Should I CLA my 50?

N

Nick R.

Guest
I recently acquired an early Summilux 50mm from 1958. The lens is in great shape with no haze or scratches. However, considering its age should I have a CLA done on it as normal/preventive maintenance? It does have some dust specs between the elements but not enough to warrant a cleaning on its own. I believe in maintaining one's gear but am also leary of the hazards of "fixing" something that isn't broken. Opinions, anyone?
 
no opinion from me but i am also curious as i sometimes think about sending my lenses off, one or 2 at a time, to the spa.
 
use the lens for a few months, if you love its photographic results and it is physically comfortable to you, in other words a "keeper" than invest in a CLA for it. It will operate smoothly for an other 47 years.
 
If there is no haze, and the blades move freely, I don't see any need for a CLA. It will need one one of these days, of course, but it may be just fine for years.
As has been said, it will let you know when the time has come.
Use the money for film now, and start a trust fund for the spa treatrment.

Harry
 
My practice is to send everything off before I put it into service. It gives me peace of mind to know that everything has been thoroughly cleaned, lubed, and inspected -- and then I don't worry about having to do it later. It also helps if you know that your repair person does good thorough work; over the years I have come to trust Henry Scherer for Contax work without disappointment.
 
back alley said:
no opinion from me but i am also curious as i sometimes think about sending my lenses off, one or 2 at a time, to the spa.
Click to expand...
Joe,
I've been doing this for the last year or two with my Alpa gear -- sending a body or two and a couple lenses in each package just for routine maintenance. There are differing opinions on this practice, but I place enough value on the equipment that it is worthwhile to me to know that everything has been inspected, adjusted, and properly lubricated -- then I feel like I don't have to worry about it for another ten or twenty years. It is not unusual for the repair person to discover something that was not yet apparent but would have cause a functional problem later. I'm a big fan of preventive maintenance...
 
Last edited:
Good points, everyone. I wonder what the people who do the CLA's recommend?
 
rover said:
Another vote for "If it ain't broke...."
Click to expand...


Ditto. The last thing I'd want to do is let someone (even an expert repairman) dismantle a lens unless there was a good reason, like haze or fungus or a focus so stiff that a couple drops of sewing-machine oil (a DAG advice that's worked great for me several times) can't remedy. I can see getting a camera overhauled preventatively but not a lens.
 
A lens is a much simpler thing mechanically, so if it works fine it normally is fine and a CLA a waste of money with the additional hazard of a bummed CLA.Another vote for the "If it ain't broke"school of thought. A camera body is another matter.That needs service fom time to time, imo.
 
And another dissenting vote. Every lens I have sent for CLA has been returned in much better condition than when it left: thoroughly clean elements (internal and external), proper operation of focus and aperture through removal and replacement of old dried lubricant, internal black masking replaced when necessary, and correct collimation. This seems to be another circumstance where there are those that do and those that don't. I've sent my gear off for over twenty years for routine maintenance with never a regret and it's a practice I'll continue -- for me it is money well spent.
 
back alley said:
'I can see getting a camera overhauled preventatively but not a lens'

what's the difference?
why one & not the other?
Click to expand...


Shine a flashlight through the glass, work the focus and aperture, take a few test shots to assure it's collimated & adjusted for the rangefinder cam and any owner can tell if there's something amiss, or to be gained by having someone take it apart and put it back together (old lenses groups were cemented with old balsam, even the experts tell you there's always at least a little risk involved). OTOH with a camera there are so many internal parts which could be on the verge of failing, or dirt floating around waiting to jam up a mechanism, which there's no way to know unless the camera is apart.
 
Last edited:
I'd vote for having a good technician check the thing out. Case in point: I got an otherwise ok looking DR Summicron about six months ago. Price was right and I jumped. I took a test roll and saw (to my surprise) a stop of light fall-off at the corners of the 4x6's I got back from my local lab. A closer inspection of the lens revealed some light haze around the outside of the lens on an interior element. I sent the lens off to Sherry Krauter for a full bath. The thing returned gorgeous. And the images have an extra snap that they didn't have when I sent it off. I have the photos to prove it. 30, 40, 50 years is a long time for a piece of glass to sit around in various environments. A clean lens is a marvelous thing.
 
i guess i'm thinking more about the cleaning than anything else.
my lenses are all fairly smooth to focus, aperture rings smooth or click into place well, depending.
but the glass, after so many years is bound to have something on it. i would think.

i was amazed at the one lens i took apart. the glass looked clean but there was lots of stuff that came off with a simple cleaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom