alexM
Member
Is it vapors inside of a lens, or is it film On a lens glass?
What is haze?
- Thread starter alexM
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 25
- Views 3K
muser53
MUSER53
My understanding (someone with more knowledge please hop in) is haze typically is caused by off gassing of lubricants within the lens.
grouchos_tash
Well-known
I thought it was both, the vapors cause a film on the lens?
kuuan
loves old lenses
I believe that the haze comes from vapours inside a lens that either come from lubricants or from interior paints that deteriorate/disintegrate.
The vapours cause a film on a lens' surface that either can be simply wiped away or which, in later stages, can cause etching. I believe that the etching will me mostly of the coating. That could be removed through polishing, which, though it might improve performance, still will leave performance impacted negatively.
Canon LTMs, most frequently the 1.8/50 and 3.5/100 are said to suffer from haze that is said to come from lubricants. With luck it still can be wiped away, more often there is etching already.
Pen-F Zuiko 3.5/20 typically suffers from a haze, or rather 'bubbles', coming from disintegrating, interior paint. That doesn't cause etching and usually can simply be wiped away.
Later stage of the 'white spot' problem of the M-Rokkor 2.8/28 which first only effects the outer rim of the glas, though also said to be caused by the paint, in later stages develops etching of the whole surface.
I think that most probably there are other reasons more for coating to deteriorate that may cause haze
The vapours cause a film on a lens' surface that either can be simply wiped away or which, in later stages, can cause etching. I believe that the etching will me mostly of the coating. That could be removed through polishing, which, though it might improve performance, still will leave performance impacted negatively.
Canon LTMs, most frequently the 1.8/50 and 3.5/100 are said to suffer from haze that is said to come from lubricants. With luck it still can be wiped away, more often there is etching already.
Pen-F Zuiko 3.5/20 typically suffers from a haze, or rather 'bubbles', coming from disintegrating, interior paint. That doesn't cause etching and usually can simply be wiped away.
Later stage of the 'white spot' problem of the M-Rokkor 2.8/28 which first only effects the outer rim of the glas, though also said to be caused by the paint, in later stages develops etching of the whole surface.
I think that most probably there are other reasons more for coating to deteriorate that may cause haze
David Hughes
David Hughes
My 2d worth is that the lubricants vaporise and condense on to the glass which has a fairly high thermal capacity. That means they'd condense on to aluminium as well...
Whatever removes them may give us a clue.
Regards, David
Whatever removes them may give us a clue.
Regards, David
charjohncarter
Veteran
Thanks for confirming my thoughts. I have a 35mm Serenar (Canon) f 3.5 LTM lens. It suffers from haze. I usually remove all the elements and wipe them clean before I use it. I've noticed it takes about a year to re-haze. So now it is every time I use it.
Kate-the-Great
Well-known
I've heard of this problem a lot with early Canon LTM lenses. I wonder if anyone has collected serial numbers and figured out a date range for the affected lenses? It was likely a matter of Canon simply choosing the wrong lubricant, but they must have changed it once customers reported their lenses going bad because later Canon LTMs seem okay. My mid-late 1950's Serenar 28mm f/3.5 has no haze at all.
Materials Science is tricky! There's also of course the infamous Rodenstock element seperation issue with 1st-gen synthetic cements that took decades to show up, and now nearly all 58mm Grandagons (and probably others) are some degree of irreparably damaged.
Materials Science is tricky! There's also of course the infamous Rodenstock element seperation issue with 1st-gen synthetic cements that took decades to show up, and now nearly all 58mm Grandagons (and probably others) are some degree of irreparably damaged.
pyeh
Member of good standing
Can anyone shed light on the hazing that's said to be caused by rare earth or radioactive lens elements? The Summicron 35 Version 1 is apparently very susceptible to this. Certainly mine has it. I've been told is irreparable.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The typical thing radioactive lens elements can cause (to themselves) is yellowing or browning of the element itself. They can be faded back to working order by exposing the lens to strong UV-A light (which will resettle the ions within the glass) - but that is a process that has to be re-done every few years. In theory they could also de-polymerize lens cements, which could look like haze, and which might require re-cementing - but so far, I haven't encountered that.
I once asked Yamazaki-san of Yamazaki Optics in Tokyo about getting the haze cleaned out of some Canon LTM lenses, and his reply was don't waste your money as they'll just haze up again. He said the cause is the type of glass used, not vaporizing lubricants. As another poster above suggested, Yamazaki-san said clean the lens just before you use it. I vaguely remember him saying something about fluoride in one or several of the glass elements being the cause of the problem but don't quote me on that.
Edit: Yamazaki-san of Yamazaki Optics is not to be confused with Miyazaki-san of MS Optical R&D (i.e. the guy who creates all those oddball lenses like the Perar 35/3.5). Yamazaki-san is well known in Japan as a lens repairer who will take on jobs that most lens repair guys here won't touch.
