Re: 90 Tele-Elmarit-M Probs

[cmiller@berkshire.net (Curt Miller)]

Hi Group -

Don't know if this is relevant in this particular situation but there indeed
were a batch (or batches) of 'skinny' Tele-Elmar-M 90s manufactured with
what is now referred to as a 'bad glue batch.' It presents itself as
spotting or hazing or clouding of the rear element group.  As I understand
it there is no cleaning or repairing such a lens short of replacing the
element(s).  It is considered economically unfeasible.  The lenses so
affected are usually a total (economic) loss.  Check with any reputable
repair shop and I think they'll corroborate my story.  It's another good
reason to buy a 'fat' 90 or a new one IMHO.

Curt

>This topic was discussed some time ago on LUG.  Although everyone did
>not agree, I believe the problem is a result of the Leitz animal based
>grease  which attacked the glass.  IN this particular lens (due to
>design changes to save the almighty $$)  it is very difficult to take
>apart the rear element once it has been attacked in order to clean it
>properly.  The only thing you can really do is have a clear one taken
>apart and rel-ubed with modern synthetic grease BEFORE the problem
>presents itself.  I did it on mine, and have had no trouble.  My source
>of information is Don Chatterton.
>
>Regards,
>
>Stephen Gandy
>
>
>Len Schweitzer wrote:
>
>> Kent - I owned a Tele-Elmarit-M for some time and wasn't  satisfied
>> with
>> the image quality; then I found out why:  I decided to trade it for a
>> newer 90M and had it rejected by the dealer.  He pointed out that
>> there
>> had been a bad batch (or more) of this lens ... a problem with the
>> cement, I believe, as a result of which some of the elements separated
>>
>> and there was a permanent haze on the rear element.  You can see the
>> haze by shining a flashlight at 45 degree angle through the rear
>> element.  Since I bought it used some time ago, I have  to "eat" it.
>> I'm kinda ticked off since Leica US did a clean/lube/etc on it a few
>> years ago and never said anything to me about it.
>>
>> For convenience, it was hard to beat.  Exteriorly, the glass looks
>> great
>> and you can't tell anything is wrong with it.    I can't even
>> ethically
>> offer it for sale, so I guess it'll make an attractive paperweight.
>> I've transferred the screw-in rubber lenshood to my 135 Tele-Elmar, so
>>
>> that'll be more convenient than fiddling with a separate lenshood.
>>
>> Bottom line: do some careful research on the one you're looking at to
>> be
>> sure it's not from the bad batch.
>
>
>
>
>