Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/03/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] 35 Summilux from KEH, should I complain?
From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:32:47 -0800
References: <NABBLIJOIFAICKBIEPJJOEAHEPAB.darkroom@ix.netcom.com>

Austin

That makes four!

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> > > > It sounds like they described it accurately to me. If the aperture
> > > > moves freely I would not worry about it. Oil on the aperture blades is
> > > > more of an issue with SLR auto diaphragm lenses.
> > >
> > > I believe it is a reflection issue...which wouldn't matter if
> > > it's an SLR or
> > > not...
> > >
> >
> > As with LF lenses in shutters, as well as SLR auto diaphragm
> > lenses, it's an
> > issue of the oil actually slowing the shutter/aperture diaphragm blades
> > down - they should be dry. But on a rangefinder it's not an issue as the
> > aperture blades don't move in a leica M lens during exposure.
>
> you mean "on a range finder THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE is not an issue", because
> oil on the blades can very well be an issue.  Over time, it can get on the
> elements, and it can also possibly cause a haze on the optics.  Oil inside
> the lense like that is just not a good idea, rangefinder or not.
>
> > Reflections? Bah humbug. Some of my shutter blades are so old and
> > shiny you
> > could shave in em!
>
> Then why do they matte them to make them not shiny?  Any internal
> reflections can reduce contrast, and/or cause flare.  The potential is
> certainly there.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> (RE: [Leica] 35 Summilux from KEH, should I complain?)