Leica LTM Is this "oily" lens haze?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Production was 1930-36, about 10,000 units, total. Probably on the rarer side of screw-mount lenses.

With s/n 125xxx, yours should be from 1932.

Early versions were nickel, and the the 11 o'clock focus-tab lock. This interferes with slow-speeds knob on the III / III-a / III-b, so the focus lock was revised to the "7 o'clock" orientation.

I would think a version in "Feet" (for English and American markets) would be rarer than one in "Metres".

Folks with early cameras (nickel hardware) like to find nickel lenses...

If I got to pick & choose, I'd want one in "Feet"... with good glass...

My vote is for "bloom"; get a hood and go shoot and don't worry about it.
 
Luddite Frank said:
Production was 1930-36, about 10,000 units, total. Probably on the rarer side of screw-mount lenses.

With s/n 125xxx, yours should be from 1932.

Early versions were nickel, and the the 11 o'clock focus-tab lock. This interferes with slow-speeds knob on the III / III-a / III-b, so the focus lock was revised to the "7 o'clock" orientation.

I would think a version in "Feet" (for English and American markets) would be rarer than one in "Metres".

Folks with early cameras (nickel hardware) like to find nickel lenses...

If I got to pick & choose, I'd want one in "Feet"... with good glass...

My vote is for "bloom"; get a hood and go shoot and don't worry about it.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I definitely got it for shooting, not for collecting. It is my first LTM camera (I normally use an M4 or a digital M-P both with modern Leica glass). Loading the camera isn't nearly as difficult as I had been led to think, and focusing can be done with good precision given the long focus throw of the Hektor.

Anyway, if it is "blooming" I do not understand why that is a desirable phenomenon, nor why it wouldn't be cleaned in a CLA. Any thoughts?

Thanks again.

Kudzu
 
Some of the the other respondents to this thread will have to speak to the "blooming" phenomenon.

I have a black Leica II from 1932, s/n 77xxx with a nickel 11 o'clock Elmar 50. Both slightly brassed, but very nice.

I have a couple of black III's from 1933, a chrome III from 1934 that was my "daily driver" for several years, a III-c "stepper", a III-c converted to -f / black-dial, self-timer, and a III-f.

As you might guess, I really like screw-mount Leicas. :cool:

The -c/f BD ST is in my go-bag right now, wearing a coated Summitar, along for the ride are an un-coated Elmar 35 from 1940, and coated post-war Elmar 90 and Hektor 135, FIKUS hood, and other notions. It is my user RF kit. Sometimes the body changes-out.

I have black-paint Elmar and Hektor long lenses, and someday will assemble "period" kits to go with the black-body Leicae.

Granted I like the machinery, but I also enjoy taking pictures with them.

A hood is generally a "must" when shooting uncoated glass.

Mr Flibble and Erik van Stratten both take some EXCELLENT photos with vintage Leicae and uncoated lenses, and share some of their work here in the LTM department.

Please share some more pics of your II when you get a chance.

:)

LF
 
Blooming is naturally occuring oxidation of uncoated glass. It is a simplest form of coating, and inspiration for modern coating process. It is believed to slightly increase contrast in uncoated lenses. I am not sure if it is cleanable. Most people will try to leave it intact, wiping their lenses gently, only if necessary.
From a last photo it definitely looks like blooming.
 
It's only lens bloom. No worries, I have seen this dozens of times. Has zero effect on anything. Really nice IQ from the lens too. The shots look nicely retro.
 
Lens bloom. The Rolleiflex old standard I use which has an uncoated tessar has the same rainbow pattern :)
 
Seeing that 2nd photo of the front element, I change my answer: blooming.

The first photo made it look more internal. Apologies for jumping the gun and not requesting better photos!

Keep it intact, don't polish it off. I had a Zeiss folder with blooming, it definitely gave higher contrast results than the similar model I had without the bloom, both with otherwise clean glass. I did not notice any change in sharpness and anyway, two individual samples is not enough for proof of that.
 
Just let it be, Oculus. It could be damaging to remove it. And I totally forgot about blooming, even though I have a few lenses around here with that.

PF
 
oculus said:
...Anyway, if it is "blooming" I do not understand why that is a desirable phenomenon, nor why it wouldn't be cleaned in a CLA. Any thoughts?

Thanks again.

Kudzu
Click to expand...

Hi,

Blooming happens naturally as lenses get old and Taylor noticed in 1890 that blooming improved the lens. It does this by cutting down the reflections; in other words just like modern coatings do. And many people think it does it very well and so don't do anything that might remove it because the lens will not work so well afterwards.

The rainbow pattern is a give away and shows it isn't the lens separating. In other words rejoice at your luck!

Regards, David
 
Thanks everyone for your replies. I am very grateful. While I do not do anything nearly worthy of the name photography, I will try to share some images taken with my rainbow Hektor.
 
Here are a couple from yesterday's outing. The II is a lovely companion in the forest. Light and sturdy. The lens, I think, gives a nice rendition and certainly enough contrast (although I used a development which would enhance contrast a bit). A keeper, to be sure.
 
I have heard of the “blooming” effect, but why is it in concentric circles showing the colour spectrum? I think it might be Newton’s Rings from incipient separation, but probably not something to agonize over all that much.

Cheers,
Dez
 
Congratulations with your beautiful blooming Hektor. The blooming arises all by itself. It is to me a miracle when it occurs and when not. It has to do with the composition of the air and the type of glass.

As others have said, blooming improves the quality of the lens. The phenomenon inspired the invention of coating.

So never remove it. It looks very beautiful on a lens. I also have a blooming Hektor, on wich I am very proud.

Funny, but I've never seen it on a Summar. Undoubtedly this has to do with the glass type. I also have a blooming Elmar on a Leica IA. Beautiful lens.

Erik.
 
Dralowid said:
I will have a look at my Summars, I'm not sure about this.

(90mm Elmar blooms nicely!)

Michael
Click to expand...

Take it all back. No blooming on any of my Summars. I have good clean examples coated and uncoated, the others are, well, dirty or display the remnants of coating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom