Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,689   Posts: 1,548,774   Online: 1272
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by phc View Post
    This thread subject sounds like one of those "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions.

    What fogging?

    Cheers, Paul.
    Eh? Assuming you are serious - the fog which many lens users cannot see, which is not apparent if you view a lens by reflected light (light source on the same side as your eye) but which is revealed in its full definition- and contrast-sapping horror when you shine a torch through the lens, and which takes quite a few $$$ to get rid of. If you use only modern equipment and store it correctly, lens fog will hardly be a problem, but if you like to explore the qualities (which are many) of older lenses, you will soon find out what lens fog is!

  2. #12
    T42
    T42 is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by phc View Post
    This thread subject sounds like one of those "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions.

    What fogging?

    Cheers, Paul.
    Hi Paul.

    Seemed a bit way out at first glance to me too.

    My 1952 collapsable Summicron 50mm f2 had a bit of fogginess when I bought it used in 1999. A trip to Sherry Krauter at Golden Touch in New York and it is clear again. It may be that the fogging was from lubricant outgassing or some such as mentioned upthread. I like the images that come from the lens, especially with people.

    As to the overall performance of 50mm f2 lenses in general, I cannot tell a lot of difference between the Summicron, a Nikkor H, and a Jupiter 8, all of which I use regularly.

    Henry
    F, F2, M3, Kiev 4a

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Holland and Brazil
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,066
    Outgassing occurs with petroleum based greases mostly.
    The modern lythium based greases have a lot less of that.

    Peter

  4. #14
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by archphoto View Post
    Outgassing occurs with petroleum based greases mostly. The modern lythium based greases have a lot less of that.

    Peter
    Yep. I've used '50s lens for 40 years, no problem. Seen lots of old lenses with no problem. Some lenses (made by EVERYBODY) have a tendency, after many years, and possible storage issues, DO have the inevitable degradation of the lube.

    Linking the issue to Leica lenses, however,
    is due in part to the Internet Echo Chamber,
    and Rabid Leica Deniers.
    .

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Holland and Brazil
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,066
    df cardwell: try to read it as it was written: in general terms.
    If been into repairs and photography for the past 35 years and have seen a lot of lubrication problems, even with Leica's.

  6. #16
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,376
    Images
    4
    It wasn't a lubricant problem. Only a minority of lenses suffered from it. And it was due to the glass formulation used. Early 50's Elmars were quite prone.

    That isn't to say that Leitz lenses don't also have fog problems from lubricant and general atmospheric crud, as do all lenses.

    The lubricant fog can be cleared away, the fog due to glass problems can't.

    It seems most fog problems in Leitz lenses are due to lubricant and few people have seen the glass problem.
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Lindan View Post
    I would stay away from 50's Leitz lenses - I have had lenses with the 'etched glass' problem - it still cost $100 to get them taken apart and cleaned to no avail. The problem is no recent discovery and has been known for (at a minimum) 20 years.

    You may find a 50's Elmar/Summicron/etc. that doesn't exhibit etching but it is a matter of time and humidity until it does. Not all lenses used the glass formulations that were prone to etching but the early 50mm f3.5 and f2.8 Elmars were a real problem.

    The 80's Summicron is probably the best buy if you want Leitz glass. I am rather blasé about Leitz optical performance: I can't honestly tell the difference between an 80's 50mm f2.0 Summicron and a comparable Nikkor - even with TechPan and a resolution target. There is nothing wrong with the Summicron, but just about all major 50mm f2.0 lenses are superb performers. OTOH, if I look at the build quality between a Summicron and a Nikkor (or any other modern lens) there is no contest: the Summicron wins by miles.

    The advice to seek Cosina/"Voigtlander" lenses is good advice if you are going to use the camera for making photographs and are looking for the best bang for the buck.
    For me the difference is in the bokeh.Nikkors are more prone to 'cross-eyed bokeh'.
    The 50 2.8 Elmar is one most inclined to etching but the elements are available and can be replaced.
    Mark
    Mark Layne
    Nova Scotia
    and Barbados

  8. #18
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Lindan View Post
    It wasn't a lubricant problem. Only a minority of lenses suffered from it. And it was due to the glass formulation used. Early 50's Elmars were quite prone.

    That isn't to say that Leitz lenses don't also have fog problems from lubricant and general atmospheric crud, as do all lenses.

    The lubricant fog can be cleared away, the fog due to glass problems can't.

    It seems most fog problems in Leitz lenses are due to lubricant and few people have seen the glass problem.
    Is there a way to tell the difference?
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Lindan View Post
    It wasn't a lubricant problem. Only a minority of lenses suffered from it. And it was due to the glass formulation used. Early 50's Elmars were quite prone.

    That isn't to say that Leitz lenses don't also have fog problems from lubricant and general atmospheric crud, as do all lenses.

    The lubricant fog can be cleared away, the fog due to glass problems can't.

    It seems most fog problems in Leitz lenses are due to lubricant and few people have seen the glass problem.
    I have one 50 2.8 Elmar with a ghost image of the diaphragm blades etched on the inside of the front element
    Mark
    Mark Layne
    Nova Scotia
    and Barbados

  10. #20
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,376
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by fotch View Post
    Is there a way to tell the difference?
    The one way I know is you pay a large sum of money to have the 'lubricant fog' cleaned off and find out that it isn't and can't be.
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin