Paranoid about my thin Tele-Elmarit

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I just read in a message below ("Portrait lens for M6") that 3200000 is the cut-off for the "good" thin Tele-Elmarit 90. I assume that this has to do with the element separation problem, right?

Anyhow, now I'm concerned because the serial number on mine is 306xxxx. I thought the problem had been corrected by this point in the production. I bought the lens a few months ago (for $375) and inspected it with a penlight. No problems were detected and my negatives look fine. Still, what is the likelyhood of the illness taking its toll in the future? I would guess that if it hasn't happened by now then it probably won't ever.

Any thoughts? I've really grown to love this lens. I actually think it's one of the best fitting (and best feeling) lens for the M6. I'd really hate to lose this one.

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), March 18, 2002

Answers

Yeesh. Take a pill. Mine's a 31xx xxx with NO element separation. If it was OK when you inspected it then its probably OK period. The chances of the problem developing after 20+ years of use is slim to none. Don't buy into all those scare tactics (not that I was meaning to scare you).

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 18, 2002.

Luke:

1) If it has no separation, don't worry about it!

2) If it has no separation, at $375 you stold it!!

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 18, 2002.


Our # 32931004 90 mm TE has been a beauty since we acquired it. We use it primarily for lamdscapes and for "close ups" in Cahedrals, churches and museums. Although we use our 35 most of the time, and our 50 for the remainder, there comes a time when we switch to the 90TE, such as the time were shooting the sunset on Mount Cook from our room in the Hermitage - - - or shooting the sunrise on the Grand Tetonns. Don't knock this lens until you have used it for over a decade, as we have done.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), March 19, 2002.

1) It's actually a glass-etching problem. The elements are not cemented so they can't separate - except maybe from the mount.

2) It only occurs in (per Steve Gandy) 5% of thin TE's - the 3200000 "cut-off" is about halfway through the run, so worst case 10% of those prior to 3200000 may be affected - leaving 90% happy users.

3) I had something horrible in mine - little golden specks all over the inside of the inner front element (4th glass surface from the front). Horrors! Turned out to be fine drops of condensed lubricant that were easily wiped off. (by J. van Stelten - The Focal Point).

4) Whatever will be, will be. If it's clean now, use it. If it ever gets a fatal disease - hold a wake, remember all the great shots it made for your, retire it to classy-paperweight status - and buy another.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 19, 2002.


I have 32008xx which is perfect. I used to have a 27xxxxx which was also perfect, the only reason I sold it is the new one has a focusing ring that turns half as far so is quicker to use. I think the problems with this lens are blown way out of proportion. A popular Leica dealer told me he gets them in all the time that are basket cases, but he's also told me some other really tall tales. There are a lot of overblown Leica issues in circulation. Common sense dictates that, as with bodies like the ill-reputed R3's, R4's and M4- 2's, by this time the production defects have either killed it or been fixed or never existed, and it's mostly a matter of how it's been treated during its lifetime.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 19, 2002.


I have a diseased one. The pic's come out fine, but who knows, they may be better w/o the etching, as some of the posts report better performance after a lens CLA.

Question is: Is the etching, or whatever it really is, repairable?

Has any repair shop have THE solution?

Does it cost BIG bucks?

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 19, 2002.


Chris. No one can tell what is the problem without actually seeing the lens, since there is more than one possibility. The best thing to do is to show it to a repair specialist. the good ones will be honest about whether or not the problem can or should be fixed. BTW, even if the glass is etched, it could still be repaired by replacing the rear element. Leica sometimes has elements from oldre lenses they keep around. I bought a 50/2.8 Elmar M lens (the old type that stopped production in the 1970s) that had a scratched fron element replaced by Leica in the 1990s. Good as new!

But my philosophy is still that if there is no obvious effect on image quality, why bother with an expensive repair for a user lens. Might be worthwhile if you plan to sell the lens, though.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 19, 2002.


Thanks Eliot,

Actually, it's not a user lens. I bought the lens years ago and the glass was perfect; the barrel still shows minor wear, as I don't use it much (but when I do...). The marks appeared quite suddenly and appear to be gradually worsening, between field engineering assignments when the lens was placed in a large toolbox in a climate controlled storage unit. The issue is how much better would it perform clean, if it is even possible, and if anyone has experience with a repair.

BTW, where/what is lij?

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 19, 2002.


Agree with Jack. It's nice to know you have something special, or regarded as being better than some, but at the end of the day all that matters is your hapiness with the results. but I understand your concern. It's like a Jerry Springer show, and finding out that the love of your life is actually of the same sex (assuming you are hetro). :)

-- Kristian (leicashot!@hotmail.com), March 19, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