Haze Or Cleaning Marks?

[stu weinstein]

I now own 5 Leica lenses. both my Summicron 50's have wipe marks and

haze. They still take beautiful portraits but are far from razor

sharp. Are the wipe marks or the haze the culprits? Or better yet,

which is more culpable? Thanks. Stu

[ben z]

According to the optics guys I've ever spoken with, wipe marks and haze cause an increase in light scatter and decrease in transmission, which induces flare and reduces contrast and effective lens speed, but generally does not affect sharpness. Serviceable defects likt improper collimation and decentring, plus the various aberrations present in the lens design, are more likely culprits for lack of sharpness with specific lenses, taking pilot error out of the equation of course.

[frank granovski]

Stuart, don't you keep you lenses protected with fine German glass'd filters?

[frank granovski]

I even keep my Nikon E lenses protected but I use cheaper filters.

[ronald_moravec1]

Even slight haze causes contrast decrease enough for a Leica pic to not look like a Leica pic. No kidding.

 

I have no lenses with scratches so I can`t answer that one. The hazy ones were cleaned. The improvement was astounding.

[leslie_p.]

how much does it cost to get haze cleaned out? roughly speaking of course.

[andrew robertson]

Even the finest filters will increase flare and cause regular reflections.

 

The best filter is no filter, unless you are in a hazardous environment.

[frank granovski]

What if you're shooting black and white? If you're lazy with not using a yellow or an orange, the pics will be hazy. Think about that. ;*)

[andrew robertson]

Filters for B&W are one thing (gels provide the highest quality) and protective fear-filters are

another.

[eliot_rosen1]

Scratches and haze both decrease contrast and increase the tendency to flare as Ben says. However, since contrast contributes to the perception of sharpness (which depends upon both the resolution and contrast), this will definitely reduce the subjective appearance of sharpness of the image. A small number of wipe marks on the front surface is generally not that harmful, but a large number of marks to the extent that they are near confluent in areas certainly will degrade the image. I would think that unless the number of wipe marks is very large, the haze is more likely to be the culprit.

[stu weinstein]

I think I'll invest in the CLA. I can always have the front elements redone at a later date. Thanks.

[john_shriver]

Good "lens bath" by a pro should be about $75.

[__jon__]

>Frank Granovski , jul 22, 2005; 07:05 p.m.

 

>What if you're shooting black and white? If you're lazy with not using a yellow or an

orange, the pics will be hazy.

 

Another round of BS, Spank?

[frank granovski]

I speak the truth. Besides the film, you need a filter for outdoors.<div></div>

[e_b7]

Stu, I'm glad you are investing in a CLA. No Summicron in proper condition is "far from razor sharp," especially stopped down. If your wipe marks are indeed coating marks and not scratches, that's a good start. The haze can usually be removed for not too much money, and that may be your biggest culprit. There's a guy in Colorado I believe, who specializes in this kind of work. Someone out there knows who I'm talking about.

[andrew robertson]

Frank, according to whom?

 

Most modern lenses block unwanted UV with their coatings.

[frank granovski]

Modern meaning a Leica lens from 1973 or before? I wasn't talking about the UV. A UV filter won't add much contrast, if any.

[owen w.]

Ah, yes. The "guy in Colorado" is:

<p>

John Van Stelten

<p>Focal Point Inc.

<p>Louisville, Co 80027

<p>Phone: 303/665-6640

<p>john@focalpointlens.com

<p>

Focal Point does excellent work.

<p>

Owen