Leica LTM Elmar Lens Coating

[grouchos_tash]

I have sent away my 1934 Elmar 5cm f3.5 for a CLA and have just got an email saying that it needs the rear element recoating (I sent it because it looked like it had some fungus or haze). The estimate is £140 for the coating and labour.

I don't know if it's worth it, there's a decent Elmar for £99 on red dot cameras at the moment.

If I just get it back without the recoating how much is it going to be worth to sell it on? Damn, this is a hard decision.

Thanks everyone,

PS. The two rolls of film I've shot with it so far seemed fine, here's a shot...

Untitled by Gary Harding, on Flickr

 

[Pioneer]

I am certainly not an expert on these things but I was unaware the 1934 Leica lenses were coated at all.

 

[grouchos_tash]

I am certainly not an expert on these things but I was unaware the 1934 Leica lenses were coated at all.

Yeah, that's what I thought 😕

 

[HuubL]

1934 Elmars had no coating when they left Wetzlar, but coating could've been done later (after WW2). However, I'm not sure if that also involved the rear element.

Many Elmars from this era were nickel and those are often somewhat more valuable than chrome ones. If your's is nickel, and in good condition it could be worth up to US$300.

I would let them do the CLA, that is, relube the mechanism and clean the glass elements and if the lens was coated, let them remove the coating. A clean uncoated Elmar makes wonderful images!

 

[Dralowid]

I wouldn't bother. Judging by your picture it works fine. Just get it back and carry on regardless.

If you really want a coated Elmar, and yes they are better, look for a late factory coated one, which will cost you more than £99. I'm sure Red Dot will have one.

But to be honest I think the Elmar suffers faults better than many other lenses.

 

[Bill Clark]

When I didn't have moola a bottle of Windex worked!

Probably wasn't perfect but can't beat the price!

 

[grouchos_tash]

Thanks for the replies anyone, I've asked if the technician can just remove the coating on Huubl's recommendation.

I once used window cleaner on the ground glass in an old Chinon and it dissolved it! Too scared to try that again haha

 

[daveleo]

Well, since you have a solution to your question, let me ask a technical question for anyone here.
I believe that coating a lens surface is designed to minimize reflections off the surface (?)
Then why would it be necessary to coat the rear surface of the rear element ??

 

[Monochrom]

but as i recall 34 elmars were not coated...😎

Coating starts on 1946 from 581.xxx lens on.

Hardly can need a re-coating...

 

[john neal]

Well, since you have a solution to your question, let me ask a technical question for anyone here.
I believe that coating a lens surface is designed to minimize reflections off the surface (?)
Then why would it be necessary to coat the rear surface of the rear element ??

Dave,

As I understand it, the coating is not just about reflections, it also manages refraction to improve the colour focus, so all surfaces then become important. Coating helps reduce colour fringing.

 

[Dralowid]

but as i recall 34 elmars were not coated...😎

Coating starts on 1946 from 581.xxx lens on.

Hardly can need a re-coating...

Plenty of 'after market' coating of old lenses went on in the '50s and '60s...some of it easily recognisable because it was quite blue-ish