Leica Lens Coatings

S

Stu W

Well-known
Local time
9:19 AM
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
680
Location
Brooklyn, New York
View My Gallery
I'm a relatively new Leica addict-I've been selling off my acquired over the years slr equipment to feed my habit. I currently own 7 50mm M mount Leica lenses. All are cosmetically exc++ to mint. A couple have absolutely no signs of ever having been mounted on a camera. Optically, every one has a flaw if you look hard enough. The flashligh test seems to always pick up something. Even after professional cla's they never seem to be perfect.

On the other hand, my Zeiss Contax rangefinder lenses of the same vintage pass the flashlight test with ease.

I own an early 5cm Zeiss coated lens circa 1944 that is coated. This lens had what appeared to be the famous Leica haze-something my later Zeiss lenses don't have. When I dis-assembled it, it appeard that the purpleish coatings on the internal elements were coarse looking-like frosted glass. I cleaned them with ROR which effectively removed the coatings completely-leaving me a crystal clear but uncoated lens.

Although I doubted it at first, I now believe Steve Gandy's theory that it isn't oil that cause the haze but the break down of the lens coating. If this is the case, then doesn't a thorough cla remove some if not all of the lens coating?

SO, has anyone ever completely restored a Summicron 50 for example-I'm talking about recoating every lens surface?

Just curious. Stu
 
Stu W said:
I'm a relatively new Leica addict-I've been selling off my acquired over the years slr equipment to feed my habit. I currently own 7 50mm M mount Leica lenses. All are cosmetically exc++ to mint. A couple have absolutely no signs of ever having been mounted on a camera. Optically, every one has a flaw if you look hard enough. The flashligh test seems to always pick up something. Even after professional cla's they never seem to be perfect.
Click to expand...

Have you actually shot pictures with any of those lenses? If you haven't, do so because you'll save yourself mental anguish and lots of money on unneeded repairs, , because a few tiny coating flaws will not have any effect on the photos.
 
Ben, I have used them both before and after repair. Before cla's, the haze made them unfit for use. Removing the haze made a world of difference, although I find my SMC Pentax lenses less prone to flare. I was just curious how a fifty year old Summicron or Summarit with modern coating would stand up next to newer lenses. Stu
 
Someone that is doing truly professional CLAs on lenses would know how to clean them without damaging the coatings. I suppose even a very good pro may very slightly mess up a tiny bit of a very soft coating (which a lot of older Leitz glass has), but not to the point of ruining it or anything.
 
Brian, ROR is short for "residual oil remover" . I t's made by v-vax products inc. It really cleans elements nicely, but in the case of that Zeiss lens it also removed the coating-which in this case was fine with me. This is their link. Stu
http://www.ror.net/
 
Stu W said:
Ben, I have used them both before and after repair. Before cla's, the haze made them unfit for use. Removing the haze made a world of difference, although I find my SMC Pentax lenses less prone to flare. I was just curious how a fifty year old Summicron or Summarit with modern coating would stand up next to newer lenses. Stu
Click to expand...

You originally wrote:
Optically, every one has a flaw if you look hard enough.
Click to expand...
Now you're saying they had so much haze they were unfit for use. That to me is a completely different story. From your original post it seemed like you were a guy who bought seven 50mm lenses for one body and was looking for absolute perfection in coatings.

I have not seen the haze or generalized coating breakdown on any of the 50 Summiluxes, or the Crons starting with the 11817 (1969, black anodized). For shooters, those will probably be your best bet. I have a collapsible (LTM) and a rigid M (used only on my M3) Crons which had no haze at all and 99% perfect front coatings, but those lenses had filters (yellow, now replaced by me with B+W MRC glass in the Leitz rims) on them since they were new by the original owner.

BTW I had a set of fairly modern (though not APO) Leica R lenses and they flared much, much worse than my screwmount Super Multi Coated Takumars. Those Taks are a wonderment in terms of flare control.
 
Last edited:
Ben, I think I got it under control now, but for a while I couldn't pass up a 50mm Leica lens. I fell in love with the Summarit, and ended up buying 3. I've since sold 2, and now I have the one that originally looked the worst. Cosmetically it looked new, but the haze was so bad you could barely see through it. A cla fixed that, and with the exception of 1 small wipe mark I'd have to say the lens is mint. I bought an M3 on the bay and the seller"threw in" an exc++ Elmar 3.5. A friend of a friend sold me another M3 and he "threw in" a rigid cron that was badly hazed and he considered of no value. I purchased a collapsible cron from Pacific Rim Camera that I love, and I recently picked up a dual range cron that I haven't tried yet.

I sold almost all of my Pentax collection, the product of years of collecting, which included every K mount body ever made, and a chrome ES-rare, and a black ES to finance this Leica passion. I kept my user LX and my SMC lenses from 15-200mm however. I'll never sell them.

I think I need to check into the Betty Ford clinic for Leica junkies.
 
Last edited:
Frank, I recently bought a laptop computer, Dell had a great price-2.3 ghz, 40meg hd, 512 ram, 15" screen for 499!- because my wife thought my desktop computer space was getting out of control. I sold my scanner, a Minolta, on the Bay because it was a SCSI, and the laptop only has usb ports. Well, the lap top is in the closet, unused, I'm still using the desktop, and I'm without a scanner. Another brilliant move on my part. Stu
 
I've gone through a lot of Leica lenses- like 3 35 lux asph's, 2 75 luxes (going to get a 3rd soon), 4 noctiluxes. Not all bought mind you, but some exchanged or sold. They all have fine wispy coating marks, and some have slight marks on inner/outer elements. I even found a water drop looking mark on an inner element of a 75 one time. Then there's the foreign particles like dust, etc. Basically, I've realized that Leica is old world and with it are some inherent characteristics, and also that I probably inspect a new lens more than with other makes I've bought. Canon has had some flaws too though- silvery marks, chinks on rear elements, etc. C'est la vie.
 
vizioneer said:
I've gone through a lot of Leica lenses- like 3 35 lux asph's, 2 75 luxes (going to get a 3rd soon), 4 noctiluxes. Not all bought mind you, but some exchanged or sold. They all have fine wispy coating marks, and some have slight marks on inner/outer elements. I even found a water drop looking mark on an inner element of a 75 one time. Then there's the foreign particles like dust, etc. Basically, I've realized that Leica is old world and with it are some inherent characteristics, and also that I probably inspect a new lens more than with other makes I've bought. Canon has had some flaws too though- silvery marks, chinks on rear elements, etc. C'est la vie.
Click to expand...

Not for everyone. None of my Leica lenses, all bought used nad many with obvious wear on the outside, even 55+ year old LTMs, have any "fine wispy coating marks" or any marks on inner or outer elements. I've seen plenty that did, but I didn't and wouldn't buy them. I know they wouldn't impact my photos, and I'm not one of those guys who thinks he's such a great shakes photographer that nothing but the best is good enough, or that I'm anal. It's because I wan't to have the best chance of selling them if I need/want to, and the majority of Leica buyers would pass on them, including I suspect, some of the people who trumpet loudly on internet forums against other people using a UV filter for coating protection. That's c'est la vie.
 
Well the flaws I'm talking about are visible only with a lamp shining through the opposite end that I'm looking through, usually at an angle, and with a dark background behind the lamp to make them visible. I doubt if too many buyers would do this. It is a bit silly, but Leica claims nigh perfection and the price is high.
 
Hi Stu,

For some money, I believe Focal Point in the US and CRR in the UK can do a complete recoating of lenses. They have their own coating chambers and also the coating formulas. I have seen some of their work and its really nice.
Paul
 
Focal Point is right down the road from me, a friend of mine had a lens done and loved the results. I've been in his shop a couple of times, he's a really nice guy.
 
vizioneer said:
Well the flaws I'm talking about are visible only with a lamp shining through the opposite end that I'm looking through, usually at an angle, and with a dark background behind the lamp to make them visible. I doubt if too many buyers would do this.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised.



It is a bit silly, but Leica claims nigh perfection and the price is high.
Click to expand...

But I thought you were talking about old, used lenses. Coating marks on a new Leica lens at those prices? Durn tootin' I'd reject them out of hand, and don't care if anyone thinks I'm anal or a poser or whatever for doing so. I say if you talk the talk you've got to walk the walk, and Leica definitely talks the talk.
 
Forgot to mention the 35 lux asph I had before that had a poorly finished asph element (the element behind the aperture). It had not only slight scratches but a region that looked slightly abraded. The sample I have now is better, but still not perfect. It has a very tiny mark on an inner element. Oh well. It's chrome and there aren't too many on the new market any more. Plus, the slides I get back look fine to me. 😀 The most perfect lens I've come across is a 75 lux- nothing wrong except on the front element on the very periphery was a frosted concentric area- either adhesive or a mark. But the next one I got in had the exact same anomaly so I kept it. I doubt the mark ever made it onto the film. So, there are very few perfect lenses.
 
Vizioneer, I too have a "Frosted Concentric Ring" lens. I have to go with oil migration or some theory like that. The same lens has a bubble, dead center on the rear element, looks like a water drop. I also have another lens with a small area on 1 element that looks like a grindstone hit it. But, as everyone seems to agree, almost nothing, with the exception of haze, seems to have any effect on image quality. I should throw away my flashlight and loupe and stop inspecting for defects. Maybe it'll leave me more time for picture taking! Stu
 
Hi Stu,

Yep, I've gone through a lot of Leica lenses, or at least checked them out and returned them, to conclude that I won't happen upon the perfect example. If I do, then something else will be wrong with it- maybe the centering is slightly more off than the other one! 😀

Anyway, such is the nature of Leica. The mark I currently have looks like a micro-scratch in the rear group (internal) and is also more toward the center. Oh well!
 
I've posted this picture before but it's the only one I have from my Summarit. The front element looks like it's been cleaned with steel wool and it's cloudy inside. This was taken in shade at f/4 with the lens mounted on my Bessa-T.

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