Got my FUNGUS lens, the verdict.........

[bender73]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey, if I open my bag and it is filled with mushrooms some day, I will post a pic and eat my words!

[james.liam]

The extensiveness of the overgrowth makes it more than likely that etching by hydrofluoric acid has at least compromised the coating, but that is overly optimistic. Do recall that these early 50 mm's had a soft front element that was prone to scratch and cleaning damage (few today remain totally unscathed); probably more vulnerable to acid damage as well. It might be wiser (i.e., cost effective) to send at least the image to FocalPoint and ask for an opinion rather than send it for a CLA first. I fear that it is beyond salvation.

 

Alternatively, it might merit to try and gently removed the growth yourself first (here's a do-it-yourself protocol: http://www.cehjournal.org/article/fungus-how-to-prevent-growth-and-remove-it-from-optical-instrume and under higher magnification see if there is damage to the glass itself.

 

On the bright side, you did get a nice old film body out of the deal.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bender73]

The extensiveness of the overgrowth makes it more than likely that etching by hydrofluoric acid has at least compromised the coating, but that is overly optimistic. Do recall that these early 50 mm's had a soft front element that was prone to scratch and cleaning damage (few today remain totally unscathed); probably more vulnerable to acid damage as well. It might be wiser (i.e., cost effective) to send at least the image to FocalPoint and ask for an opinion rather than send it for a CLA first. I fear that it is beyond salvation.

 

Alternatively, it might merit to try and gently removed the growth yourself first (here's a do-it-yourself protocol: http://www.cehjournal.org/article/fungus-how-to-prevent-growth-and-remove-it-from-optical-instrume and under higher magnification see if there is damage to the glass itself.

 

On the bright side, you did get a nice old film body out of the deal.

 

Oh yes! We cannot overlook the M3 that is 90% original condition for $400. Works perfect, just a tad slow at 1/8 sec and below. $180 CLA and it is 100% for $580 and that is a steal. Single stroke almost 1,000,000 serial number with working Leicameter MC and original manuals/cases.

 

Right now the lens is usable and really correctable in Lightroom. Bright backlit settings and I have to be real careful. I bed a good CLA will remove the haze and the fungus on the front element will be almost a non-issue as the front element is the least important with regards to its effect on contrast. That said, I am not out of the woods yet! To be continued.

[bocaburger]

It might be wiser (i.e., cost effective) to send at least the image to FocalPoint and ask for an opinion rather than send it for a CLA first.

 

I would take that route also. But if a CLA will clean up the internal haze and there is no etching on the internal or especially rear element, the worst all that crud on the front will do is drop the contrast and increase the flare a little. What I would NOT do is attempt a DIY cleaning of the front element. The coating is soft, and most likely you will remove much of it in the process. Although it would look a lot cleaner with the cruddy coating gone, trust me it will reduce contrast and increase flare a lot more than it is now. The only way to improve it is to recoat it.

[bender73]

I would take that route also. But if a CLA will clean up the internal haze and there is no etching on the internal or especially rear element, the worst all that crud on the front will do is drop the contrast and increase the flare a little. What I would NOT do is attempt a DIY cleaning of the front element. The coating is soft, and most likely you will remove much of it in the process. Although it would look a lot cleaner with the cruddy coating gone, trust me it will reduce contrast and increase flare a lot more than it is now. The only way to improve it is to recoat it.

 

I am gambling that the internal haze will be cleaned and it will be a great lens.

 

This was this morning. Overcast. Cleaned up a little in lightroom.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/113324177@N08/15856604790/

 

Not too shabby in color with no cleaning yet.

[pop]

....Fungal spores are everywhere. They are on your lenses right now. ...

 

I don't grok this argument. I see no difference to stating that bacteria and their spores are all over the landscape and myself and that I therefore don't have to care whether I inhale, ingest or otherwise absorb them. That would be ignoring the little fact that there are different kinds of bacteria, ranging from beneficial to murderous, some kinds even mutating within very short time spans.

[k_g_wolf ✝]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don´t think I would keep this beast. For me this lens would be a strong candidate for a dustbin.

 

 

Regards,

GEORG

[Lenshacker]

Sometimes you get lucky on a lens like this, you never know until trying to clean it. Several years ago I picked up a post-war Coated Summitar like this at a camera show for $60. The fungus was on the inner surface, cleaned off with ammonia based eyeglass cleaner. On a wartime Sonnar T, I ended up taking the coating of the surface behind the aperture blades off, had been oil damaged. A Type 1 Rigid Summicron for $100, most of the inner haze cleaned off- was very close to my perfect one. Sometimes haze caused by oil will "mottle" the coating, looks bad but does not have much of an effect on pictures.

 

Report back on the cleaning. I know in my house, this lens would be in use again.

[wda]

I guess emotion clouds any objective assessment by the owner. If it were mine, I would seek advice before spending a cent on its restoration. It is not unique; there are plenty of clean specimens of the 50 Summicron available, from time to time. Meanwhile, a clean contemporary model would give lasting peace of mind.

