Re: [Leica] f2.8 90mm Elmarit (Thin) Survey

["Bruce M. Burnett" <buddybru@uswest.net>]

My 90 2.8 Tele-elmarit is ser. no. 2588319, and it is no beauty.  I am not
sure if it is going bad or not.  The pictures are still okay, but when I
look through the lens with a strong light I see all kinds of spots on the
inner elements.
Bruce Burnett
Salt Lake City, UT

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Gandy" <leicanikon@earthlink.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] f2.8 90mm Elmarit (Thin) Survey


> I think the problem has something to do with the particular design,
because if
> it were caused by atmospheric conditions, the same problem would show up
on
> other lenses -- Leica and none Leica.  the damaged examples I have seen
have a
> peculiar mottled appearance to the rear element.  It looks like something
that
> would clean off, but in fact it won't clean off.    the rear element was a
new
> design which is pressed in.  I wonder if too much pressure was applied
during
> the manufacture, if stress fractures could develop years later ??
>
> IF any of the damaged lenses are available, Solms repair wants to take a
look
> at them to find out what is happening.  Send them to the head of the
repair
> department,  Horst Braun.
>
> Stephen Gandy
>
> "C. E. Workman Jr." wrote:
>
> > This survey is being made to determine if there is any relationship of
> > "fogged" 90 mm Elmarit lenses to their serial numbers/production dates.
> >
> > Here's tentative results of the survey on this lens from LUG subscribers
so
> > far:
> >
> > Number of responses:  10
> >
> > Serial ranges:  26572XX - 34522XX
> >
> > Number of "Fogged" lenses:  3
> >
> > Serial numbers of "Fogged" lenses:   27276XX, 29676XX, 32014XX
> >
> > Conclusion:  There ain't none!!!!  Not enough numbers yet, and wide
> > separation between those numbers with the "fog" problem.
> >
> > I'll be glad to keep records if more want to submit their serial
numbers.
> > Just a thought, though.  If the "fog" problem is caused by deterioration
of
> > some of the cements used in the lens construction, as so many think,
then
> > atmospheric and/or storage could really be the cause.
> >
> > OK, let's hear it.
> >
> > Chuck
>
>