90mm Summicron f/2 v2 - How Bad is this Chip?

[baumannam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I happened to stumble upon this f2 Summicron for too good of a deal to pass up.  I knew there were element issues and have rectified all the others with a thorough cleaning of each lens surface save this chip/gouge in the second element from the front (its deeper than a scratch, but far less than a crack in the element).  The question I have is whether anyone thinks this will have any appreciable impact on image quality?  I've hi-lighted the spot in the image attached.  Part of me feels like it's probably no more detrimental than some of the older Zeiss and Kodak Commercial Ektar lenses I own that have bubbles in the glass from manufacturing yet still provide stunning results.  Thoughts?  I know some will say just shoot it and see if it's acceptable to you, but with no cleaner copy of this same lens I can't compare to a known quantity.

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[dpitt]

I have seen pictures taken with a 50mm lens that had its front element cracked from end to end. And still it was able to take a beautiful picture. Maybe in very rare occasions you will see an extra reflection or so caused by this... otherwise it will be fine.

More important is how it is regarding haze and possible fungus. That would affect performance more than this IMO.
Nothing to see on this picture, but it is sometimes hard to detect on images. Take it for a spin and see how it performs. Expect a bit lower contrast compared to newer lenses, otherwise this is a great lens.

[LocalHero1953]

I had the Apo-Summicron-M 90, and I carelessly caused a chip by putting it face down on an irregular rock surface. I lived with it for a number of years, then had it repaired (new front element) and sold it. I never noticed any effect on my images. I guess if the light catches it at just the wrong angle you may get some anomalous flare, but most of the time it would not be a problem. It may be slightly more at risk of causing a problem because it is further back.

How does such damage happen to a surface that is neither the front nor rear? I would worry that someone carelessly damaged it while dismantling to clean it, and that the same carelessness caused other, hidden, damage.

You say you cleaned 'each lens surface'; did you dismantle the lens entirely😮?

[baumannam]

3 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

How does such damage happen to a surface that is neither the front nor rear? I would worry that someone carelessly damaged it while dismantling to clean it, and that the same carelessness caused other, hidden, damage.

You say you cleaned 'each lens surface'; did you dismantle the lens entirely😮?

Yeah, that was my initial question as well - how did that happen.  Yes, I disassembled the optical group for cleaning to tackle some haze.  I've been fixing up camera lenses and bodies since my teenage years in the 90's.  I also have the benefit of a cleanroom at the business I own so no dust is getting back in there from myself!

[Jean-Michel]

You already put in cash and time on this lens, just go and use it. That minuscule defect will have zero effect on any image you make with it. 

[3D-Kraft.com]

It may become visible when you take a photo of a plain surface fully stopped down to f/22, but that is usually not the situation for what you bought it 😉

[fil-m]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Personally, even though and as stated, this flaw will have no to negligible impact on the final image, I wouldn't be able to experience the lens properly without thinking about it each time I use it especially that the "chip" is internal, so I'll pass. It might not be rational, but that's how it is.

My point is that if you can use and experience this lens properly without thinking about its flaw (ie "you can get over it"), then buy it.

If not, forget it and another good one will "appear" one day on the market. In all honesty I've always thought that "this is the one" for a given lens, only to lose it because I could'nt win the auction or it was sold before I could buy it, but almost every time I ended up finding something equivalent or even better/cheaper a few months later - it is all about patience (and that's tough :)) 

[250swb]

People get bigger bits of dust than that on their front element. It won't make any difference to image quality at all in any situation you can think of. There are so many other things that can degrade image quality that little mark is the least of them.

[pippy]

I'm yet another in the 'Don't waste a second on worrying about it' camp. It will make no noticeable difference whatsoever. None at all.

Just go out and have fun with it.

Philip.

[spydrxx]

Double, double toil and trouble...don't fret. The chip is irrelevant unless you plan to sell the lens, then a knowlegable buyer will demand a discount. The chip should have no noticeable effect on image quality.

[baumannam]

Thanks everyone for the reassurance. Here’s a sample from my first roll. HP5+ in 1:25 Rodinal. 

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!

[UliWer]

Am 22.4.2024 um 18:13 schrieb baumannam:

I know some will say just shoot it and see if it's acceptable to you, but with no cleaner copy of this same lens I can't compare to a known quantity.

The little spot you show will not and cannot have an effect on the whole picture you take with this lens. Either you see the little spot on the results, or you don't. If you don't, don't bother.

Btw: Your lens belongs to the 1818xxx-batch I am interested in. Everybody says that this whole batch was produced in 1961 and it has f/16 as smallest opening. I found out that this is wrong. There are three groups of lenses with 1818xxx: first group with lower numbers having f/16. Second group with mid to higher numbers still has f/16 but the dof-scale on the shaft is engraved with f/22. Example here: https://www.foto-koester.de/gebrauchtgeraete/objektive/503626/leica-summicron-m-90/2-0-silber. Third group with high numbers really has f/22 and all other characteristics of the later batches which start at 1963. 

The lowest number with the f/16 opening but f/22 on the dof-scale I found yet is 18182224. As your's is 18182227 it would be interesting to know if the lens also has  f/22 on the dof-scale but really only has f/16. Can you show the dof-scale engravings and the real opening?

[baumannam]

On 4/26/2024 at 7:35 AM, UliWer said:

The little spot you show will not and cannot have an effect on the whole picture you take with this lens. Either you see the little spot on the results, or you don't. If you don't, don't bother.

Btw: Your lens belongs to the 1818xxx-batch I am interested in. Everybody says that this whole batch was produced in 1961 and it has f/16 as smallest opening. I found out that this is wrong. There are three groups of lenses with 1818xxx: first group with lower numbers having f/16. Second group with mid to higher numbers still has f/16 but the dof-scale on the shaft is engraved with f/22. Example here: https://www.foto-koester.de/gebrauchtgeraete/objektive/503626/leica-summicron-m-90/2-0-silber. Third group with high numbers really has f/22 and all other characteristics of the later batches which start at 1963. 

The lowest number with the f/16 opening but f/22 on the dof-scale I found yet is 18182224. As your's is 18182227 it would be interesting to know if the lens also has  f/22 on the dof-scale but really only has f/16. Can you show the dof-scale engravings and the real opening?

Yep, mine has f/22 engraved, but f/16 is the narrowest aperture that can be selected on the ring.  So what's the story with these?  Mixed parts as they switched over to f/22?