British fungus attacks

akptc

akptc

Shoot first, think later
Local time
8:59 AM
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
1,709
Location
Kansas. OMG. Kansas.
View My Gallery
Today I received a much anticipated late Summicron 50/2. The lens looks great from the front and the sides. But one look from the back, and my knees almost buckled (see pic). What gets me is that the GB seller advertised it as "Great condition, no issues re: haze, scratches, coating marks." I guess he didn't say "no fungus"...

So I wonder if this darned thing can be cleaned. I know haze usually can be wiped but fungus is a different story.

I don't suppose taking a Summicron apart is a DIY job, is it? Any idea what it will cost me to even try and get this thing into some kind of a clean shape?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

(btw, the images of the back of the lens were taked with a flashlight shining onto the front glass)
 

Attachments

  • fungus_and_haze_and_dust.gif
    fungus_and_haze_and_dust.gif
    509.4 KB · Views: 0
So sorry to hear Andy. Has the seller agreed to take it back or pay for at least part of the refurbishing (if it can be done)?

If you haven't already, e-mail DAG, he is very quick to respond, and you'll know right away if he can fix it. The other alternative is Focal Point.
 
Fungus. Ugh. The big problem is that while you can clean the fungus off, you can't get rid of the etching its done into the glass...I hope it's not too bad. I can't tell how extensive it is in the photos.

gl,
allan
 
I bought a foggy front element 35 summilux which looks as yours. Looks excellent until viewed with a loupe. I got it for 650$. I'm not sure if it was a deal or not, still. What I know is, if not shooting bright contre-jour, there is no ill-effect.

Now, would I be better shooting with a 300$ Ultron instead of a foggy (maybe fungus) 35 1.4 'lux? don't know... I just don't think about it, really.

I tested it against a new Ultron and it was sharper in the center at all f stops and showed much better detail in the shadows. Was softer in the corners, though.
 
Avotius said:
send it back, fungus is the worst problem you could have with this lens next to it showing up with no glass inside.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Talking from personal experience or just talking theoretically? In my experience, I'm not sure it's as bad as the popular belief. Fungus can stop growing . If fungus in on the front element, chances are it just won't affect nothing. If on the rear element, then it might be a problem.

Care to justify?
 
NB23 said:
Why do you say that? Talking from personal experience or just talking theoretically? In my experience, I'm not sure it's as bad as the popular belief. Fungus can stop growing . If fungus in on the front element, chances are it just won't affect nothing. If on the rear element, then it might be a problem.

Care to justify?
Click to expand...


Sure no problem. A while ago I had a mamiya 6 and a few lenses. My 150mm lens had fungus growing in it. These were not big specks either, at least no bigger then the ones he has there. In the end I got it cleaned out but after that there were all these kind of...almost like dead spots on the photos were there was little contrast. I ended up selling off the lens as parts and got another one.
 
NB23 said:
Why do you say that? Talking from personal experience or just talking theoretically? In my experience, I'm not sure it's as bad as the popular belief. Fungus can stop growing . If fungus in on the front element, chances are it just won't affect nothing. If on the rear element, then it might be a problem.

Care to justify?
Click to expand...

Fungus emits hydroflouric acid as a waste product. This is one of the few acids that will attack glass. If you don't think having a lens element that's been etched by acid can affect your pictures why bother polishing the elements at all?
 
Nick R. said:
Fungus emits hydroflouric acid as a waste product. This is one of the few acids that will attack glass. If you don't think having a lens element that's been etched by acid can affect your pictures why bother polishing the elements at all?
Click to expand...

And you, why do you bother owning the most expensive glass on the market, Leica glass, if it's not for shooting Pulitzer winning photographs exclusively?

Just asking...
 
Would you have bought it if vendor had said fungus? It is send it back or ask for part refund for CLA, and risk that you need repolish/recoat. It looks bad to me. I've had fungus that did not attack the glass and fungus that did and 'yours' looks like the latter.

Sorry

Noel
 
Hi Andy,

is it really fungus ? When I have seen fungus in progressed state with a loupe, you can see typical spyderwebs ...
If it is, send it back. If you cannt, have it CLA'ed or clean it yourself if you can disassemble the lens (not easy
with the Summicron). Until then, I suggest keeping it away from your other lenses, and maybe, before the cleaning,
expose it to sun-shine for a few days.

Also, some fungus can not be cleaned at all, either when it has etched the glass or when it's between
cemented elements.

Sorry for the bad experience,

Roland.
 
NB23 said:
And you, why do you bother owning the most expensive glass on the market, Leica glass, if it's not for shooting Pulitzer winning photographs exclusively?

Just asking...
Click to expand...

You are very rude.
 
British fungus! I've been called a lot of things but never fungus.😀

I'd keep the lens away from any other glass (as already stated above) and get it checked/CLA'd if you are considering keeping it. The seller should have noticed it.

I've an old Nikon 80mm enlarging lens somewhere with dead fungus, it's just a paper weight at work now, in England. 😉
 
Thanks so much everybody for the replies and commiseration, they are much appreciated. I’d have replied sooner but didn’t get the usual auto-notifications by the bbs, got to fix that. Anyway, the seller, once he saw the images, apologized and promised to refund every penny, shipping included, as a true gentlemen would. So, the lens is off to GB today.

Btw, I did not mean to offend any Englishman or women, just thought fungus and the wet country (as I recall it) was a natural association 😉

Nope, I have no clue whether it really is fungus, I am rather green about this kind of stuff. But it looks bad. I did shoot a few frames and compared them to 50 hexanon, no visible difference. My worry was that the fungus would spread, plus the darn thing smelled really bad.

I guess I will be in the market for a bargain Summicron 50 soon 🙂

Thanks again!
 
The seller has lied. Get a refund. His economy of words is deliberately misleading. A lens damaged by fungus cannot possibly be 'great' so give him no room for wiggle. I had the same BS from seller wo sold a LF lens in 'superb condition' which had a frot filter ding making filters use impossible. He claimed he did not notice...having inspected the glass and listing it as perfect. Absolute horse cr@p. Take no rubbish and get your money back. Besides, fungus produces spores and you want them in your camera bag with your other lenses?

Tom
 
Nick R. said:
You are very rude.
Click to expand...

And not just rude! Fortunate too!

On RFF thread "Santa wants to know who deserves a new Voigtlander" our friend explained "I'm poor, formerly from the former yugoslavia, good at photography and since I don't own a rangefinder I haven't really posted here. So this makes me a good candidate... I guess."

But only yesterday we find " I bought a 35 summilux... I got it for 650$. I'm not sure if it was a deal or not... I tested it against a new Ultron and it was sharper in the center at all f stops and showed much better detail in the shadows. Was softer in the corners, though".

May we all be so lucky! And may we be unfailingly civil to each other, as long characterised this once troll-free forum.

Cheers Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom