I have a ca. 1958-9 Linhof outfit, three lenses, camera, etc. etc., the lenses are perfect as far as the condition of the glass is concerned - not Ebay "perfect", but perfect. No marks, no haze, nothing, as new like they left the factory over 50 years ago. My late 60s Nikon 35mm gear has no issues with the glass. In fact, even my 100+ year old pre WWI lenses for 8x10 have no real issues... one or two slight cleaning marks, but no fungus.
1950s Rolleiflex, no issues... 1943 binoculars, 1898 binoculars, 1930s Rollei, ditto... well, you get the point I think. I'll also add that most of this gear has been in my care for the past 25 years or so.
I sometimes wonder where all these lenses with fungus come from... I've seen them, but never had one of any vintage.
He's told me there is a lot of risk and expense involved posible breakage I never heard of anyone else. He's worked on a leica summarit 50mm 1.5 and IIIf body before for me in the past. The expense did not warrent the recoat on the summarit.
That lens is in awful condition. It would most definitely cost more than the auction price to clean it up. The Sonnar 50/1.5 is a fantastic lens, but I would skip this auction .. if the shutter speeds don't work in addition, this would be an expensive repair.
I have an older Linhof III with wide tele and normal no problems with coating's yet. Are these considered "hard coating's" ? Now I have a rollei 3.5e planar with a coating issue and a 2.8f that's fine. I was to understand modern coatings are very soft and can be wipped off is this true? As for uncoated I run into almost no problems such as a leica 5cm summitar uncoated with haze cleaned up like new.
As for coated vs. uncoated, if you are collecting the cameras, then they should have the appropriate lens. A coated Sonnar does not belong on a Contax I and so on.
If you are using the lenses, coating becomes more important. A Sonnar, with all it's internal sufaces, benefits from coating - the more internal surfaces, the greater the benefit. Most modern lenses would not be useable without antireflective coatings.
Either buy the appropriate lens for the camera, coated or uncoated, or buy the lens you want.
Poor storage is what causes problems for any lens, and a bad case of fungus will etch glass whether or not it is coated. Fungus spores are in the air all around you, you have them in your camera right now, it just takes a dark damp atmosphere for them to flourish. So don't keep lenses in leather cases that can absorb moisture, make sure they get enough UV light by using them regularly (or keeping them out on a shelf), and don't worry. The problems of fungus and haze have been highlighted recently simply by people dragging in their granddads old camera in from the garage and selling it on Ebay, so it all seems like a disproportionate problem.
who keeps saying uncoated lenses are softer? Not in my experience -- coating allows more light to get through, but it doesn't improve the way the lens is designed ... a very old uncoated lens is perfectly capable of excellent results.
The thing you do want to watch out for is light hitting the front element -- they can flare a titch more, so get that lens hood. Shooting into the sun is asking for more trouble because more light bounces around inside the lens on those uncoated surfaces instead of passing through.
Some feel this bouncing lightens shadow areas a bit, making for a less contrasty look, but certainly not less sharp. Lens coatings are like every other aspect of photography -- a good image is 5 percent equipment and 95 percent the photographer.
I do a lot buying from different sources and different parts of the country. I almost allways see issues with angenieux, steinheil and some older leica lenes.