Edit: Yamazaki-san of Yamazaki Optics is not to be confused with Miyazaki-san of MS Optical R&D (i.e. the guy who creates all those oddball lenses like the Perar 35/3.5). Yamazaki-san is well known in Japan as a lens repairer who will take on jobs that most lens repair guys here won't touch.
kuuan
loves old lenses
Radioactive lenses may turn 'yellow', loosing some light transmission and giving a warm tone to photos. It generally can be easily cured by exposing the lens to light, see e.g.: https://mbphotox.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/removing-the-color-cast-in-radioactive-lenses-results/
--
My S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50 had been quite yellow, actually I liked the tone it gave to photos and had not tried to cure it. However it was my most used lens then, in tropical places with strong sun, and within a year the yellow cast had vanished by itself.
--
My S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50 had been quite yellow, actually I liked the tone it gave to photos and had not tried to cure it. However it was my most used lens then, in tropical places with strong sun, and within a year the yellow cast had vanished by itself.
kuuan
loves old lenses
right, the theory that lubricants are the cause is the most shared explanation on the net, but most likely it's speculation.
lucky if the haze can be cleaned away. I have one 3.5/100 Canon LTM that develops haze again and again that still can be wiped away ( 'mostly, there also is just a bit that can't ) and I do that every now and then. However various degrees of haze of 3 more copies and of 3 1.8/50 can't be wiped away, successfully removed the haze of the less effected 3.5/100 by polishing with cerium oxide
Greyscale
Veteran
I have used Efferdent to successfully clean haze that nothing else seemed to be able to remove.
joeswe
Well-known
What is perceived as haze in a camera lens can either be caused by a deposit on the surface of the lens (lots of dust, condensation of oily vapours etc.) or by changes in the chemical structure of the glass (which in turn could be triggered or accelerated by environmental factors as humidity etc.) or simply a combination of both.
Depending on the type of lens, the type of haze and the severity of it the problem a cleaning job might be able to clean the glass (or not). In most cases it is impossible to predict the outcome of a cleaning job.
While typically seen in vintage lenses, modern lenses are by no means safe from haze. A camera dealer in Japan showed me two CV Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5 lenses that suffered from haze and one that had been recently repaired by CV which had required exchange of a lens element.
Depending on the type of lens, the type of haze and the severity of it the problem a cleaning job might be able to clean the glass (or not). In most cases it is impossible to predict the outcome of a cleaning job.
While typically seen in vintage lenses, modern lenses are by no means safe from haze. A camera dealer in Japan showed me two CV Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5 lenses that suffered from haze and one that had been recently repaired by CV which had required exchange of a lens element.
charjohncarter
Veteran
That 35mm f 3.5 Serenar of mine is really horrible with recurring haze. I have a 100mm Serenar that have no haze so maybe you are right. I don't really understand serial numbers, but you are welcome to my two if you are interested.
pyeh
Member of good standing
I am finding this thread pretty useful in clarifying how haze might develop. Thank you Sevo and Kuuan for responding to my particular question.
However, it's not rally discolouration I am thinking about, but this 'haze' thing found in lenses with Thorium glass. Perhaps Joeswe's post is closest to what I am looking for, but I still wish I knew how haze is formed such that it isn't cleanable any more.
However, it's not rally discolouration I am thinking about, but this 'haze' thing found in lenses with Thorium glass. Perhaps Joeswe's post is closest to what I am looking for, but I still wish I knew how haze is formed such that it isn't cleanable any more.
Last edited:
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
^I've found countless references to haze on camera lens and the near insane use of
extremely dangerous chemicals used in attempts to clean them.
What I think some of us would like to see is actual pictures of the haze their lens
exhibit . Followed by explanation of what worked for them ( or not ) and a follow up
picture. Peter
extremely dangerous chemicals used in attempts to clean them.
What I think some of us would like to see is actual pictures of the haze their lens
exhibit . Followed by explanation of what worked for them ( or not ) and a follow up
picture. Peter
joeswe
Well-known
The mentioned discoloration/yellowing of glasses that contain radioactive materials like Thorium is usually not referred to as "haze". Haze means that a lens appears cloudy or milky when you shine a light through it. A lens affected by radioactive yellowing will still be clear, just have a yellowish tint. AFAIK, the glasses that have a tendency to develop haze are usually of the non radioactive type.
When you encounter a non curable case of haze (not removable by wiping the element with the usual solvents/cleaning fluids) this usually means that the chemical structure of the glass at least at the surface of the lens has been permanently changed and damaged. The changed chemical structure will lead to a change in optical properties. Such a lens is not repairable (unless you repolish and recoat the lens element at great cost and with questionable effects on the optical properties), the elements will have to be replaced.
pyeh
Member of good standing
Thanks Joeswe. I have one or two lenses (Summicron 35 V1 for sure, and Summilux 35 pre-asph maybe) that have Incurable Haze. Such a shame for such beautiful lenses.
joeswe
Well-known
yes, beautiful lenses, this is certainly sad 🙁 Was the diagnosis made by a repair shop or did you draw your own conclusions? Depending on the grade of haziness you may be able to normally use the lenses as long as you avoid counter light situations. The Summilux 35 V1 is a lens that is known for its inherent tendency to produce flare/hazy pictures in counter light situations at large apertures (a feature of the design, so to say) but I don't remember it as particularly prone to develop haze in the lens elements. Maybe what you see in the pictures is just normal behaviour of the lens?
