Today I learned ...

wlewisiii

wlewisiii

Just another hotel clerk
Local time
2:28 PM
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,091
Location
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
View My Gallery
That the Leica Elmar 50/2.8 front element has soft glass. This is not an especially big surprise, many 50's into early 60's lenses from them did. What I didn't realize was that the haze issue mine has on the rear of the front element has probably pitted the glass to the point where it can't be cleaned and must be replaced. Fortunately, DAG says he has either new or good used front elements available at prices within my budget range. I'll be sending it off for a CLA.

I found this interesting more because it extended the level of my understanding of the issues regarding the glass used by Leica in that era and that I might be better off sticking with other classic lenses instead in the future.
 
I've never come across a single LTM or S Nikkor with these issues; they seem consistently haze free and without separation. It begs the question of whose lenses were ahead of the curve in those days.
 
wlewisiii said:
That the Leica Elmar 50/2.8 front element has soft glass. This is not an especially big surprise, many 50's into early 60's lenses from them did. What I didn't realize was that the haze issue mine has on the rear of the front element has probably pitted the glass to the point where it can't be cleaned and must be replaced. Fortunately, DAG says he has either new or good used front elements available at prices within my budget range. I'll be sending it off for a CLA.

I found this interesting more because it extended the level of my understanding of the issues regarding the glass used by Leica in that era and that I might be better off sticking with other classic lenses instead in the future.
Click to expand...
Doh! I hate it when I learn stuff "the hard way". I'm hoping your lens comes out lovely in the end.
 
rfaspen said:
Doh! I hate it when I learn stuff "the hard way". I'm hoping your lens comes out lovely in the end.
Click to expand...
Hope so too. It went out to DAG today with a 3 ~ 4-week turnaround expected which for him isn't bad at all. Everything I've had done by him has come out exquisite so I'm looking forward to shooting with it when I get it back in July.
 
Zuiko-logist said:
I appreciate the soft glass point so don’t touch it, but why is it pitted on the rear of the front element. Presumably this has been away from prying fingers?
Click to expand...
I've heard of that before on that lens as it is a known issue, the thought is it is from the grease used in the lens. Same thing can happen with the Canon 50mm f1.2.
 
wlewisiii said:
That the Leica Elmar 50/2.8 front element has soft glass. This is not an especially big surprise, many 50's into early 60's lenses from them did. What I didn't realize was that the haze issue mine has on the rear of the front element has probably pitted the glass to the point where it can't be cleaned and must be replaced. Fortunately, DAG says he has either new or good used front elements available at prices within my budget range. I'll be sending it off for a CLA.

I found this interesting more because it extended the level of my understanding of the issues regarding the glass used by Leica in that era and that I might be better off sticking with other classic lenses instead in the future.
Click to expand...
If you have already written off the glass try this:

Glass Polish 14004 Glass Polishing Compound for Professional Polishing of All Glass Surfaces - 1.2 microns - 3.4oz​


Any coating will be removed from that face of the glass but you might get the haze off and rescue the lens. The 2.8 is well worth saving. Small size but better ergonomics than the 3.5 version and I love the way it draws. I use my 2.8 more than the 3.5 or a Summicron collapsible.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
I've never come across a single LTM or S Nikkor with these issues; they seem consistently haze free and without separation. It begs the question of whose lenses were ahead of the curve in those days.
Click to expand...
I have- with two Nikkor 5cm F2 in LTM. The surface behind the aperture was badly etched, and the front element was badly scratched. Both were early Rigid lenses. I had replacement elements, one bought loose off Ebay and the second- used the optics from an S-Mount lens and put them in the LTM barrel.

Haze can be cleaned out. I suspect the etching was from lubricants seeping onto the surface. It was really bad.
 
wlewisiii said:
That the Leica Elmar 50/2.8 front element has soft glass. This is not an especially big surprise, many 50's into early 60's lenses from them did. What I didn't realize was that the haze issue mine has on the rear of the front element has probably pitted the glass to the point where it can't be cleaned and must be replaced. Fortunately, DAG says he has either new or good used front elements available at prices within my budget range. I'll be sending it off for a CLA.

I found this interesting more because it extended the level of my understanding of the issues regarding the glass used by Leica in that era and that I might be better off sticking with other classic lenses instead in the future.
Click to expand...

DAG got back to me today. He let me know that "the inner lens element being so soft haze permanent haze. I tried finding another lens element but could not find one, even though I cleaned the other inner lens elements the end results optically is very soft so I'm shipping your lens back you you at no charge. The Elmar 2.8/50mm lens is notorious for this to happen"

I replied to him that "It's unfortunate but coming from you that's completely understandable. I'll have to use it as it is with that understanding - it has it's unusual charms as it was - I'll attach a photo taken with it - though I did have my hopes for "as new" 🙂 I thank you for your time and your labor as always, I know you have done the very best you can and that's the very best possible in this circumstance.

It's always a problem having Champaign tastes and Miller budget < laughs >"
(this is the photo I sent him)
L1007776.jpg

His reply to that was "Yes, I think your Elmar lens will still optically take the same photos. And for the type of photo you emailed me it actually looks good with that soft focus, I'll ship today"

Lessons learned and I have, essentially what most people think of the Summar as only as instead it's an Elmar 50/2.8 🙂 I'll have to see how it does as a people lens. Perhaps it would make a nice flattering portrait lens? No matter, use it to it's strengths and try to avoid it's weaknesses, but that's what one should do with any lens, right?
 
Sounds like you got good service from DAG, though not possible to bring it to like-new. I think you're wise to consider its current strengths and bypass the weaknesses. I took this approach using a tiny Pentax Auto-110... I found it necessary to emphasize broad compositions and shapes and not rely on fine detail and textures. As a challenge I was making 8x10 enlargements for a college art photo class and it did well within its limits. Enjoy your lens!
 
wlewisiii said:
I found this interesting more because it extended the level of my understanding of the issues regarding the glass used by Leica in that era and that I might be better off sticking with other classic lenses instead in the future.
Click to expand...

I have, had FSU LTM lenses from fifties. Glass was, is free of typical Leitz problems which are even with ELC made in eighties.
But they need plenty of cleaning, new lubrication and alignment. No special tools, knowledge needed, just time consuming.
 
In case you are looking for something different, the collapsible 50mm f/3.5 Konica Hexar is an excellent alternative to a 1950s Elmar. Sharp as anything and no unusually soft glass.

PXL_20230330_005314455.PORTRAIT~2.jpg
 
Got it back today. On the outside it looks like the classic "MINTY" or "EX++++++" ebay lens. Even looking at the glass without a strong light it looks fine. But I know now what it's good for and what it's not good for thanks to my favorite repair guy & that's pretty cool in itself.

I do think getting a backup like a Canon could be fun to have for a sharp faster collapsible, but I don't think I'll sell this one. But I'll keep the notes from DAG so that when I croak and my heirs go to sell it, the next owner won't be disappointed by what they get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom