Got fungus in your lens? Need it serviced by Leica?

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Too bad. You're out of luck.

 

Wetzlar are no longer accepting any optics (lenses or binoculars or telescopes) that show any sign of fungus. They will be received in triage and returned unserviced if there is any sign of fungus on the glass.

 

Perfectly understandable, given the fact that they do not want fungus anywhere near their production or service lines, I suppose, but it makes me wonder who would accept a fungused lens?

[NB23]

Fungus going from one lens from another is a myth. No problem in keeping a fungus lens next to a good lens.

I can understand they don't want to infect their cleaning tools but there is a sterilizing machine for that.

 

Simply, I think they are too busy calibrating all the uncalibrated lenses and cameras they are selling to poor folks and they don't have the time nor the working force to clean and adjust old lenses.

 

Fungus is just trapped condensation between elements. And there is the Leica balsam problem. Won't they touch it, as well?

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Too bad. You're out of luck.

 

Wetzlar are no longer accepting any optics (lenses or binoculars or telescopes) that show any sign of fungus. They will be received in triage and returned unserviced if there is any sign of fungus on the glass.

 

Perfectly understandable, given the fact that they do not want fungus anywhere near their production or service lines, I suppose, but it makes me wonder who would accept a fungused lens?

Not very understandable IMO. Fungus spores are everywhere. It is just a matter of avoiding the conditions of growth.

[earleygallery]

I heard before - here and elsewhere- that Leica won't touch lenses with fungus but then others said they had repaired their lenses with fungus.

 

Perhaps it just depends on the day of the week you ask them?

[jaapv]

Well, the answer might be that quite a few lenses with fungus are non-repairable.

[pgk]

I've had lenses de-funguses for friends who have lived in very damp places. In ALL cases the repairer has refused to guarantee that fungus will not return. In some cases the fungus had damaged the glass and was cleaned but the lenses, whilst they still worked, were substantially devalued. My guess is that Leica's experience is that saying to a customer that the fungus can be removed but the 'repair' cannot be guaranteed and the lens may still show signs of damage (and thus be devalued) is not an acceptable scenario given the potentially high cost of cleaning lens elements, and to replace them isn't probably economic either. So it probably simply obviates problems and isn't about 'infectious fungus' at all.

Edited August 9, 2016 by pgk

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It might be enlightening to learn how fungus grows and propagates. I have my darkroom and equipment in a room with humidity and temperature control - less than 50% humidity and usually much lower, and a temperature of ~70°. Fungus does not happen there. The propagation of fungus from one object to another is highly unlikely. When the environment in which the items are stored is the same, then they share the opportunity for fungus. It is that simple.

 

When Leica will not guarantee that fungus will not return it is likely it is due to the climate from which the lens came.

.

Edited August 9, 2016 by pico

[easy_action]

I spoke to someone at Leica Mayfair earlier in the year about sending an 8-element 35mm Summicron that has previously been treated for fungus back to Germany for servicing.

 

I was told that lenses with evidence of fungus were sent to a special unit for repair, and that this added considerably to the cost.

 

They must have reviewed this arrangement.

[dpitt]

AFAIK 

Will van Manen will accept lenses with fungus without any objection.

[edwardkaraa]

I personally would not bother sending a contaminated lens for repair as the damage caused is irreversible and the cleaning itself causes more damage to the glass. The cost of service for current models is so high and involves replacing glass elements, dismantling the lens piece by piece, that it would be financially more feasible to buy a new lens, unless it's a rare collectible item.

[jaapv]

It is not true that damage is irreversible. It depends whether the fungus has had a chance of etching the coating and glass. In that case you are right.

Otherwise it can be simply cleaned off.

If the fungus has damaged just the coating, it can be removed. With valuable lenses one could consider having the lens recoated.

[bocaburger]

Opening any old lens is like Pandora's box.   Lens goups can become decemented with even the most delicate handling.  Internal coatings were soft to begin with.   It takes someone with a lot of experience, and an attitude of meticulous care to do it properly.  And many older lenses had a lot of adjustability compared to newer ones, and were designed to be serviced by people knowledgeable in it, not just trained to take them apart, replace something, and put them back together.  I'm not sure how Leica's repair facility is staffed, i.e. if there are any such old-time craftsmen still working there.  And Leica's customers tend to be more picky and demanding.  On top of all that, there's no surefire way to tell in advance of opening up a lens if fungus has etched the coatings or glass.  And some customers can't (or don't want to) wrap their head around being charged for a service and not receive a pristine lens back.

[pgk]

I was told that lenses with evidence of fungus were sent to a special unit for repair, and that this added considerably to the cost.

 

I would guess this means 'outsourcing' (i.e. using an independent) which is probably not economic nor a terribly satisfactory arrangement for a manufacturer. I wonder if they will eventually take the route taken by other manufacturers - accredited 'pro-repairers'?

[LucisPictor]

Zeiss has not serviced fungus lenses for ages!

[wlaidlaw]

If it is the type of fungus that only attacks natural Canada Balsam, then the lens is probably cleanable. Unless they have lived in the middle of a desert for the whole of their lives, I would think that any old lens where the elements are cemented into a group with Canada Balsam, would have some fungus spores in it, which are probably detectable under a microscope, looking at the edge of the elements. If the fungus has eroded the glass surface, I would agree that it is probably not worth even considering a repair.

 

My brother in law, who is from Barbados and has lived there all his life apart from doing his engineering degree in the UK, asked me to value a whole lot of old Nikon F MF lenses. You could hardly see through them for fungus, which had proliferated in that very warm and humid climate. I sadly had to inform him they were valueless. I am sure the optical surfaces would have been badly damaged. Even the aperture blades were rusty. 

 

Wilson

[Steve McGarrett]

jaapv, on 10 Aug 2016 - 10:40, said:

It is not true that damage is irreversible. It depends whether the fungus has had a chance of etching the coating and glass. In that case you are right.

Otherwise it can be simply cleaned off.

If the fungus has damaged just the coating, it can be removed. With valuable lenses one could consider having the lens recoated.

 

I agree.

 

Frankly I find quite unacceptable today's trend (Zeiss too) of tout court refusing lenses with fungus.

Technical service should be there at owners'/photographers' disposal... a lens should be rejected only when it is totally beyond repair. Service should warn owners about risks (regrowth if don't properly stored etc.) and then repair/clean the lens.

 

Like someone has said, spores could be everywhere, in every lens. If they growth, or don't (and stay there, unseen, without causing any harm), it's only a matter of climate condition and storage.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Steve McGarrett

[otho]

http://leicarumors.com/2017/03/27/fight-lens-fungus-with-this-new-electronic-dry-cabinet-for-photo-gear.aspx/

[dorianbk]

Hi guys,

 

What do you think of this problem I have with this Wetzlar lenses? Is it fungus or something else?

 

 

 

[wlaidlaw]

It could be fungus or balsam deterioration from getting too hot. Malcolm Taylor in the UK used to accept fungus damaged lenses for cleaning. I know he is not keen on the later epoxy cemented lenses rather than the earlier Canada Balsam cemented lenses. The older ones can have their cemented elements separated by soaking in hot (around 90º) water. The epoxy cemented lenses have to have the cemented group boiled in a pressure cooker in methylene chloride in a fume cupboard. This is one of these "frankly rather you than me procedures"    The changeover date for balsam is around 1967 for Canadian lenses and a little later for Wetzlar lenses. From the serial number of your lens it is 1971 and may well be epoxy cemented, so you might need to speak VERY nicely to Malcolm to persuade him to take it on. PM me if you want Malcolm's contact phone number and address. He does not do email. 

 

Wilson

Edited June 14, 2018 by wlaidlaw

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaeger]

just curious, any folks on the west coast (USA) get fungus lens?  the weather here is dry most time of the year, so I'm wondering do I need an electronic moist control camera cabinet.  currently I don't keep my equipments near shower, kitchen or anywhere has steam.