Advice for a Voigtlander 35/1.7 LTM & Haze

[Teemō1]

Repeating what was said earlier - consider a Canon f2.0. It is a much smaller lens and you give up a minimal maximum opening. The only problem with the Canon is the lens hood. I don't think Canon made one for this lens, but I have been using a Fuji 40mm diameter hood and it seems to work well. The rendering is more modern than my other LTM lenses but not obnoxiously so. They, too, can have haze. Neither lens has a focus tab, if that's important to you. The CV 35 2.5 gets rave reviews.

I will keep it in mind as an option! Unless it uses an odd pitch on the thread, a hood shouldn't be a problem to buy.

I can't recall distortion to be something bugging me within years I used all three different versions of this lens. Same about focus shift. Can't recall any.
It was sharp like any other normal lens. No corners smearing.

Nine pages of images from this lens, many are taking with film.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?
t=97500&page=1

Hundred of mine with Color Skopar 35 2.5. All on film. Some of them with it on R.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=57054281@N08&view_all=1&text=Color Skopar 35

This one should be wide open. It was getting dark and it was crappy Polypan F 50.

-clipped-
Bessa R and Color Skopar 35 2.5 P. Focus on fire pit.

Looks sharp right into the corners to me. It may be the ticket, we'll see! No viewfinder blockage would be superb. Do you have the 'P' or 'C' version?

If there is haze between cemented elements, no you will not have them separated by anyone. First, I strongly suspect the cement in modern CV lenses is not balsam but new UV cured cement. Essentially permanent. Second, if the cement is separable there are few who can or will attempt the repair in a RF lens. The last person I know of in the US has retired. The few less well known techs likely stick to older LF lenses that are easier to work with, collimate, and with balsam cement. If you happen to find someone competent who will work on cemented elements in the CV 35/1.7, they will cost at least 1.5 times the value of the lens.
Just saying.

They can be separated. There are a few services in Asia which do this specifically for vintage lenses. I don't know about cost, I'll get a quote, but so far at least one business doesn't appear to have dealt with any 35/1.7's in over 5 years of business, but plenty of 50/1.1 Noktons and 75/90mm CV's. I can't find any reference to the 35/1.7 having cement issues but it appears fairly common in their other lenses. I am seeing quite a few 35/2.5's with similar mild haze. I'm thinking it's condensation due to humid storage conditions. I don't think that would occur between a doublet that doesn't have cement issues, but it could still be between individual elements of the optical block (despite that they are sealed).
The way I see (hope) it is, the haze has got a good chance of only being on the surfaces directly adjacent to the aperture - they are most exposed to penetration throughout the rest of the lens. Because of the number of CV lenses with haze or cement issues, I'm not exactly full of confidence that the issue won't just develop in the future, if the conditions are right.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The best thing you can do when your Cosina Voigtländer lens needs repair, is asking Stephen Gandy what to do.

Erik.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Looks sharp right into the corners to me. It may be the ticket, we'll see! No viewfinder blockage would be superb. Do you have the 'P' or 'C' version?

I went through all three versions. I found Classic to be less prone for aperture ring shift (due to close distance to focus ring) and not flaring.
It also not limited by 0.9m as P.

 

[Teemō1]

The best thing you can do when your Cosina Voigtländer lens needs repair, is asking Stephen Gandy what to do.

Erik.

Unfortunately he doesn't take gear from outside the US, and I'm not sure the lens cleaning service on his website covers the internals.

I went through all three versions. I found Classic to be less prone for aperture ring shift (due to close distance to focus ring) and not flaring.
It also not limited by 0.9m as P.

Good to know. And are there any optical differences/changes for each version of this lens?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Optically they are the same.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Unfortunately he doesn't take gear from outside the US, and I'm not sure the lens cleaning service on his website covers the internals.

