Re: [Leica] Flakes in lens

["Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi>]

Hi all! I had a Summicron 50mm from the late fifties that was/become
completely fungus infested but photographing mainly out of doors at mid=
dle
apertures I could not detect anything in the slides. When the defect wa=
s
shown to me I was shocked and exchanged it immediately for an example f=
rom
1976 - so I have shots made with both lenses and with Summicron 90mm on=
 the
same roll of slides and the differences are really minimal - perhaps a
slightly lower contrast. I=B4m a bit confused now but I=B4d expect that=
 you do
not see any defects on film. Raimo=20

- ----------
> From: Charles Babington <cbabing3@swbell.net>
> To: Leica Mailing List <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Subject: [Leica] Flakes in lens
> Date: 20. toukokuuta 1998 23:37
>=20
> I have just received a used 50/1.4 Summilux-M from one of the well kn=
own
> vendors of Leica equipment.  It is very clean externally, focus and
> aperture rings work smoothly and are not loose, the glass surfaces ar=
e
> scratch free, and the price is good (compared to other offerings in t=
his
> month's Shutterbug.)  However, there is a large black "furch" inside,=
 at
> about 4 o'clock (looking from the front), behind the diaphragm (I wou=
ld
> guess it's on the lens surface immediately behind, judging from the l=
ens
> diagram on the box.)  It appears to be about 1/8 inch long and much
> narrower than that, but wider than several hairs.  It could be a bit =
of
> paint.  Rapping the side of the lens with a knuckle (not hard enough =
to
> hurt me) doesn't move it.  There are a few other rather tiny black sp=
ots
> around the edge of the glass, and the usual bits of dust, but I'm not
> worried about them.
>=20
> The thing is close enough to the edge of the element that if you clos=
e
> the diaphragm down below f/2 you cannot see it silhouetted against th=
e
> open back or front of the lens (no matter what angle you look in from=
.)=20
> I will try to shoot a roll tomorrow to see if there is any visible
> effect on film, but I'm wondering if I may safely assume that effects
> would only be visible on film at apertures where the item is visibly =
(to
> the eye) in the path of some light ray coming through the lens?  If s=
o,
> I only need to check the largest couple of aperture positions.
>=20
> TIA for anyone's experience here.
>=20
> Cheers,
> Kip Babington