I asked a question in relation to my purchase of a very ugly Rigid Summicron in this earlier thread. I recived the lens today, and the physical apearence is not as bad as the price may have suggested, but only a test will tell if it has potential.

My real reason for posting, is the answer I got from CRR in the UK.
It is very informative and I think some readers of this forum will find it interesting.

I asked for an estimate on a polish/recoating of the front element + if necessary -removal of haze + a general CLA of the lens. This is their answer:

to break down the costs involved to restore your lens, is as follows,

The front surface of front optic, re-grinding/polishing and Mgf2 re-coating UK £ 96

The 'hazy' internal coatings may clean with chemicals , but if there is 'etching' of the coating or glass then the only remedy is re-polishing/coating of optics inside the lens.

All older Leitz lenses are 'soft-coated' internally , this means that they deteriorate more readily than their Japanese counterpartswhich are 'hard-coated'. Consequently , when condensation is deposited on the internal surfaces , after many months/years , the deposit becomes acidic and attacks the soft anti-reflective layer and also the glass itself.

It is highly unlikely that all the optics in the lens have deteriorated too far , but I must stress that chemical cleaning of the inner surfaces will not restore damaged coatings or glass . It will remove the 'cloudy' haze and improve light transmission though .

To service the lens , repolish & re-coat the front element and chemically clean the internal optics would , in total , come to approximately UK £ 175. Subject to examination first.

This may sound expensive , but every surface that requires re-polishing/coating will add an extra UK £ 90 , as the optics has first to be measured t obtain the correct profile and curvature and a moire pattern obtained so that after polishing the lens willl perform correctly.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), May 28, 2002

Answers

The part about the soft coatings and years of moisture/condensation attacking the coatings is exactly what Bill Maxwell told me about the older chrome lenses. He should know, as he's taken apart and cleaned over a thousand of them. The coatings on my DR 50 were damaged and not simply cleanable. Bill also told me, (and Sherry Krauter seconded this) that once a lens has had the coatings polished off internal elements, sometimes the thing doesn't perform as well as a factory original lens. Mine lost something after it was worked on-images just didn't have the same look as before the coating went bad and was repaired.

I don't think I would spend a penny on a beat up lens like that one-- use it and you'll probably find that except for the widest apertures in backlit situations, it still performs OK. It would be different if it was a smooth, spotless example with some bad glass that was had for a cheap price. Then it might make sense to put some money in it. Just my opinion of course.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 28, 2002.

Niels, you've inadvertently found the perfect beach lens. Save your money & use the old 50 in places you'd never dream about taking a better lens.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), May 28, 2002.

Andrew. The moisture condensation theory is indeed the most prevalent one today, although the fog/haze in the past has been attributed to other factors (lubricants, whale oil, etc.). You must have had the lens an awfully long time to have had a clear lens originally that developed so much fogging that it etched the glass. My impression was that etching of the glass from the usual fog is not very common, and a cleaning usually imporves performance, unless glass the elements were not re-aligned properly when the lens was re- assembled.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 28, 2002.

Niels - Don't laugh, but sometimes I use our 50 'chron as a loupe (when I've conveniently misplaced our 4x Schneider).

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), May 28, 2002.

Patrick,
"Beachlens"! I thought almost the same thing (sailing). Now I just have to find that sub 100$ "beachcamera" to go with the lens ;-)

Andrew, I agree with you; that it is too much for this particular lens. I am however a little surprised that such relatively labour intensive custom work can be done for only 175£ (around 250$)

George, I never laugh at discriminating people who choose only the best ...well, maybe sometimes -but I do not laugh at you :-)

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), May 28, 2002.

I only owned the lens for several years, but must admit we had a few unusually damp winters and I was not as cautious with equipment storage then as I am now. I had 3 lenses sent in for cleaning, and the DR was the only one that had coating go bad on two inner surfaces. Belive it or not, to my eye it performed better with the slightly damaged coating than with the coatings polished off. Bill Maxwell is quite capable of assembling the lens correctly, and the focus was still spot on. I don't understand exactly why expertly polishing off a slightly cloudy coating would adversly affect performance-but it did. As I mentioned above, Sherry Krauter told me it is common that after the internal coatings have been worked on the old Leica lenses may not me the same. This does not seem to be the case when a front element full of light cleaning marks has been professionally recoated, however.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 28, 2002.

Niels- It doesn't take much before Leica equipment that has lots of damage becomes too expensive to be restored. The lens in question isn't particularly rare and there are many of them for sale quite cheap. A "beach lens" might be just what you have there. Some repair person might see value in it, since he or she would have extra parts at hand. If this were the first version of the Noctilux, or the first 35mm Summilux Aspherical, then it might be worth repairing! >>>Did you look real close at it to see if it might have a name engraved on it? "Capa" "H.C-B", maybe? ;)

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), May 28, 2002.

Niels,If the lens appears clear under normal light then you probably have a good user lens. If you inspect the lens with a strong light source like a penlight tilting the lens back and fourth and doing it from each end you might see see some haze/fog or surface cleaning marks that might not appear under normal light. Light cleaning marks and light haze usually has little or no effect on the pictures especially if you are shooting away from the light. Take a look and let us know. The fact that the lens was so well used might indicate that optically it is OK. I agree with the others that it is not worth investing a lot of money. If there are only very light cleaning marks and a light haze then maybe it might be worth it to have only the lens lubricated and the haze cleaned.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), May 28, 2002.

one article that really confirmed what i was always thinking can be found HERE

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 28, 2002.

also check this oneout

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 28, 2002.

You may also wish to check with Malcolm Taylor, the most experienced European Leica repair person.(Leica even asked him to restore the original UR Leica!)

Malcolm Taylor (Leica)

Upper Lye farm, Aymestrey, Leominster, Herefordshire. HR6 9SZ 01568 770542

Many thanks to Dan Post for posting the information above.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 28, 2002.

I would spend the US$40 on a good cleaning and leave it alone. The marks on the coating has little effect on performance. I would spend the money on a lens hood though.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), May 30, 2002.