You can bring your lens to a dealer connected to Ring Foto, the German importer, or send it directly to them. Benno-Strauß-Straße 39, 90763 Fürth, Duitsland⋅ Phone +49 911 65850. First call them, very nice people.

Erik.

 

[Teemō1]

Optically they are the same.

Cheers!

You can bring your lens to a dealer connected to Ring Foto, the German importer, or send it directly to them. Benno-Strauß-Straße 39, 90763 Fürth, Duitsland⋅ Phone +49 911 65850. First call them, very nice people.

Erik.

So they are still servicing discontinued lenses, or will they send it somewhere else?

The tech I spoke to has experience with all types of lenses, and receives a lot of Voigtlanders, including the 35. All of them are showing separation in the cemented groups to varying degrees. He suggested it is better to buy a discounted lens with the problems and fix them, as the exact cause of the separation is unknown - probably high humidity as a lot of them from Japan come with Haze. It often occurs as a very fine mist - so usually it is not total separation as seen in older lenses.

 

[rfaspen]

They can be separated. There are a few services in Asia which do this specifically for vintage lenses. I don't know about cost, I'll get a quote, but so far at least one business doesn't appear to have dealt with any 35/1.7's in over 5 years of business, but plenty of 50/1.1 Noktons and 75/90mm CV's. I can't find any reference to the 35/1.7 having cement issues but it appears fairly common in their other lenses. I am seeing quite a few 35/2.5's with similar mild haze. I'm thinking it's condensation due to humid storage conditions. I don't think that would occur between a doublet that doesn't have cement issues, but it could still be between individual elements of the optical block (despite that they are sealed).
The way I see (hope) it is, the haze has got a good chance of only being on the surfaces directly adjacent to the aperture - they are most exposed to penetration throughout the rest of the lens. Because of the number of CV lenses with haze or cement issues, I'm not exactly full of confidence that the issue won't just develop in the future, if the conditions are right.

This is very surprising. I had conversations about seperation and cements with John Van Stelton (Focal Point) in the U.S. before he retired. John was the last "great" lens repair shop on this continent. Yes, SK Grimes are good too, but are reluctant to work on lenses of interest to me... except for my LF lenses.

Most modern lenses with UV cemented groups require substantial effort and nasty chemicals to separate. Older lenses that used balsam can be separated more easily, and then it becomes a matter of how practical the access will be (e.g., the Leica 90/2.8 elmarit v1). According to John, the effort and time required to repair a lens requiring separation of UV cemented elements can lead to a cost greater than the lens, sometimes much greater. He seemed to suggest it is most practical for lenses that are rare or special. And that's considering the separation part, lens disassembly, cleaning, reassembly, collimation can be difficult too -- especially modern zoom lenses, but luckily we're talking lovely little RF lenses here 😉

I suppose I would like to know more about the shops you mentioned. I have lenses with separation issues that I would like to repair, but not spend a fortune in doing so. I repair most of my own balsam-cemented issues, but not the others. Methylene chloride was just banned from consumer use in the U.S. and it was banned in the E.U. (and U.K. now) a while ago. In any case, if cost is reasonable at the shops you mentioned, shipping to/from Asia is not a barrier.

Oddly enough, I seem to have a small can of Methylene chloride in my shop. Can't remember why I have it. Better hold on to it because I can't get more. According to the press release I read, the reason for banning consumer sale of MeCL2 is due to the high number of people using the product in a non-ventilated space -- exactly what the instructions on the label tell you NOT to do -- Usually in all caps.
Are we being saved from ourselves? Or thwarting natural selection?

 

[Erik van Straten]

Cheers!



So they are still servicing discontinued lenses, or will they send it somewhere else?

They still service them or they send them to the factory in Japan. It then will take a few months, but they do it. But why do you ask this here? Just call them.

Erik.

 

[Takkun]

Teemō—
I dug out my Ultron as I’m planning to take it to a local repairer this week and get to the bottom of whatever’s ailing it. They did a number on my M5 but had good luck with vintage lenses so far.

Not as bad as I remember, but he grassing happened very quickly. I don’t mind it at all. The hood, which is floating around somewhere, fared a bit worse.

I’d share some samples but I don’t have a coded adapter (for identification shooting digital) nor keep detailed records of my images, so I couldn’t tell you which were which, but the internet being what it is, there’s plenty of info out there.

 

[Teemō1]

They still service them or they send them to the factory in Japan. It then will take a few months, but they do it. But why do you ask this here? Just call them.

Erik.

Saves the international credit, and most companies will not repair such products due to lack of parts. Voigtlander.de states the authorised repairer is ffs-service.de but in other countries, it seems as though the equipment is sent back to Japan by the local distributor, and not actually repaired or even properly looked at by Cosina - with very, very long wait times.

Teemō—
I dug out my Ultron as I’m planning to take it to a local repairer this week and get to the bottom of whatever’s ailing it. They did a number on my M5 but had good luck with vintage lenses so far.

-clip-

Not as bad as I remember, but the brassing happened very quickly. I don’t mind it at all. The hood, which is floating around somewhere, fared a bit worse.

I’d share some samples but I don’t have a coded adapter (for identification shooting digital) nor keep detailed records of my images, so I couldn’t tell you which were which, but the internet being what it is, there’s plenty of info out there.

It looks better than the random flaking seen on some lenses. I guess that was Cosina's intention with the not-so durable paint - to give the lens more classic appeal. I really liked the black though, it seems to give the engravings a kind of 'depth' about them.
Of course pretty much everything you can read on this lens indicates that it's perfect (for the money).

 

[Teemō1]

This is very surprising. I had conversations about seperation and cements with John Van Stelton (Focal Point) in the U.S. before he retired. John was the last "great" lens repair shop on this continent. Yes, SK Grimes are good too, but are reluctant to work on lenses of interest to me... except for my LF lenses.

Most modern lenses with UV cemented groups require substantial effort and nasty chemicals to separate. Older lenses that used balsam can be separated more easily, and then it becomes a matter of how practical the access will be (e.g., the Leica 90/2.8 elmarit v1). According to John, the effort and time required to repair a lens requiring separation of UV cemented elements can lead to a cost greater than the lens, sometimes much greater. He seemed to suggest it is most practical for lenses that are rare or special. And that's considering the separation part, lens disassembly, cleaning, reassembly, collimation can be difficult too -- especially modern zoom lenses, but luckily we're talking lovely little RF lenses here 😉

I suppose I would like to know more about the shops you mentioned. I have lenses with separation issues that I would like to repair, but not spend a fortune in doing so. I repair most of my own balsam-cemented issues, but not the others. Methylene chloride was just banned from consumer use in the U.S. and it was banned in the E.U. (and U.K. now) a while ago. In any case, if cost is reasonable at the shops you mentioned, shipping to/from Asia is not a barrier.

Oddly enough, I seem to have a small can of Methylene chloride in my shop. Can't remember why I have it. Better hold on to it because I can't get more. According to the press release I read, the reason for banning consumer sale of MeCL2 is due to the high number of people using the product in a non-ventilated space -- exactly what the instructions on the label tell you NOT to do -- Usually in all caps.
Are we being saved from ourselves? Or thwarting natural selection?

It's interesting that you mention Focal Point, I had the website bookmarked for some time. I've just tried it again but it goes to a Chinese website now... he's retired.
The service I found is "老鏡回春記專業鏡頭維修服務 Old Manual Focus Lens Repair & CLA" in Taiwan. Although this probably isn't the price for every lens, I was quoted US$150 for 1 cemented group, and US$270 for 2 groups in the Voigtlander. To me that seems quite reasonable, especially if you own an expensive or rare lens.
I have no idea if Cosina use UV-cement or something else, and not sure what this service uses, but they offer a 2-year warranty.
It seems Cosina might had resolved the cement issue since their M-mount lenses, at least.

