Ultron 35 1.7 ltm - prone to haze?!

[Erik van Straten]

This picture looks more as if the front lens is dirty.

The front lens is concave. When you look into the back of the lens, the front of the front element looks surprisingly close, so maybe it is not the inside of the lens, but the front that is a bit dirty.

Erik.

 

[retinax]

This picture looks more as if the front lens is dirty.

The front lens is concave. When you look into the back of the lens, the front of the front element looks surprisingly close, so maybe it is not the inside of the lens, but the front that is a bit dirty.

Erik.

No no, definitely not the front lens. I looked from both sides, with aperture closed a bit etc. This surface is near the diaphragm.
This pic was taken form the rear. The little bit of dirt on the bottom left I think is on the rear surface, but the haze further inside.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Well, then I wonder what happened to the lens. Maybe an earlier owner opened it for some reason. This kind of dirt will not enter a lens all by itself.

Maybe you can send it to Stephen Gandy to have it cleaned.

Erik.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Anyway I've never experienced or heard of water vapor condensation inside a prime lens. Or does anyone here think that's it?

I've seen water condensation marks in several Nikkor RF prime lenses (and got them repaired by Nikon who replaced the affected optical group). The photo you posted shows haze IMO, not water condensation marks. If the lens is stored in a poor environment, haze can happen quite easily.

I think you were probably just unlucky with the two Ultrons you ended up with.

 

[retinax]

Well, then I wonder what happened to the lens. Maybe an earlier owner opened it for some reason. This kind of dirt will not enter a lens all by itself.

Maybe you can send it to Stephen Gandy to have it cleaned.

Erik.

This went back to the seller because I had bought it as clean.
The second one I bought has more subtle haze without this sort of traces that may come from a failed cleaning attempt (also going back). Maybe that's what this one had before and someone tried to clean it. On the second one, it's on several surfaces. Stronger on one in front of the aperture, slight mist among others on the inside of the very last element.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Maybe you were just unlucky, as Jon says, but this says more about the sellers who want to get rid of their damaged gear. What a people.

Erik.

 

[rangefinderlove123]

I've just handled today one of these 35 ultron ltm. Same deal, haze inside and it cannot be cleaned not without splitting some of the cemented elements.

Apparently the lens performs fine nevertheless.

Similar case with a 90mm 3.5 lanthar...

 

[retinax]

I've just handled today one of these 35 ultron ltm. Same deal, haze inside and it cannot be cleaned not without splitting some of the cemented elements.

Apparently the lens performs fine nevertheless.

Similar case with a 90mm 3.5 lanthar...

Too bad. How do you know it's in the cement? That's exactly what a repairman told me on the phone. He must have seen it before (maybe on other CV lenses, seems like the 90/2.5 and 28/2.8 are somewhat notorious for haze).
As to performing nevertheless, sure, that's what the sellers told me, too. No doubt the effect of haze is not that noticeable unless you shoot against the light, which I like to do. The lens does have a reputation for flaring easily, I suspect that's due to haze people may have not discovered. And as these lenses are rather young, it's bound to get worse.

I'm still hoping that not all are affected and waiting for another one to show up from a shop where I can return without hassle, no more private sellers with this lens, that was too annoying last time around.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Maybe we can start a list of numbers of the Ultron LTM to determine batches that are affected.

Mine is number 9450560, not affected.

Erik.

 

[steveyork]

I purchased a VC 50mm/1.5 in Nikon S mount on that auction site, and I was surprised to find haze in the rear element for such a "new" lens. I always associated haze with old, circa 50's and 60's lenses.

Apropos at this point to give kudos to old Nikkors, which tend to be relatively haze, fog resistant.

The postscript is that only later did I discover that Steve Grady still had these 50mm lenses in stock. I was under the impression that Camerquest sold out of these Nikon mount Voigtlanders, but apparently he still has some in stock. Which just goes to show how finite is the Nikon rangefinder crowd.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Listing on ebay as "very good" but haze is awful.

sn: 9930244

This one is also listed with fog

SN: 9960135


This one listed as "I can see cloudy."
SN: 9940495

This one listed with haze

SN: 9940017

 

[Erik van Straten]

Awful, this haze. It is such a fine lens when clear. There are not many affordable 35mm LTM-lenses out there.

So: if the serial number starts with "99XXXXX", watch out.


My VC lenses for Nikon S, 21mm f/4, 50mm f/2.5 and 50mm f/1.5 are all clear as a bell.


Erik.

 

[Larry H-L]

Mine is a 9960xxx, but crystal clear. Maybe the issue is fungus, and not “haze.”

 

[Mr_Flibble]

My 35mm f/1.7 developed dried-up condensation haze after I spent a few hours in a mild drizzle with it. Taking it apart for cleaning wasn't hard, same as tightening up the lens barrel.

 

[Erik van Straten]

My 35mm f/1.7 developed dried-up condensation haze after I spent a few hours in a mild drizzle with it. Taking it apart for cleaning wasn't hard, same as tightening up the lens barrel.

Maybe this is the cause of the trouble, and the solution for it.

Erik.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

I recall I used an online disassembly guide for it.

Mine also suffered from a rusty click-stop ball bearing at some point, which jammed the aperture ring. Again, not a difficult fix. 🙂