When does a lens become 'old'?

[roydonian]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I went to Leica Mayfair in London today to purchase a replacement accessory-shoe cover for my Series 60 camera. I also produced my 35mm Summilux ASPH, whose front section had started to unscrew, but which had not returned to the correct location when retightened. They fixed that problem in less than 10 minutes, and also adjusted the accessory shoe on my camera so that it gripped the shoe cover more firmly.

I've had a lot of problems with my Tri-Elmar MATE due to flare, particularly at the 50mm setting, but all they could suggest was that I pay for a CLA, saying "It's an old lens". This came as a surprise to me, given that the lens in question was probably manufactured around 2000.  If that's their criteria for declaring a lens 'old', I wonder what they'd make of my 50mm Summilux which was made in 1961, or my 90mm Tele-Elmar made around 1963?. But I suppose that viewpoints of someone in his eighties and someone around half that age are somewhat different.

However the prospect of paying £500 for a CLA that may do little or nothing to solve the flare problem with my Tri-Elmar is not an attractive one.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

An old lens is a lens from the 20th century i suppose. The MATE has been launched in 1998 AFAIK.

[Ecar]

I guess anything discontinued gets labelled as "old"... The MATE is so useful for travel that it's my most used lens. Flare at 50mm is a well-documented issue and I'm afraid no CLA will fix it (I tried). I have learnt to live with it and resort to mitigating strategies.

[Dazzajl]

The answer in my reality is probably when I’ve dropped it at least three times. 
 

In sense of any supplier, it’s probably when there is something they’d like to ‘upsell’ you to. 

[250swb]

I wouldn't start with 'has the lens changed' but have your cameras changed over time, or have your expectations been modified? Noticeable causes of lens flare should be visible by looking through the lens and looking for extreme fogging because there are myriads of normal lens 'faults' like scratches or fungus that do not show up in the photograph itself until extreme in nature.

[osaf]

Well, what is a small potato, what is a large one?

By heart, "becomes old" is a mix of a lot of years and significant signs of use, to be decided case by case. By logic, I would look at the economic and technical lifecycle of a lens. No idea about the values... The German tax authorization accepts a depreciation period of 7 years for commercially used camera equipment - I would take this as a economic lifecycle. The technical lifecycle could be 2-3 times longer? This would be nearly 20 years. Hence, your lens is old.

A lens build in the early 60's is not "old", it is "vintage" and "historical". 😉 

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, roydonian said:

..."It's an old lens". This came as a surprise to me, given that the lens in question was probably manufactured around 2000...

I'd classify a 25-y-o lens as 'Old'.

Come to think of it I'd classify my M-D Typ-262 is 'Old' and it was made a mere eight years ago or thereabouts...

Philip.

[BradS]

These are camera sales people. Anything that is not currently being made is old as soon as they sell out....especially if something "new" replaces it.

Edited January 18 by BradS

[adan]

Some thoughts:

1) "old" for technological products bears no particular relationship to "old" for humans (or dogs, or cats, or oak trees, or any other biological life-span).

2) "old" does not mean "no longer fit for purpose." Although the converse is often true.

3) "old" may mean "past the end of service life."

4) "old" may mean "past the mean time between failures."

5) "old" = "not new." As in "I just bought a 35mm Summilux-M ASPH." - "Really? Was it the old version, or the new one?"
          5a) corollary: A lens no longer made, and replaced with a general equivalent (aperture/focal-length) is "old"
          5b) corollary: A lens no longer made, but not replaced with any direct equivalent, is probably "old" when 3) or 4) apply.

6) It can get tricky. For example, the optical design of the current 50 Summicron (v.4) is 46 years "old" - while the cosmetic/external design (v.5) is about 33 years "old" - yet one can buy one "new" today. Other examples would be "revivals" of long-unproduced lenses. 28 Summaron-M. 90 Thambar-M. 35mm Summilux-M steel-rim, 50mm Elmar-M f/2.8.

Taking all of the above into consideration, along with the general progression of Leica lenses, I would say that a Leica lens becomes "old" on the close order of 15-20 years after the production date of the specific example.

But remember 2)........ 😁

[farnz]

Is a new Old Delft lens old or new?

Pete.

[spydrxx]

I'd say when it's not new. I don't mean new to you, but new to the market. Everything else, in today's world, seems to be categorized as "old".

[Vanillasludge]

20 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

The answer in my reality is probably when I’ve dropped it at least three times. 
 

In sense of any supplier, it’s probably when there is something they’d like to ‘upsell’ you to. 

They flare. I sold mine within 6 months after it ruined loads of shots.  Probably my most disappointing Leica lens, followed closely by the original Elmarit R 28mm

[DadDadDaddyo]

My 1936 Elmar 5cm f/3.5 is probably old, but it doesn't show it, and I still use it. 

[M9reno]

"Old" is a frequent excuse for scratched glass, haze, and oil on blades on ebay.

"Old" is also a word typically used in Leica boutiques by inexperienced staff to describe discontinued items and anything else they have no clue about.

[RexGig0]

Leica is known to have tightened-up its quality control, in lens manufacture, as it entered the digital M camera era, in 2006, according to multiple Red Dot Forum presentations at their You Tube channel. Red Dot Forum is a part of Leica Store Miami. An older lens, sent to Leica for 6-bit coding, will be fitted with a new mount, that is up to modern specifications. So, I reckon that pre-2006 can be used as a standard of “old.”

[roydonian]

My 5cm Elmar was made in 1938, and my 73mm Hektor in 1931. The number of cake candles needed by both would constitute a fire hazard!

[BernardC]

On 1/17/2025 at 2:41 PM, roydonian said:

I've had a lot of problems with my Tri-Elmar MATE due to flare, particularly at the 50mm setting, but all they could suggest was that I pay for a CLA, saying "It's an old lens".

25 years is old enough to need service, especially for a lens that has so many moving pieces. 

[roydonian]

Why? What is going to wear out or need adjustment? Because of the flare problem, this lens has been little used by me, and to judge by its condition when I purchased it, it saw very little use by its original owner.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Stuart Richardson]

If there are people who are old enough to vote or drink who are younger than the lens, then chances are it is old. As said above, that does not mean it is not fit for purpose. But twenty years is certainly enough for haze to form and for grease to start degrading. I would not pay 500 GBP for a CLA though. I find it hard to believe it would be that expensive from a good third party (or honestly from Leica...is that what they quoted?).

[lct]

To oldies like me 25 years is a baby lens 👶🏻 but as far as the MATE is concerned, a CLA clould do little to fix its flare issues at 50mm. It is a matter of reflections i guess since suffice it to make some shade with a hat or a hand to prevent it. The hood of the MATE can serve too but the best solution is to use the lens in LV mode as the flare is visible when shooting then.

Edited January 20 by lct