Leica Summicron 50mm F/2 Dual Range Ridgid fungus or scratches

[Big Jim]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi 

I’ve been offered this lens for a cheap price because of the marking seen with a spotlight test. Does this look like fungus or just cleaning marks ? Apparently the marks are on the rear lens. 
Is there any chance at all that this could be usable, possible to be repaired or should I just walk away no matter how cheap ? 
 

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!

[pippy]

"Is there any chance at all that this could be usable?"...

Are you being serious? I've never seen a lens in such a pitiful state. Were you to buy it everything you shoot will look like it's been snapped through a '+3' soft-focus filter and the film you used was 25 years past its 'Use By' date into the bargain.

Looking for the upsides? It would make a wonderfully inexpensive alternative to a Thambar...

Philip.

Edited December 15, 2023 by pippy

[Advertisement]

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

[Danner]

LOL

[rtai]

Hard pass! DR with near perfect glass is common.

[nitroplait]

Coating marks and micro-scratches from over cleaning is common on the collapsible a the two rigid Sumicrons - glass and coating was very soft.

It will cause some degree of contrast drop depending on lighting conditions. These defects can never be remedied economically. If you buy such a lens you should think of it as permanent.

The lens you show however seems to have something more servere going on. It looks 3 dimensional to my eye which would indicate something more problematic.

[espelt]

There was a Summarit in a very similar condition hanging on an M2 that I bought.
Of course I tried it out anyway. And was surprised that it still worked. With the aperture open, the subjects were very blurred, and stopped down they were even quite usable. I sold it later. The buyer was looking for something exactly like this...

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!

 

[overexposed]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

sure, people overestimate the influence of scratches on the image quality.

but this is hardcore, also a hard pass for me

[spydrxx]

When it is this bad on the rear lens, it is definitely a pass unless I want a really soft image.

[pippy]

6 hours ago, espelt said:

There was a Summarit in a very similar condition hanging on an M2 that I bought.
Of course I tried it out anyway. And was surprised that it still worked. With the aperture open, the subjects were very blurred, and stopped down they were even quite usable...

I actually rather like the images you posted, Oliver, and certainly for scenes such as these the lens definitely added something...erm...interesting.

I have a similarly 'destroyed' 50mm Summar (it effectively came free bundled with a Nicca III 'Barnack' clone) and it produces photographs with much the same 'look'. The only difference is that mine produces images slightly sharper at f2.0 and the images soften-up as the lens is stopped down.

Quite nice for some situations but completely useless for everyday snapping.

Philip.

[espelt]

vor 18 Minuten schrieb pippy:

Quite nice for some situations but completely useless for everyday snapping.

Yes, completely agree with you. You can use a lens like this from time to time for certain situations. Or smear grease on a filter.
I wouldn't buy a lens like this individually. But you can definitely try it out as a bycatch.

[pippy]

8 hours ago, espelt said:

Yes, completely agree with you. You can use a lens like this from time to time for certain situations. Or smear grease on a filter...

Not wishing to go too far off-tangent - although I'm not sure we could go much further with the OP anyhow - to put some context and throw some reasoning behind my previous post (#9) regarding the knackered Summar...

When first tried the lens was used outdoors on a sunny summer's day. The aperture used would have been down in the f8.0 / f11.0 area. Results were 'interesting' in that although percieved details were actually very sharp the whole of the image suffered from a pronounced 'glow' which made the photograph appear soft all over; hence my reference to the "poor man's Thambar" back in the start of the thread.

Then something unexpected happened. At a later date the lens was used in a low-light situation at f2.0 and the image's details were still sharp (for a mid 1930's 'fast' lens) but even although the lens was now wide-open there was considerably less glow than had been seen previously.

The only real area of damage to the optics is to the central-circle area of the front element; the outer-edges of this glass seems to be relatively undamaged. It is my theory (and it really is no more than that) is that when the lens is used at f11.0 the more-damaged area of the lens has, proportionally speaking, a greater influence over the captured image than when the aperture is at f2.0 where, perhaps, the less-damaged parts of the element have a greater say in how the image is rendered.

Absolutely no idea as to how this theory might be put to the test!

Philip.

Edited December 16, 2023 by pippy

[pgk]

I had a 90mm Elmarit-M with significant coating damage. Despite this it was still very 'sharp' but unfortunately had distinct 'glow' (highlight bleed) at all apertures. This seems to be the effect of myriad small scratches and/or coating damage which displace highlights into any adjacent hard shadow areas producing 'glow'. I have other lenses with element damage and they can exhibit similar effects depending on the lighting and aperture, etc.

[jaapv]

Actually I think it has fungus along the edges as well. A definite no-no.