Just how (un)important are cleaning marks?

[SebC]

I've been thinking about picking up an older 50mm ltm lens to use alongside my Nokton, and I keep reading about how the older Leica lenses uses some pretty soft glass and how the coatings weren't too hard either. Every buyers guide for things like the Summitar says "watch out for cleaning marks" on the lenses. But with some of these lenses now 70 years old most of them must be looking a little worse for wear, and those that are free from marks surely attract a substantial premium? Also, a lot of people seem to think that cleaning marks actually give the lens even more of a vintage look (glow/flare/whatever).

While I would love to pick up a factory fresh example, it's unlikely I'll stump up the cash for something that clean (especially when I plan on using it, rather than keeping a pristine example in a glass case). As such, where should I draw the cost vs. condition line? For instance, I have found a few Summitars for sale in UK dealers, from under £100 to over £200, with others on eBay recently having fetched well over £300. All are of varying age and condition, but all are usable, functional lenses. Do I go for a cheapy (bearing in mind this is not intended to be my do-everything lens) or stump up for a cleaner one?

One more element to this decision - I was thinking of picking up a 50mm Elmar-M 2.8 at some point (or similar) to sit somewhere in between a Summitar and the Nokton, if that changes anything.

 

[back alley]

read this

 

[Beemermark]

I keep reading about how the older Leica lenses uses some pretty soft glass and how the coatings weren't too hard either.

Glass, of any vintage, is very hard and not likely to be scratched by cleaning. The coatings were soft and easily damaged. Generally, light coating marks do not harm anything and I put in the same category as paint loss on the camera body. Heavy coating marks, and real scratches (rare but it happens) will lead to increase flare. Lens hoods help a lot and usually negate the cleaning marks.

I have two hasselblad lenses right now that have horrendous cleaning marks but perform just about as well as my unblemished ones.

 

[SebC]

Interesting link, thanks!

 

[GoneSavage]

Interesting link, thanks!

That damage almost looks deliberate! Very insightful, either way 😀

 

[konicaman]

One of my friends carried an M3 (don't recall which lens) in his shoulder bag for more than 10 years (no filter, lens cap or any other protection), together with keys, screwdrivers, tobacco, candy bars and an occasional sandwich. When the lens got too dirty, he would wipe it off with his jacket sleeve, a table cloth or whatever was present at the moment. To my amazement his photos always looked sharp. So not to worry I guess 😀

 

[swoop]

My 40mm Nokton is scratched to hell on the front element and it has made no visual difference.

 

[jesse1dog]

SebC
If you would like to contact me I've a couple of lenses you might like to try.
jesse

 

[Jack917]

Wow, Back Alley! Really interesting link!

Anyone know of any similar articles about lens haze or fungus? How bad does haze or fungus have to be before it'll show up on a photos?

 

[ethics_gradient]

Wow, Back Alley! Really interesting link!

Anyone know of any similar articles about lens haze or fungus? How bad does haze or fungus have to be before it'll show up on a photos?

I've got some fungus that definitely shows up in shots in an old Canon 50mm f/1.2. It's still useable, but everything is grey/low contrast. Doesn't really surprise me, it covers a whole element and is fairly visible. Lens is being sent out for cleaning in a week or two (it needs a couple other repairs and I can't get the rear retaining ring off myself).

 

[John Shriver]

Some Leica lenses have front elements made of very soft glass indeed. The Summar, Summitar, and collapsible Summicron 50/2 lenses all have soft flint glass as the front element. Flint glass is also known as lead glass, the same soft glass that "cut glass" is made out of. It scratches very easily indeed. Now, the coating on late Summitar and all collapsible Summicron lenses is also very soft, so that can also get scratches.

Many of these lenses were cleaned over the years with gents' neckties, and got all scratched up.

Some scratches aren't a problem. A lot will really reduce contrast.

 

[bene]

Some Leica lenses have front elements made of very soft glass indeed. The Summar, Summitar, and collapsible Summicron 50/2 lenses all have soft flint glass as the front element. Flint glass is also known as lead glass, the same soft glass that "cut glass" is made out of. It scratches very easily indeed. Now, the coating on late Summitar and all collapsible Summicron lenses is also very soft, so that can also get scratches.

Many of these lenses were cleaned over the years with gents' neckties, and got all scratched up.

Some scratches aren't a problem. A lot will really reduce contrast.

SO a scratch up lens will have have low contrast. how about sharpness?

 

[sevo]

SO a scratch up lens will have have low contrast. how about sharpness?

Unless a part of the lens has been ground off and re-polished, sharpness is very unlikely to be affected up to a point where contrast is already critically low. That is, repair attempts are much more likely to affect sharpness than surface damage itself.

Sevo

 

[januaryman]

I have a Jupiter 3 with a "pot hole" gouge that was pained black to limit flare, not to mentions scratches a-plenty. Yet the photos are perfectly good, IMHO.

 

[Steve M.]

The main issue with lenses that I've owned that had scratches, cleaning marks, or coating problems on the front element was usually a chance of more flare. If I used a hood and avoided shooting into the sun even a badly scratched lens didn't exhibit any drop in sharpness. Rear element scratches or marks are another matter and can cause problems. Same w/ fungus on the front or back element, and haze definitely drops contrast and could cause sharpness loss if it's bad enough.

I had a Welta w/ a Schneider Xenar lens, and the first roll of film from it came out awful. The front element looked fine but I'd never looked at the rear one. When I checked there was a haze that fortunately was on the outside of the glass and wiped off w/ some lens cleaning fluid. The next roll of film came out very sharp. Same w/ a Nikon lens that I had two samples of, one pristine and one that had a lot of very big scratches on the front element. I did a test, shooting each lens at the same scenes, and couldn't tell which shot came from which lens. Still, knowing all this, I always like a lens that's in mintish condition.

 

[ferider]

Usually, with old Summicrons, Summarons and such, cleaning marks (i.e. scratches in the coating) and haze is an issue.

Forget about few cleaning marks or small scratches even in the glass. The further in front of the lens, the less they matter.

I myself am picky about haze though, since even little can have impact on contrast and colour rendition.

Roland.

 

[Roger Vadim]

So everybody agrees that "cleaning marks" doesn't affect picture quality... well, I have to stand opposed:

I own a Summar and a J8 with so called "cleaning marks" on the front element and they are only usable if you want to become a second Richard Hamilton (of Bilitis fame...). Both lenses are extremely soft, especially the Summar has almost no contrast and they flare like hell. The Summar might have some resolution left, but the flare under normal conditions makes it a useless lens. Nice for the effect, but I wouldn't plunge down a couple of hundred quid for a quite useless piece of glass, even if it got the Leica sign on it... smear some Vaseline on a filter for the effect if you want "glow"...

It is a well known fact that the early Leica (and Zeiss) glass used very soft flint glass (as John Shriver said before), it is very prone to scratches and unless you test it I'd stay away from sellers claiming "cleaning marks that wont affect picture quality".

If you want my wonderful Summar though, with only some "minor cleaning marks", I can sell it to you for, say 150 Pounds, no problemo 😉

 

[Disaster_Area]

I had a CZ 35mm Distagon in CY mount that had a millimeter wide jagged gash right across the back element... it looks like someone tried to remove a screw on the back with a fine flat head screw driver and slipped.... it looked terrible but I never really noticed any problems with the pictures... then again I never really used it stopped down past f8 and can't remember shooting directly into the sun.

Bottom line... if you're shooting for fun under non-critical conditions and don't care about shot to shot consistency in contrast/sharpness due to changing light conditions you could probably shoot your whole life with a lens and be happy you got it on the cheap in less than mint condition.

On the other hand if you need 100% consistency and predictable results every time you're probably getting paid for those pics and can/should spring for a better copy so you don't find out your shots of the bride at her wedding has some weird flare across her face.

 

[Ronald M]

I don`t buy scratched or hazy lenses. It limits the resale market and my pride keeps me owning damaged items. Then I have to pay to fix them.

Caution is mint or LN older items don`t not work properly although they look perfect. I have many a Leica lens that was poor, but looked good. So test everything.



I won`t even allow cleaning marks on my car let alone optics.

 

[Disaster_Area]

I won`t even allow cleaning marks on my car let alone optics.

I'm really glad there's many people with Roger's view of less than mint equipment... and I mean that completely honestly... not in any snarky, sarcastic way. As long as there's people willing to pay top dollar for mint specimens and passing up less than stellar copies it will keep the price of the "well used" market down for those that can't buy mint.

If I could afford mint... I would buy mint... when I can afford mint, I'll pass on my user equipment at a great price and make someone really happy who can't afford mint. There's some serious bargains to be had if you don't mind a few bumps and bruises... 95% as useful at 20% of the price. Just make sure you know or find out if you're buying well used as apposed to broken... there's a lot of shady characters that will try to pass off one for the other or honestly have no idea of the difference🙂