Think twice before sending a lens for a CLA ...

Bille

Well-known
Local time
9:09 PM
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
821
Minolta Rokkor 21/2.8 after being "serviced" in Braunschweig, Germany

bruer01.jpg


bruer01c.jpg


Full thread over here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/received-my-21-2-8-rokkor-from-a-skilled-repairperson-today-t61771.html
 
Looks like scouring/scratches, and element separation, to me. Maybe they heated it up/messed it up?? Looks awful. Such a beautiful lens, too. Amazing optic.
 
Wow, scratches! Looks like fungus too. Was the inside very dirty before sending it in? I ask because sometimes stuff like that is there hidden under the dust and crap on lens elements

This was a clean and clear lens before with a clearly delineated spot of fungus on the rear lens element. What you see is an attempt at getting rid of it.

I am not kidding.
 
Wow!! What a mess!! My sincere condolences.

Over the years I have sent many lenses to various people for cleaning and never gotten anything back that looked like that.
 
The majority of the people on this forum learned the term "CLA" online, barely understand what it means and are far too eager to send everything they buy off immediately for a "CLA".

First of all, it is better to leave well enough alone, and if something is wrong, you get it "repaired".

Everybody is "CLA" happy. There is no point in dismantling old mechanisms and having some bozo do a "CLA".

Do very minor repairs as needed. If it's working, don't "fix" it. As you can see, once someone who doesn't know what they are doing destroys something, Humpty-Dumpty doesn't go together again.

If there was a minor spot of fungus in an old lens that didn't make a difference in the images the lens produced, I would not have it opened up and messed around with.
 
Rant Alert

Rant Alert

The majority of the people on this forum learned the term "CLA" online, barely understand what it means and are far too eager to send everything they buy off immediately for a "CLA".

First of all, it is better to leave well enough alone, and if something is wrong, you get it "repaired".

Everybody is "CLA" happy. There is no point in dismantling old mechanisms and having some bozo do a "CLA".

Do very minor repairs as needed. If it's working, don't "fix" it. As you can see, once someone who doesn't know what they are doing destroys something, Humpty-Dumpty doesn't go together again.

If there was a minor spot of fungus in an old lens that didn't make a difference in the images the lens produced, I would not have it opened up and messed around with.

Obviously, based on your comments, everyone who is sending equipment off to be cleaned is wasting their time and money since it really isn't necessary.

That may in fact be true if you are habitually buying equipment that is new or has been in regular use so is already working.

But the reality is, some of us buy equipment that has sat around for a long time without being used. Lenses fog over time, camera shutters gum up without use, there are lots of problems that can occur when equipment is left to sit for long periods of time. I really doubt that most of us are spending a lot of money fixing things that don't need it though there are almost certainly some who do.

Now, where the price paid was very low, and the equipment is not exactly rare or valuable, I don't mind fiddling around, taking things apart and cleaning it myself. I have done it before and will almost certainly do it again. Sometime it works, sometimes not. But I am not trained nor experienced doing this so if I paid more, or the equipment is more complex, rare, or valuable, I will certainly send it to a recommended and experienced repair person to go through it, clean it and get things working properly again.

Depending on what they have to do that could be a repair, a cleaning, some adjustment, or lubrication. Maybe it involves all of those activities. The term "CLA" is probably an internet term and phenomenon, I don't know, but the activities involved were happening way before the internet ever came along. And for that matter, I strongly suspect that there have been ham-handed and worthless repair technicians around for just about as long.

But there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting an old camera cleaned and fixed if that is what you want. Face it, most film cameras are not getting any younger and we know for a fact that most people are not using them any longer. It just stands to reason that more and more of them are reaching the point where they may need some attention when they arrive in your mailbox.

End of Rant:bang:
 
Perhaps the home of Voigtlander and Rollei wasn't the best place to get a Minolta lens serviced! I agree that some of us "over-CLA" our gear. Unless there's a serious problem, it's well to leave things the way they were. I have a Leica IIIa that I've had for over 30 years and it was made in I938. It works flawlessly and there's no way anyone's going to get their hands on it until it actually goes wrong.
 
The majority of the people on this forum learned the term "CLA" online, barely understand what it means and are far too eager to send everything they buy off immediately for a "CLA".

First of all, it is better to leave well enough alone, and if something is wrong, you get it "repaired".

Everybody is "CLA" happy. There is no point in dismantling old mechanisms and having some bozo do a "CLA".

Do very minor repairs as needed. If it's working, don't "fix" it. As you can see, once someone who doesn't know what they are doing destroys something, Humpty-Dumpty doesn't go together again.

If there was a minor spot of fungus in an old lens that didn't make a difference in the images the lens produced, I would not have it opened up and messed around with.
Well said and. Count me as plus one.
 
The majority of the people on this forum learned the term "CLA" online, barely understand what it means and are far too eager to send everything they buy off immediately for a "CLA".

First of all, it is better to leave well enough alone, and if something is wrong, you get it "repaired".

Everybody is "CLA" happy. There is no point in dismantling old mechanisms and having some bozo do a "CLA".

Do very minor repairs as needed. If it's working, don't "fix" it. As you can see, once someone who doesn't know what they are doing destroys something, Humpty-Dumpty doesn't go together again.

If there was a minor spot of fungus in an old lens that didn't make a difference in the images the lens produced, I would not have it opened up and messed around with.
Seconded.

Cheers,

R.
 
Absolutely nothing wrong with a CLA on kit you have picked up second hand. The key is to have someone reputable do it.... It may look OK without a CLA but if it hasn't been touched for decades chances are the oils are dried out and you could cause serious damage by using it as is.... The OP was just very unlucky and has my sympathy.
 
I was told a long time ago by a Leica tech don't fix it if you have no issues. Every time you open one its one less time you can.

if owner isn't having issues with a lens/camera, how do they get to technician? go for a walk, kind of?
 
Absolutely nothing wrong with a CLA on kit you have picked up second hand. The key is to have someone reputable do it.... It may look OK without a CLA but if it hasn't been touched for decades chances are the oils are dried out and you could cause serious damage by using it as is.... The OP was just very unlucky and has my sympathy.
My standard response to this argument, from "Leicaphilia" on my site, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/leicaphilia.html

The dangers of the 'CLA'

The main reason I said that the biggest enemy of old Leicas is arguably lack of use is that there is another candidate: the so-called 'CLA' or 'clean, lubricate and adjust'. At best, a CLA consists of a true strip, clean and overhaul: take the camera to pieces, remove all old lubricants and dirt, replace any worn parts, and reassemble. This is an understandably expensive undertaking, but if the parts are available, the camera may literally be restored to 'as new' condition.

Most people, though, are unwilling to pay a skilled repairer the kind of money that is required to do a full strip, clean and overhaul, and as a result, at the other end of the scale, a 'CLA' may consist of nothing more than pulling the works out of the body; sluicing them out with a fairly aggressive solvent, which removes most but not all of the old lubricants and dirt; squirting lots of (often unsuitable) lubricant in; then reassembling and adjusting the shutter tension to give more or less correct speeds. This may involve winding the tension up quite high in order to overcome the residual stickiness of the imperfectly swilled out old lubricants. Understandably, the camera then wears faster than before, and goes out of adjustment sooner.

It is a tribute to the build quality of old Leicas that they can withstand this sort of abuse, but the simple truth is that it is often better to send an old Leica to a reputable repairer for a straightforward repair of a known fault than to commission a so-called 'CLA' from one of the cheaper repairers. A good repairer will often do as much 'mucking out' as a low-grade CLA, but rather more skilfully, and the camera won't come back soaked with oil and smelling like a refinery.


Cheers,

R.
 
Sorry about the lens. If it had fungus, you obviously needed to address the issue before it got worse.

Although I agree with Boris on the CLA fetish. Its nuts. My theory, which has served me well for 45 years: if aomething breaks, get it fixed. If not, leave it be.
 
Well, I have never regretted having my kit CLAd - absolutely essential to have kit in proper working order - particularly if you earn a living with it as I do.

Clearly people like Roger above have an axe to grind about this matter - fair enough we all have our pet peeves - but as indicated the OP had fungus on his lens and, quite rightly, wanted it removed.

I am not familiar with the guy that did the job but if there is a moral here it's to use someone good and don't choose the cheapest option.
 
Back
Top Bottom