Is Tele-Elmarit 90 not likely get fungus by now?

In 1988 I bought a (thin) Tele-Elmarit-90 that a few years later developed the well-known

fungus on the back element. Leica USA told me that this could not be fixed and gave me

fulll credit for the purchase of the then new Elmarit-90, a lens that I never liked: for one, it

was almost twice as heavy as the lens I replaced; and I almost invariably left it at home.

 

As I have heard that, if the Tele-Elmarit-90s have not developed a fungus by now, they are

not likely to do so in the future, I just traded my Elmarit-90 for a mint Tele-Elmarit-90

with no sign of fungus. (Although this is not important to me, it's the Canadian

manufactured 1913-1983 Leica 70th anniversary edition).

 

Question: Does anyone know whether it's true that the Tele-Elmarit-90s are indeed not

likely not develop fungus if they have not done so by now?

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

If it is OK now, should stay OK. This is not a problem that suddenly appears years later (although fungus could be missed in the early stages. Mine bought in the 80s is still fine. Bear in mind that this problem, although widely known, in fact afficts no more than 5% of all 90/2.8 TEs.

Hello Mitch,

I have a 90mm Tele-Elmarit (Canadian made) since 1979. It has no fungus, is almost like new and gave great pictures in it's lifetime (even won a contest with one of them).

This is a great lens for travel. I think fungus was recorded on lenses made prior to these (maybe the first version).

 

Jacques Leonard/Canada (where they made great lenses!)

>>I think fungus was recorded on lenses made prior to these (maybe the first version)<<

 

Unfortunatlely, that clearly is not the case. The lens I bought in 1989 was manufactured in

1988 and developed the fungus.

Really? Do you remember if it was made in Germany or Canada as it would surprise me if lenses made in two different location would have the same problem.

BTW the only fungus I saw on lenses was on an old Summarit lens from the fifties and on a Kodak slide projector lens I had bought new around 1975.

Jacques Leonard/Canada

Jacques:

 

I don't remember, but the lens was probably made in Canada. As Eliot states, it's a well-

known fact that some 5% of the thin Tele-Elmarit-90s were subject to this problem of

fungus developing on the back element.

Mitch, that T-E will be fine as long as you don't expose it to the fumes from tuk-tuks ;>)

 

Seriously, whatever it was that ails some of those lenses, it's not fungus. Theories range from the moronic (condensation from sperm-whale-oil lubricant) to the plausible (bad coating that reacted with the glass over time to etch it). But we'll never have more than careless speculation. What I do believe is that if by now (the lens was officially discontinued around 1993 but probably ceased production at least a year before, maybe more) the lens hasn't gone sour, it won't--at least not from that mystery cause. Certainly the lens still has the same possibility to get fungus as any other lens.

 

One thing I have personally observed on each and every one of the thin T-E's I've ever encountered (probably 50 or more over the years)is that the inside of the *front element* (the "T-E disease" affects the rear element/group)always exhibited a speckled surface when a penlight was shone from the rear. Perhaps this is the same cause, but the effect not as severe as that which afflicts the rear elements, but seems to be more rampant. The good news is that the front element is easy to take out and clean, whereas the rear element is in a sealed cell that is very difficult and expensive to r/r. It would be interesting if you'd check the inside of the front element (keep playing the light and don't look straight into the lens)and see if you see what looks like a thin film of speckles.

Dear all,

Is there any fungus problem with the first version (Fat) Tele-Elmarit? Tks.

 

Terence

Despite exposed to fume of tuk tuk and Songkran water alike,

A Fat TE that I have shown no sign of such problem.<div></div>

Jay:

 

Thanks. No, I examined the lens with a flashlight and found that both the front and back

elements were in a pristine condition, no speckels; and that's why I proceeded with the

trade. I've always liked the T-E90 and have preferred it to the super-sharp -- dare I say

"clinical"? -- newer, and almost twice as heavy, Elmarit 90.

 

I keep all my lenses and my two M6 bodies in a -- I'm not sure what it's called -- de-

humidifiier box, i.e., a little cabinet that has a fan on the back and keeps the humidity

below 40, which I believe and hope will keep mildew and fungus at bay. Now, my lungs,

just being in Bangkok, are another matter.

 

 

Terence:

 

No, this fungus issue applies only to the thin Elmarit. And since I don't come across the

name "Terence" (a name I like) very often, let me add the folloing from AE Houseman:

 

"Terence, this is stupid stuff:

 

You eat your victuals fast enough;

 

There can't be much amiss, 'tis clear,

 

To see the rate you drink your beer.

 

But oh, good Lord, the verse you make,

 

It gives a chap the belly-ache.

 

The cow, the old cow, she is dead;

 

It sleeps well, the horned head:

 

We poor lads, 'tis our turn now

 

To hear such tunes as killed the cow.

 

Pretty friendship 'tis to rhyme

 

Your friends to death before their time

 

Moping melancholy mad:

 

Come, pipe a tune to dance to, lad."

Terence, anyone still quoting A. E. Housman has more on his mind then T-E fungus!

I bought a clean (under Xenon light) TE in 1997. By 1999 it had the etching. My vote goes to the lack of use (sealed by lens cap) and lube, as both the element and coating are inorganic. I just gave it away this month.

BTW, Where did the 5% figure come from? Who (Leica, Sherry, DAG...?) is keeping the database? I think it is a design flaw and would never buy another TE. I'm using the CV 75 now.

>>>My vote goes to the lack of use (sealed by lens cap) and lube, as both the element

and coating are inorganic.<<<

 

I doubt that the etching problem that has afflicted some of the thin T-E90s has been

caused by lack of use. It's a very specific problem of some of these lenses, to which other

lenses are not subject. However, lack of use may result in mildew and fungus, depending

on the environment in which the unused lenses were kept.

"Seriously, whatever it was that ails some of those lenses, it's not fungus."

 

I have copied the following information from Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest.com website regarding the 90/2.8 thin Tele-Elmarit M lens.

 

"This version has a chronic problem to look out for which shows up in my experience about 5% of the time. For reasons unknown, it can develop a severe etching of the rear element. The problem can be stopped in the early stages by a professional cleaning of the lens elements. If it has proceeded too far, however, cleaning will do no good and the damage is permanent. Unfortunately this turns the Tele into a nice paperweight, since the rear elements of this particular lens are a sealed unit -- making it too expensive to replace even if you could find the elements.

 

I long believed the problem was the result of animal based lubrication attacking the glass. I had my Tele relubed to alleviate the problem -- and it hasn't shown up. Mr. Horst Braun, the Manager of the Leica repair department, firmly believes this is not true, since the same lubricant used in Tele-Elmarit is used in other Leica lenses. He suggest the problem may be a lens fungus...but why it should attack this particular lens design more than others is unexplained."

 

I don't know what the problem is, but I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility that it is a fungus. :-)

I have recently added a fat TE from '63/'64 and it shows no evidence of etching and predates the thin TE, introduced in '74, so animal based lubes is not the reason for the etching. BTW, other than my current Elmarit, which I will be selling for lack of use, my newest lens is from '68.