Verdantree
Newbie
Hi all, I just picked up a Color Skopar 35mm Pancake I with the screw mount thread from eBay. In my late night purchase I failed to notice that it was listed as having 'light haze' - despite also being described as 'near mint' - which then lead me to discovering the cement haze issue with these lenses.
For context this was my first Leica compatible lens that I purchased as a Christmas present to myself along with a Canon L1. I've taken a look at it, just to the naked eye it looks perfect, but shine a torch through it and there is some haze, though I'm unsure how bad it is. I intend to take it into a couple local shops to get it inspected for a second opinion but thought I might drop it in here as well.
The seller has a 30 days no questions asked return policy so the only real loss will be in shipping costs, frustrating but bearable.
Thoughts? Will it perform adequately as is, is it worse than described or should I just bite the bullet and return it?
For context this was my first Leica compatible lens that I purchased as a Christmas present to myself along with a Canon L1. I've taken a look at it, just to the naked eye it looks perfect, but shine a torch through it and there is some haze, though I'm unsure how bad it is. I intend to take it into a couple local shops to get it inspected for a second opinion but thought I might drop it in here as well.
The seller has a 30 days no questions asked return policy so the only real loss will be in shipping costs, frustrating but bearable.
Thoughts? Will it perform adequately as is, is it worse than described or should I just bite the bullet and return it?
Attachments
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
You have to pay attention for what you are doing. Late night purchases, titles and photos.
On title it is f2.2 lens, which non-exist.
Of photo it is shows optics loaded with fungus. Looks like you used fluffy pad as the background...
I don't think title is editable, but photos are re-takeble.
Get compact flash light, turn it on, put it behind the lens, not in front. Move lens to different angles, rotations until flashlight will expose all of the optical elements and what is beside, on and in-between.
On title it is f2.2 lens, which non-exist.
Of photo it is shows optics loaded with fungus. Looks like you used fluffy pad as the background...
I don't think title is editable, but photos are re-takeble.
Get compact flash light, turn it on, put it behind the lens, not in front. Move lens to different angles, rotations until flashlight will expose all of the optical elements and what is beside, on and in-between.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
My experience with the cement haze issue on older Voigtlanders is that it increases with time, and that repair is not possible or prohibitively expensive. Of course, I can't say whether the haze issue with your lens is with the cement, or is something accessible on an element surface. Even then, repair can be expensive. My experience is also that a little haze has negligible effect on 99% of photographs. Nevertheless, this lens is not rare; I'd send it back and shop (carefully!) for another.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Can a lens be called "near mint" with "light haze" or even fungus at the same time?
Maybe "minty" or "mintish" but NM, well, you decide. I know what my response to the seller would be. Being me, I do hope, politely.
I reckon it depends on what part of the lens you are looking at. I've bought several of those, mostly Nikkors, in my time.
I don't really know the Voigtlander 35/2.whatever, but a photographer friend has a 28/1.9 (or 1.7) which looks like it barely survived a forest fire. She uses it set at f/5.6 and produces many remarkable images with it - she even sells some. So it's really a lens by lens situation.
For what it's worth, my trusted camera repair person in Melbourne told me Voigtlander lenses are remarkably sharp. Which leads me to think that even with light haze it may be a good shooter, and thus a keeper.
It depends on what you paid for that lens, if the seller is prepared to refund part of the sale price, and whether or not you want to keep it. Also if the haze is really fungus, in which case you can insist on a full refund, and maybe even the postage either way to be refunded as well.
On the other hand if haze means haze and not fungus, you could think of it as your portrait lens, tho portraits with a 35 aren't really quite what I would want, tho' this said, I've done some passably okay ones with a '28 Nikkor. Horses for courses.
So many alternatives when one has an oversupply of imagination...
Maybe "minty" or "mintish" but NM, well, you decide. I know what my response to the seller would be. Being me, I do hope, politely.
I reckon it depends on what part of the lens you are looking at. I've bought several of those, mostly Nikkors, in my time.
I don't really know the Voigtlander 35/2.whatever, but a photographer friend has a 28/1.9 (or 1.7) which looks like it barely survived a forest fire. She uses it set at f/5.6 and produces many remarkable images with it - she even sells some. So it's really a lens by lens situation.
For what it's worth, my trusted camera repair person in Melbourne told me Voigtlander lenses are remarkably sharp. Which leads me to think that even with light haze it may be a good shooter, and thus a keeper.
It depends on what you paid for that lens, if the seller is prepared to refund part of the sale price, and whether or not you want to keep it. Also if the haze is really fungus, in which case you can insist on a full refund, and maybe even the postage either way to be refunded as well.
On the other hand if haze means haze and not fungus, you could think of it as your portrait lens, tho portraits with a 35 aren't really quite what I would want, tho' this said, I've done some passably okay ones with a '28 Nikkor. Horses for courses.
So many alternatives when one has an oversupply of imagination...
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
It is probably usable, but contrast will be on the low side. Most likely would be fine on film.
However, I'd return it!
Verdantree
Newbie
Thanks for the advice everyone, even from you Ko.fe, though I don't think the life advice about being more careful based on a couple of mistakes are warranted. For what it's worth I did take the photo with a compact flash light in front of the lens.
Yes this is the 35mm / f2.5. I'm currently on my way to some local camera shops to have a closer look but it's likely I'll return it. I paid about $450aud before shipping so it wasn't exactly a steal. I bought it for shooting street so contrast and sharpness are important to me.
Any recommendations for lenses of similar quality and price on LTM or am I just stuck with spending a bit more for a Nokton?
Yes this is the 35mm / f2.5. I'm currently on my way to some local camera shops to have a closer look but it's likely I'll return it. I paid about $450aud before shipping so it wasn't exactly a steal. I bought it for shooting street so contrast and sharpness are important to me.
Any recommendations for lenses of similar quality and price on LTM or am I just stuck with spending a bit more for a Nokton?
I'm not sure what the mix of type of glass and cement that caused the problems with the older Voigtlander/Cosina lenses. I have the 35/1.7 Ultron and 50/1.5 Nokton in LTM: perfect. No haze. And I have the APO Lanthar 90/3.5 in LTM and 85/3.5 in S-Mount: haze on the cemented doublet behind the aperture. Usable, needs a hood- and not to be pointed into sunlight. Must be a combination of type of glass and cement.
Best to return it. The Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 in LTM is a small lens, excellent performer.
Best to return it. The Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 in LTM is a small lens, excellent performer.
Verdantree
Newbie
Spoke to two different people at some local stores, they both said it was more than 'light' haze. Made a return request with eBay so I'll be getting my money back. One of the shops has second hand Ultron 35mm/f1.7 on the LTM mount, I might grab it though it is noticeably more expensive. Thankyou all for your advice, I'm grateful.
Archiver
Veteran
Not to dampen the fires, but the Ultron 35mm f1.7 LTM is also known for cement haze that increases over time. It's a fantastic lens that is capable of beautiful images, but I'm watching mine regularly to see if/when this develops. As far as I've read, this haze cannot be fixed because of the design of the lens.
Verdantree
Newbie
Yeah googling around I've found the same thing. I might just have to look elsewhere entirely, dissapointing as I was quite excited to have a Voightlander. Maybe I'll just see if I can get a good condition Canon lens as the Nikkor 3.5cm seems to be over the $1000aud mark.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I have the 35mm f/1.7 Ultron also. It has been a great performer and so far no problems.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Why, is there an acrylic lens element involved, which might be destroyed if dunked into the sort of solvent which can dissolve optical cement?
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
I thought of this option for you.
It's brand new and comes with LTM/M adapter and an accessory finder.
It's brand new and comes with LTM/M adapter and an accessory finder.
WoodallP
Pragmatist Barnack lover
A good price, they are sold out on
LLL’s own page.
Verdantree
Newbie
Thanks for the recommendation! I did look into LLL but there aren't any stores in Australia that stock them so the price ends up being more than just buying a new 28mm f2.5 Color Skopar type 1 and triple what I was originally paying with the eBay lens.
yossi
Well-known
I recommend the Canon 35mm f2 lens in ltm. It is a superb lens and priced around US$300-350 only. I shoot it at f8 for street photos all the time and it works really great. One sample pix below (f8, scale-focused):
Wide-open, this canon lens has a unique character:
Verdantree
Newbie
Another one to keep an eye out for! The problem I'm having is that finding any of this stuff for sale in Adelaide is seemingly impossible. There's basically only 2 shops I know of that actually sell vintage/second hand glass and it's a bit of a potluck as to whether they even have anything in stock. Online I keep having the same issue with the Color Skopar where I see something listed as near mint only for it to have fungus or haze.I recommend the Canon 35mm f2 lens in ltm. It is a superb lens and priced around US$300-350 only. I shoot it at f8 for street photos all the time and it works really great. One sample pix below (f8, scale-focused):
Wide-open, this canon lens has a unique character:
I think this L1 will unfortunately be without a lens for a while, at least until I can hunt something in good condition down. My current plan is to check out that Ultron 1.7 a little closer, see what the haze situation is like and if it's bad I'll just save a little longer. Hopefully something better shows up in the mean time and worst case I just buy a new 28mm Color Skopar.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Here is an example of how the lens worked for me on an old M240 shot at f/5.6. It handles the corona on the floodlights nicely and works well in low light. I like mine, it works.
Archiver
Veteran
The M mount Voigtlanders do not seem to have cement haze issues, moreso the LTM versions that were made prior to the late 2000s, I think. It's safer to get a later M mount Voigtlander like the Nokton 35mm f1.4 v2 or similar, unless you specifically want LTM lenses.
Verdantree
Newbie
I'm going to check out the condition of the Ultron today but at $850aud I'm hesitant even if it's very clean.
There is a Canon 35 f2.8 available on consignment that I've expressed interest in with the case and viewfinder for under $400. Anyone have thoughts on it? I expect I likely won't get the same quality of rendering that I would from a Voightlander but at this stage I'll take what's available.
There is a Canon 35 f2.8 available on consignment that I've expressed interest in with the case and viewfinder for under $400. Anyone have thoughts on it? I expect I likely won't get the same quality of rendering that I would from a Voightlander but at this stage I'll take what's available.