been put right by repairers. Decisions......

[!Nomad64]

I tend to buy as near mint as possible ..... purely for the reason that if I want to sell on as it's not what I want it makes it much easier....

 

When it comes to discontinued lenses I have bought and sold several copies of the same lens sequentially till I got the best I could find .... it is rare to lose much, if any, money doing this with Leica lenses.

 

I'm not averse to repairing minor cosmetic blemishes, and all my 'used' gear would pass as 'as new' on casual inspection.

 

Mechanical and optical condition is far more important and I wouldn't touch or keep anything that is remotely iffy.

 

Not being a photo pro, nothing is tax deductible, so I look after all my photo gear meticulously.

 

A good workman looks after his tools.

 

Theoretically, a well used lens with some cosmetic signs of use would be the best buy..... used enough to be sure it is correctly adjusted (and often returned for calibration), well enough looked after to be confident it has not been mechanically damaged, and enough cosmetic wear to drop the price to an affordable level.

 

Unfortunately, human nature usually drags you to the 'near mint' copy so you can delude yourself that it is as good as new

 

+1! I couldn't agree more.

 

Cheers,

Bruno