Re: [Leica] experience is where its at

["Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com>]

To quote Carl, in 'Sling Blade'- "I like th' way you talk!"
Dan
- -----Original Message-----
From: Like A <leica@visualimpressions.com>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Friday, May 21, 1999 10:21 PM
Subject: [Leica] experience is where its at


>>Others have suggested that errant caps
>>are the leading cause of scratched front elements (I say it's
overcleaning!)
>>and prefer not capping the lens at all while it's safe in it's own padded
>>compartment.
>
>Besides my ultra wides (15 & 16) I use a 21 Super-Angulon-R and a 28mm
>Elmarit-R as wides. On these and my longer Leitz lenses the glass is
>recessed into the lens barrel or far enough below the lens shade that if I
>were to bash the lens something else would be damaged before the glass
>would get hurt. A few years ago I was in a camera store and a Leitz
>technician was there cleaning and checking cameras and lenses. He cleaned
>the elements with a microfiber cloth. If there was stubborn gunk or spots
>on the glass he scrubbed the glass elements with a chamois, breathing on it
>between scrubbings. I asked him about hurting the lens and he said that the
>coating on Leitz lenses was real hard and it would take a hell of a (pardon
>me, his words, not mine) lot more than scrubbing with a chamois to in any
>way damage a lens. Sand paper and steel wool are out but any soft cloth,
>microfiber, or chamois works great, he said. He also said that old screw
>mount and some early M mount lenses could not take it, but all of the R
>lenses and all modern M lenses are as hard as granite (probably an
>overstatement, but I think he was trying to make a point). His words were
>"clean 'um and use 'um often". I don't own an M type camera yet so I can't
>comment on the lenses.
>
>I also just read a post that said that water would dissolve the lens
>coating. I must have a special version of these lenses.
>
>>Water can destroy the coating on a lens if the lens is subjected to it for
>>an extended period of time. Salt water will accelerate this, but only if
>>left on the lens or over a period of time.
>>If you were at the ocean and the lens were sprayed each day, I would say
>>that in a few months you would see the coating start to change/dissolve.
>>But if you clean the lens each day, preferably with an alcohol-type
cleaner
>>(Many lens manufacturers use an alcohol based cleaner for the lens
>>elements.) the alcohol provides the added benefit of absorbing moisture as
>>well. Hence, the possibility of coating damage is reduced.
>
>You know, in my occasional lurking on this list, I sure see a lot of
>strange stuff printed as if it were fact. There seem to be a few people
>that need to know everything and will say anything to prove it but nothin
>beats just plain old experience.
>
>Last time I checked a water droplet on my lens, it had dried within a few
>minutes. Didn't take any coating with it either. Hardly an extended period.
>How do you leave water on your lens for an extended period? I guess if you
>left it in a bucket of water for a week or so, sorry, bad joke. Maybe the
>post about water dissolving lens coatings is a joke? Now out here in the
>real world I shoot in the rain, snow, sleet, hail, everything. Remember
>Diana Ross' concert in Central Park? Talk about wet camera gear! I guess I
>can say that in the many years of shooting in horrible conditions, my Leitz
>equipment has never missed a beat. It takes a licking (drowning) and keeps
>on ticking. You point the lens down until ready to shoot then after a few
>shots you wipe the lens and point it back down. If coating was going to
>come off, I surely would have rubbed every micron off doing this many
>thousands of times. I have forgotten to clean a lens or two after being
>exposed to wind, rain, and ocean spray, only to find them pretty dirty a
>month or so later. A little lens cleaner and a tee shirt and they sparkle
>like new. After reading the water will dissolve your lens coating post I
>just cleaned and checked all of my lenses and you know what - they are all
>perfect. Not a mark or spot of any kind, anywhere on the glass (coating).
>Can't say that about the metal parts. These lenses have been through the
>mill. Wet dry wet dry wet dry hot cold hot cold hot cold. Everything all
>the time. If I remember right a lens coating is an ion deposit (or
>something like that) which means it isn't just some slop that is painted
>on. Could we call it an ionic bond? If water will dissolve this I think Mr.
>Leitz (Mr. Nikon and Mr. Canon too) would be spending all of their time
>fixing dissolved lens coatings. You have a chap on here (Erwin) that seems
>to know an awful lot of scientific stuff about lenses and maybe he could
>shed some light on the water dissolving coating fable. It's a fable to me.
>My colleagues who use the other brand cameras don't seem to have a coating
>dissolving problem either. I once saw an older electronic Nikon shut down
>in a heavy rain storm. He has a new Nikon now but the same old lens
>including coating. This is one reason why I use a mechanical camera. The
>other reason is that I don't need batteries. The next other reason is that
>my Leitz lenses wont flare out with bright stage spots shining directly in
>the face of the lens. This is one reason why my stuff sells best. Ever see
>a shooter go crazy? Watch them in the middle of shooting a happening when
>their batteries die and they don't have spares. Not a pretty sight.
>
>Oops, I just noticed that I kept calling it Leitz. Most of my lenses say
>Leitz so I automatically say Leitz instead of Leica. I do know that Leica
>is now separate. Sorry.
>
>Oh yeah, I was just being funny with my last post, about the UV filter for
>my 15, 16, & 19mm lenses. There are no filter threads on these lenses. ;-)
>There are some useless filters built in. I have used the orangeish one a
>couple of times for the hallucinatory effect. You know, this is your brain
>on D-76 kinda stuff. If there were threads, they would never get used
>anyway. Can you imagine putting a flare prone filter over a non flare prone
>lens? Might as well use the cheaper stuff from the beginning. I just don't
>understand what goes on in some peoples noggin. I do have the 15 and 16 but
>not the 19. Joke, remember? My most used lenses are my 21 and my 35. I do
>own a 50, 90, 135, and a 250 but they rarely get used. The 250 more than
>the other three. That's why they can lay crudded up with water spots and
>other miscellaneous debris for months before I find them and clean them.
>After use they get put back in the bag and forgotten. Poor things. But you
>know what, they clean right up and when clean, you can point any of my
>Leica (see I remembered) lenses at the sun, bright spot lights (remember
>the old Kegg lights?) and obtain shadow detail and highlight detail and see
>the bright light as well, not all blown out and killing overall image
>quality. I can't figure out why my colleagues haven't figured this out. I
>sure catch the dickens about my old antique equipment. But the proof is in
>the pudding. What that means is my stuff is always good. Their stuff is
>sometimes good.
>
>I could go on for hours here about shooting alongside guys with AF,
>listening to the motors hunt while I just focus and shoot. Makes
>composition difficult when you have to point the camera at something else
>just to get it to focus. Then forget to push focus hold and have to do it
>all over again. Yuck!
>
>I have to go to work now. It's red-eye time again. Catch ya in a week er
>so. Probably er so.
>
>So behave yourselves and don't believe all that stuff from those nuts that
>just talk and don't shoot. You know, the guys that sit behind a desk and
>maybe shoot a couple of shots a month. How about 30 or 40 rolls every
>weekend rain or shine, sleet, snow, or tornados. When you make a living
>doing this stuff, a lot of those old wives tales seem to fade away. You
>sure learn in a hurry what works and what doesn't. Leica stuff works.
>Lenses are not fragile. The harder you work them the better they perform.
>
>OK I have to go.
>
>Bis später,
>
>J.L. Adams, VI, ASMP
>
>