[christoph_d]

I think we all have different tolerance to risk which is perfectly fine with me. But we all share the interest of photographing with Leica equipment. From that point of view I wish lots of success with the restoration, and a lot of fun taking pictures.

 

Rgds

 

C.

[pgk]

I am gambling that the internal haze will be cleaned and it will be a great lens.

I have a 90mm tele-elmarit is rough condition. I also had a much cleaner one with better optics which cost me about 3 times as much. I've kept the tatty one because the results were indistinguishable:D.

 

I once read in a book about collecting books that there are various types of collector - from those who try to obtain immaculate first editions which are as new and those who simply build up a 'reading set' (ie usable set) of whatever it is that interests them. Its the same with lenses; some want immaculate copies, other are happy just to use them.

 

Sure the fungus needs cleaning to stop further damage and whatever can be cleaned off should be cleaned off.But if after that you are happy to use the lens I will bet it will produce surprisingly good results with just the odd time when contrast drops due to a slight increase in flare as a result of the fungal damage or haze.

 

Personally I wouldn't spend anymore on it than is required to stop further damage and clean what will clean easily. Then I'd use and enjoy it. Sounds like a bargain to me and why scrap something which is quite usable I'd say;).

 

[As an aside, when I first started in photography, a rather longer time ago than I'd like to admit, I remember shooting at a race circuit (I was shooting a specific driver in a formula 3 race if I remember correctly) and meeting a well-known racing car photographer who shot for newspapers and magazines. He extracted a Nikon and longish lens from his camera bag, neither of which had caps fitted, blew the dust out of the camera and rear of the lens, wiped the front element with his shirt (filters were obviously not considered relevant) and pottered of to take some photos.....].

[bender73]

I have a 90mm tele-elmarit is rough condition. I also had a much cleaner one with better optics which cost me about 3 times as much. I've kept the tatty one because the results were indistinguishable:D.

 

I once read in a book about collecting books that there are various types of collector - from those who try to obtain immaculate first editions which are as new and those who simply build up a 'reading set' (ie usable set) of whatever it is that interests them. Its the same with lenses; some want immaculate copies, other are happy just to use them.

 

Sure the fungus needs cleaning to stop further damage and whatever can be cleaned off should be cleaned off.But if after that you are happy to use the lens I will bet it will produce surprisingly good results with just the odd time when contrast drops due to a slight increase in flare as a result of the fungal damage or haze.

 

Personally I wouldn't spend anymore on it than is required to stop further damage and clean what will clean easily. Then I'd use and enjoy it. Sounds like a bargain to me and why scrap something which is quite usable I'd say;).

 

[As an aside, when I first started in photography, a rather longer time ago than I'd like to admit, I remember shooting at a race circuit (I was shooting a specific driver in a formula 3 race if I remember correctly) and meeting a well-known racing car photographer who shot for newspapers and magazines. He extracted a Nikon and longish lens from his camera bag, neither of which had caps fitted, blew the dust out of the camera and rear of the lens, wiped the front element with his shirt (filters were obviously not considered relevant) and pottered of to take some photos.....].

 

Great post! Yea, I shoot weddings semi-pro on the side and I don't even know where my lens caps are. I drop lenses and toss them in the bag. These are expensive lenses, but they're tools. I have been more gentle with the Leica gear, but in the end, they're just tools.

 

I used to baby my gear until I shot weddings and the pace is rapid. I even had a 70-200 f/2.8 get run over by a car with my D3 attached. Yes, you read that correctly and I have a blog post about it...

 

Why Pros shoot the Nikon D3 | Chris Bilodeau

 

We will see. I can make this fungus lens work for now. Hopefully it gets better.

[bender73]

I can 100% appreciate that some would be uncomfortable with this lens. To be honest, I sort of am at some level.

 

The key is "acceptable risk" and "acceptable loss." Personally, at $300 with $80 CLA, this is a great gamble. If cleaned and free of fungus, I could get $800-900 easily. If it is a paperweight, I lost $380 and that will not break me.

 

I love finding gems. The 90 Elmar-C is AWESOME and I found one for $100. That lens is Leica, sharp, and has great bokeh. No need to spend more in the 90mm range ever.

 

In the end, some just like to pay $4000 and get a perfect lens. Some cannot afford that. Some like the thrill of making things work. I love old guitars, cameras, etc. To make a stunning image with a walmart disposable film camera is more gratifying than with $7,000 worth of gear (to me).

[Lenshacker]

I checked my "Parts Bin", have a front element from a T1 Rigid that has coating damage, looks a lot like yours. It's no where near as bad as the one that focalpoint polished and recoated. I also have a good one, but as stated- Summicron Type 1's are hard to replace optics. If this were a Sonnar or J-3, would work. The good one I have did not fit into a 14x early T1, came from a very late T1. I wonder if Leica did a slight rev on the glass, more likely the fixtures were hand-finished to the optics. I've heard the phrase "Fit and Finish" for Leica.