DR Summicron haze evaluation

[lukx]

This topic has been stressed plenty of times, but I was wondering if any experienced members could help me evaluating a DR Summicron before I pull the trigger on it.

The lens looks to be in good cosmetic shape, including the goggles. More interesting to me is of course the condition of the glass.

The attached image was provided to me by the seller. Of course there is a ring of haze inside, as found in most of these lenses, but it does not look too bad and the glass seems otherwise free of large blemishes.

So what do the experts think? Would you expect this to get worse over the next years? Do you think it can be cleaned?

The price is about average compared to others on the local market in Germany/EU. The sale is local, so I could do a final inspection in person. Is this a deal worth taking?

Thanks in advance,
Lukas

 

[peterm1]

I find it hard to say anything definitive from this image. Usually haze if it exists, is found between next to the iris. I cannot tell where that haze is....it almost looks forward of that location. I have had lenses like this cleaned because of haze (both Leitz and Canon LTM lenses can be prone) but it is too often the case in my experience that it will not come off fully (if at all) due to it having affected the coating/surface of the lens element over the years. The lens you showed looks quite significantly affected though this may just be due to the influence of a bright light being shined through it from the rear.
When I have had such lenses sent to a technician their attitude is usually "I will try but I cannot say if the haze will come off till I disassemble the lens and give it a go". Sometimes it works, sometimes not. You would in any event wish to factor into the price (a) the risk of it not being cleanable and (b) the cost in any event of having a tech work on it to at least try. Also I would negotiate an agreement whereby you can return the lens if you decide it is not for you having tried it.

Having said that they will often still be usable up to a point.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I was just re-inspecting my V3 (for sale, here, at RFF). It has similar to it cleaning marks, but no matter how I turn it with light source in the same place, I can't see this ring of dots.
I had V4, Collapsible and Rigid and none of them has it like on the picture in OP. Not in J-3, nor in Helen Hill's Canon 50 1.8.
But first Canon 50 1.8 I had has these dots covering entire lens, not just like ring.

 

[goamules]

ALL 50-75 year old lenses will look like that with a bright light held exactly wrong. Don't sweat it, buy it. Life is short. If you don't like the PICTURES you get from it, sell it, for a 10% loss potential from what you paid. That is if you use if for 1 year, or 5 years. Buying a legacy lens for $600, then selling it a few years later for $550 is a deal you'll not find anywhere else. The flashlight test is bogus.

 

[Beemermark]

I was recently looking at a collapsible Summicron on eBay that looked just like your lens. Seller said it was recently serviced by DAG so I asked what was the marks. He stated that not all the haze could be removed. I think the oil that causes the haze also etched the glass. I don't think it would any effect except maybe a slight loss of contrast. I have some really ugly lenses with haze and heavy cleaning marks that make nice negatives. I bump up the contrast after scanning them.

 

[ellisson]

The DR and other rigid (type II) summicrons were manufactured with relatively soft coatings, as Leica did not yet have access to the hard coatings developed by Zeiss. As has been discussed in previous threads, most of these lenses accumulate small coating marks that eventually coalesce to form a cloud like mass of marks like that shown in the OP's example.
The main effect is lower contrast.

If this coating damage bothers you, the solution is re-coating the affected element. I sent one of these off for modern re-coating to Focal Point (John Van Stelton) in Colorado and the contrast was markedly improved with clearer images. Total cost was ~$300 with shipping. To my knowledge, Focal Point is no longer in business, but I'd guess there are other places to get this done.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I bought a DR Summicron 2 years ago. It didn't have the obvious cleaning marks yours has, nor quite that much haze, but it did have dust. The goggles were completely out of alignment (it turns out they were never properly shimmed!) and it took 9 months to have them serviced, cleaned etc. Now it is exquisite but still has some dust and some haze.

All has been said about Leica coatings and the likely effects, it depends on price they are asking. To have mine cleaned etc it cost me £140 (they were embarrassed about the time involved).

 

[lukx]

I thank everyone for their replies and assessment. I will report back once I was able to inspect the lens more closely. The seller tells me there are actually very few coating marks front and back, so the main thing to worry about would be the haze.

I also suspect it is on the element in front of the aperture, the weird ring shape could result from aperture movements transporting oil into the lens. As far as I understand the construction of this lens, this would be the only place where an attempt at cleaning it off would be feasible, as the two halves of the lens block unscrew at this point.

We will see.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I was recently looking at a collapsible Summicron on eBay that looked just like your lens. Seller said it was recently serviced by DAG so I asked what was the marks. He stated that not all the haze could be removed. I think the oil that causes the haze also etched the glass. I don't think it would any effect except maybe a slight loss of contrast. I have some really ugly lenses with haze and heavy cleaning marks that make nice negatives. I bump up the contrast after scanning them.

You will see effect of this defect every time sun is nearby and not behind.
It looks ugly and not fixable in PP. Not to mention DR printing.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I bought a Summicron rigid (1958 vintage) in 1979 that was clear as a bell. However, after a couple of years the haze came in finally making the lens unusable. I kept the lens for many years without using it. In about 2002 I met a great repairman, Mr. Scherpenborg from Nijmegen, who cleaned the lens for me. He was a Leitz trained technician. Until today the lens is clear as a bell and incredibly sharp.



Erik.

 

[lukx]

Does such a cleaning job usually include de- and a re-greasing of the helicoids? I'd assume the old lube in there is the culprint when it comes to haze...

 

[splitimageview]

LED light will reveal everything, but ‘everything’ isn’t necessarily detrimental.

It’s very difficult to photograph lens glass to accurately reflect the true condition and whether photos will be affected, but in my experience with hundreds of lenses that lens should shoot fine.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Does such a cleaning job usually include de- and a re-greasing of the helicoids? I'd assume the old lube in there is the culprint when it comes to haze...

Focus part where helicoids are is completely separate part. It can't out gas to internal optics. I don't know how DR is exactly made, but Rigid of same type is just screwing into focus, body. They even put hand marks at both to make sure it is matching.
One you are looking at might have aperture blades oil on it or else, but not from focus parts.

 

[Robbie Bedell]

The haze in my dual range was much worse than yours. I spoke to Don Goldberg and he said the dual range Summicrons usually clean up well. I sent it to him and it came back looking like new.

 

[lukx]

I took the plunge and bought the lens today after close inspection. The front and back glass is in very good condition, pretty much free of cleaning marks or other blemishes. The haze ring is visible against the light, but compared to other lenses I've seen I would consider it minor. I will try to clean it off at some point. Does anyone know what chemicals would help dissolve the haze? I've read about Zeiss lens cleaner being good... I would at least try to locate the haze and, if on the element adjacent to the aperture blades, dab an appropriate cleaning agent on it and caaaarefully wipe it off.

What evaded my thorough inspection is the fact that, one, the goggles are missing the black plastic stopping pin that prevents mounting/unmounting with the goggles attached. Probably impossible to find a spare. But also the least critical part of the whole lens...

Second, and more interesting, I found that the goggles do not attach fully. Now the lens is an early one from 1957 and the goggles are also the early version with the condenser logo. They snap into place and remain there, but when looking at other lenses, mine seem to leave a larger than usual gap between the lens and the goggles.

Upon further investigation, I found that my goggles have two indentations at the bottom instead of only one. Also, there are two extra holes for the stopping pins that limit the motion when attaching the goggles. My goggles have the pins in the holes closer to the camera, thus stopping the movement sooner. As a result, the ball bearing snaps into the first of the two identations.

This seems to be a rather rare version of those goggles. Most seem to only have one indentation. I was only able to find one other image of goggles like mine. In that case, the stopping pins were in the "correct" position, presumably allowing for full attachment.
See here: https://www.leicastoresf.com/site/images/765978-03.jpg

Since there is at least one more pair like this, I do not think it is a hack job. It looks professionally machined. The pins are not easily removed but they should fit into the other hole by the looks of it.

Does anyone else have goggles like this? Do you know why two different mounting configurations were used? I can't think of a camera model to warrant this, the M3 top plate sticks out more, but not by that much.

Anyway, I am happy with my purchase, though I'd like to somehow move the pins to the other holes in order for the goggles to fit fully onto the lens.

 

[peterm1]

Compared to SLR lenses (which have all sorts of interlocks and internal connectors to automatically stop down etc.) disassembly of a rangefinder lens tends to be very straightforward at least when it comes to getting at the lens elements for simple cleaning. (Working on helicals, however, I always find to be a pain though this is mainly due to my limited experience). I have not disassembled a dual range Summicron but it should be much the same.
First thing to do is go online and buy yourself a proper lens spanner if you do not already have one. They are cheap to buy and without them undoing the locking rings that hold elements in place can be a problem which, if you jury rig something, can end up scratching an element. If the front dress ring (i.e. the one with the writing on it) on the lens does not have slots (I cannot recall and cannot see from your photos) you also need a grippy rubber ring of a diameter to match the dress ring diameter. Although these can be bought online this is something that can be extemporized - people often go to the hardware store and buy a rubber "foot" of the sort that goes on the bottom of metal chair legs, ladders or walking sticks. These are available in various diameters usually. When pressed against the dress ring and turned anticlockwise the friction should start screwing the ring off. When I have cleaned lens haze I have usually just used a proprietary glass cleaner / lens cleaner of the sort used for eye glasses and some denatured alcohol (not mixed but applied separately). Just make sure everything is dry before reassembly. If these do not get it off it probably has affected the coating and will not come off though usually it will be reduced.