Old Leica Lenses

[Jaymz007]

Aloha Everyone,

I have been shooting Leica gear for a while now. Recently, I started to get into smaller older lenses since they are much easier to carry around. Well to get to the point, I recently purchased 2 copies of 35mm Elmar LTM. When shooting with both side by side on the same camera, one of the lens exhibits a white cast on the image while the other lens images are very clear.
So my question is what causes the images to have that white cast look?
Thank in advance.

Jaymz

 

[Erik van Straten]

Probably there is haze in the lens. Look through the lens and compare it with the other.

Haze can be cleaned by a very good professional repairman.

Haze is caused by the evaporation of the lubricants.

Erik.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Do you have any examples?

 

[Jaymz007]

Thank you Erik

 

[peterm1]

Are they both coated? This is the first thing I would consider. If you check the lens serial numbers against a published list of Leica lens serials this will provide a reasonable indication as lenses made after WW2 were coated. Some older lenses were however sent back to the factory for coating in the 1950s. (I owned one such lens with a serial dating to 1934 which most definitely had coating on it.)
The second point is that as someone else pointed out, haze is common in these old lenses, especially Leica ones due to the specific lubricants used. It is annoying but usually can be fixed. Some Leica lenses of this era had especially soft coating on the interior lenses and this requires special care when cleaning.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Are they both coated? This is the first thing I would consider.

In fact the Elmar 35mm, wich has only four optical elements, does not need coating, but because it is extremely small it must be perfectly clean.

Leica I model C, Elmar 35mm f/3.5 uncoated, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Coating is needed for color. Or at least it might be preferable.
And not only coating on old Leitz lenses is soft. The entire glass is chalk soft.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Coating is needed for color. Or at least it might be preferable.
And not only coating on old Leitz lenses is soft. The entire glass is chalk soft.

Some early lenses indeed have very soft front glass, the Summar for instance. However, there are (postwar) factory coated Summars. These are great.

The front glass of the Elmar 50mm f/3.5 is pretty hard. Surprisingly some owners nevertheless succeeded in turning this lens into a lunar landscape.

Erik.

 

[Dralowid]

However, there are (postwar) factory coated Summars. These are great.

Erik.

Erik,

Do you mean that there are Summars that went back to the factory for coating post war or that there are Summars manufactured post war that were coated from new?

My understanding is that Summar production stopped in 1940. I agree with the first part of the question but not the second.

Michael (being pedantic again)

 

[creenus]

They are not all that way, despite what some have written. Some lenses, like the LTM 50mm collapsible Summicron, are soft compared to modern glass, which makes it hard to find one in decent shape. I have one, and it's reasonably sharp.

But the Elmar f3.5 LTM is sufficiently hard, as Erik says. It's a good lens for its age. I have one, and some screw-on A26 filters for it as well. It's uncoated, but I think coatings can be overrated to some extent.

But then I shoot black and white film. =)

Coating is needed for color. Or at least it might be preferable.
And not only coating on old Leitz lenses is soft. The entire glass is chalk soft.

 

[lxmike]

probably haze but l am no expert

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Some early lenses indeed have very soft front glass, the Summar for instance. However, there are (postwar) factory coated Summars. These are great.

The front glass of the Elmar 50mm f/3.5 is pretty hard. Surprisingly some owners nevertheless succeeded in turning this lens into a lunar landscape.

Erik.

Summars were coated after war. But it was old pre-war Summars.
I think, most soft one was Summarit 50 1.5. At least in my hands while cleaning and comparing to uncoated Summar.
I never have Elmar 50 3.5, but 50 f2 lenses from Summar to Summicron 50 collapsible. They are softer comparing to FSU optics from fifties.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I think, most soft one was Summarit 50 1.5. At least in my hands while cleaning and comparing to uncoated Summar.

For that reason I never had a Summarit 50mm f/1.5. But there are good examples of that lens. Junku Nishimura uses one. He complains however that it is too heavy on his M5.

The images he gets are great.

Erik.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

For that reason I never had a Summarit 50mm f/1.5. But there are good examples of that lens. Junku Nishimura uses one. He complains however that it is too heavy on his M5.

The images he gets are great.

Erik.

I had one clean, only one or two fungus spots to remove. Sold it due to heavy weight on M3 to nice RFF member from Montreal.

Junku started with this lens. I think, he is already moved on and for some time.

 

[Jaymz007]

Wow great information off this thread. I would like to thank everyone for their input. Now I have to send a couple of my lenses to a tech who can perform the cleaning. Hopefully after the cleaning the lenses will be good as new.
Thanks again.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Erik,

Do you mean that there are Summars that went back to the factory for coating post war or that there are Summars manufactured post war that were coated from new?

I mean the Summars that were sent back to the factory in the fifties for an upgrade just as the prewar bodies. See the thread about the "conversion" cameras.

Erik.