Another Leica question

[remrf]

I recently bought a Leica IIIa and a 50mm Summar F-2 lens. I bought both off ebay and the camera seems to be fine and as described in the listing. The lens which arrived today is another matter.

At first glance it looked okay. It was smooth in it's travel and locked tightly when extended. But looking closely at the front lens with a loupe I see horrible fine scratching "cleaning marks" over the entire front lens surface. The scratches are also visable when the lens is viewd through the rear element. They are not readily visible when looking at the front element without magnification.

My guess would be that the best I can hope for is a lessening of contrast and sharpness. and a greater possiblity of flare when on anything near on-axis with the sun or light source.

Do any of you have a lens in similar condition? If so what have you found to be the effect?

I have seven days to return the lens at my cost and with a 15% restocking fee though I suppose it could be argured that they did not list this lens correctly or honestly. They claim,"minor cleaning marks" when they are MAJOR.

TIA

 

[FPjohn]

Hello:

I would use it, at smaller apertures, on a test roll of your favourite film before rejecting it.

Surface flaws are common on older leitz glass and a CLA is often considered standard on purchase. Enjoy your camera.

yours
Frank

 

[remrf]

Hello:

I would use it, at smaller apertures, on a test roll of your favourite film before rejecting it.

Surface flaws are common on older leitz glass and a CLA is often considered standard on purchase. Enjoy your camera.

yours
Frank

I'm curious. What can a cla do about a damaged front element? The rear element looks fine and there does not appear to be dust between the lenses so I'm not sure what a cleaning could do to improve what I consider to be the problem.

 

[FPjohn]

Hello:

A cla would not improve the condition of the front element and your lens may not need one. I use a clean Summar and often shoot from the shade into the light but seldom against it. Your lens may look very poor yet perform well-its worth trying out.

yours
Frank

 

[ChrisN]

Scratches (even fairly bad ones) on the front element are usually not a problem. (As opposed to scratches on the rear element.) Use it with a hood and it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[ray_g]

I agree with Frank that the older Leitz lenses such as the Summar were very prone to getting cleaning marks. Depending on how much you paid for it, a Summar with cleaning marks that require the use of a loupe to see is quite difficult to come across.

They probably will not have much of an impact on your photos. In fact, if sharpness and contrast are your main concerns, then a different Leica lans would probably suit you better. Most cherish the Summar for it's low-contrast, old time look, which, depending on the lighting, may give you a (dare I say) "glow." Most think this glow is a result of abberations and lack of microcontrast in the older lens, which may even be enhanced by the defects often present in these lenses.

That being said, if you think these defects will continue to nag at you, then you had best return the lens. I doubt the seller will agree with your definition of "major" though, if the scratches are not readily visible to the naked eye, so you should probably be prepared to shoulder the restocking fee.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

If you have to look that closely for scratches on the front element, it is not an issue. I am curious: is this Summar a coated lens? Typical Summars are uncoated. Old glass builds up a glaze that can reduce reflections, the same effect as a coating.

Test the lens with film.

A couple of scratches in the Glass:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=18705&cat=500&ppuser=205

No real effect, even wide-open:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=8310&cat=3204
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=8309&cat=3204

 

[remrf]

The Summar lens is an older one. The collapsible type. I do not think it has any coating.

I have some B&W C-41 in the camera now and I will shoot some film tomorrow. Thank you all for your advice and suggestions.

I may have to get another lens. I'm not really looking for a softer "old time" look. Granted it has been over 30 years since I had my IIIc but that 50 mm lens was as sharp as a tack. I shot an open shadow head and shoulders frontal portrait of a friend who was running for city council which appeared in the local newspaper. The photo was only 3"x2" when it ran but you could see the weave of his shirt clearly even in the newsprint copy.

I have never owned or used a camera with "cleaning marks" this bad. Using this one as a base line then every other lens I own is mint or near mint. Including my 30 plus year old Wallensak Optar 150 mm on my Crown Graphic and ditto aged Mamiya 180 mm for the C-3.