While it seems like many Voigtlander LTM lenses suffer from the issue, there is a bit of confirmation bias since lenses with haze are more likely to be sold again than lenses without haze.

 

[maddoc]

I just recently bought a copy for a reasonable price at Yahoo! Auction in Japan. The seller described the lens as "slightly" hazy and from his photos I could not really see haze so I assumed it wouldn`t be to bad. When the lens had arrived I immediately checked for haze, barely visible under normal conditions but was really surprised when shining with a flash light through the lens, it appeared almost milky opaque. I tested the lens with film and it behaved OK except under strong back light conditions.


Last week I sent the lens to Cosina, Japan and got a reply on Monday telling me that 1) there are no spare-parts for that lens anymore and b) that kind of "haze" could not be cleaned. I was told that they would not even attempt to do so and send it right back to me.


I am wondering now what kind of haze that is, which cannot be cleaned and requires exchange of a lens element?

 

[retinax]

As I posted in another thread about my luckless hunt for a haze-free 35 1.7 Ultron, a repair person told me he suspected it to be a problem with the optical cement used. That would certainly explain why cosina do not want to tackle the repair. I have disassembled my 28 1.9 Ultron which suffers from a little bit of haze as well and it might well be in a cemented group there as well, but additionally I found some haze on some surfaces. The 90 3.5 has already gained an online reputation of getting hazy, and I believe I've read this about the rare "Rollei" labeled ltm Sonnar 40 2.8 as well. I don't understand it because Cosina had been manufacturing lenses for a while when they started making ltm lenses, but apparently Cosina had some issues in the first series of ltm lenses.

 

[TenEleven]

I guess I'll chime in with similar experiences here. I've wanted a fast well corrected 35 LTM for quite some while now, but they are either absurdly expensive or like the ultrons I've seen have haze and/or other condition issues. A shame, really, the 35/1.7 seems like an ace lens otherwise.

 

[maddoc]

This reminds of a CV 75/2.5 that I had to return one month earlier because it showed exactly the same kind of opaque haze somewhere inside the lens. I wasn`t aware that so many different lenses of the older design were effected.

As I posted in another thread about my luckless hunt for a haze-free 35 1.7 Ultron, a repair person told me he suspected it to be a problem with the optical cement used. That would certainly explain why cosina do not want to tackle the repair. I have disassembled my 28 1.9 Ultron which suffers from a little bit of haze as well and it might well be in a cemented group there as well, but additionally I found some haze on some surfaces. The 90 3.5 has already gained an online reputation of getting hazy, and I believe I've read this about the rare "Rollei" labeled ltm Sonnar 40 2.8 as well. I don't understand it because Cosina had been manufacturing lenses for a while when they started making ltm lenses, but apparently Cosina had some issues in the first series of ltm lenses.

 

[jonmanjiro]

I will chime in with my two yen as well. I have had bad luck multiple times with hazy older LTM (and M-mount) CV lenses. After some disassembly in each case, I confirmed the haze was in between cemented elements and unrepairable (well, beyond my capabilities anyway), so it was the optical cement that was the culprit. Its a very common problem with the Ricoh LTM 21mm and 28mm lenses too.

 

[Gregm61]

It's one thing when you see these issues in a Leica lens from the 1950's through the 70's, but a lens less than 15-20 years old seems a little absurd. Hopefully, whatever the issue was, they're doing things differently today in producing the M mount line of lenses.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Just a personal observation from the lenses I've handled and used, but I think Voigtlander build quality improved by leaps and bounds when Cosina started manufacturing Zeiss lenses (despite there being some teething problems with the Zeiss lenses as well). The build quality of the latest Voigtlander lenses from Cosina is excellent IMO.

 

[maddoc]

The 50/2.5 in LTM also seems to be very OK, at least my copy of the lens for sure is.