A curious lens problem - Summaron 35 f2,8 - impossible to repair?

[mauroscacco]

I have bought a Summaron 35 mm (payed 30 euro), with an internal glass element

broken near borders

 

The lens however works well full wide too, at f4 is impossible to see the

broken glass

 

Do you think it is possible repair the lens changing the element? Is it

convenient sending it at Wetzlar ?

 

Many thanks! Mauro Italy Rome<div></div>

[mauroscacco]

Here broken glass is visible<div></div>

[mauroscacco]

and again visible, at full wide open<div></div>

[vivek iyer]

I would use it as is.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

The only source for "new" glass would be another Summaron. So I would agree with Vivek; use it as is. The 30 Euros you paid for it is probably less than the sum of its parts (taking the broken element out).

[john_shriver]

What looks like broken glass isn't always. I thought the viewfinder on my Leica IIIa had a chip in one corner. When I finally took it apart for a CLA, it turned out to be a flake of crud.

 

On the other hand, if it is a crack, taking the lens apart could be bad, cause the pieces might be very hard to put together correctly again. (Sort of like Humpty Dumpty...)

 

It will probably take fine pictures, even wide open, just a loss of contrast. It takes much worse problems than that to make secondary ghost images.

[dan flanders]

Leave it as it is -- the proof of the pudding! . . . I have several "junk" lenses that make pictures as good as my jewels. My old eleven o'clock Elmar looks like it has been sand blasted, but the "bloom" is in reality as good as if coated! . . . Well, maybe a bit soft, but it has that Leica "glow"!

[andrew_mills1]

I'd use the lens as is. I've got one with balsam separation between the 2 rear elements and I think yours is doing the same in the front doublet. When I tried to dismantle mine I found the optical cell is in a brass tube that can really only be got into with serious tools like a lathe and cutting tools and all I succeeded in doing was to lose the ball bearing that provides the click stops for the aperture. A year on the separation is no worse and it doesn't cause any optical problems.

 

You have been warned...

[aplumpton]

Agree with Iver and the other guys,... use it. You may have a bargain for 30 Euros!

 

Also, try to see if Luigi Crecenzi of Leicatime, Rome, might lend you another same lens to do a few comparative tests at the wider apertures.

 

I once had a 35 Summicron I bought new in 1980 (400$ CAN!) that had a small (mm or so) bubble in the glass (I ignore which of the 6 elements, but it was near the back). Leica replaced it with another (the tech rep in Canada said it likely wouldn't make any difference), but in a way I regret having brought it back to them, as I had some really great images with the "bubble" version. Coincidence, perhaps, but sometimes the differences are too small to have any noticeable effect, and it may be that the rest of your affected glass element is perfectly capable of doing it's job.

 

Ciao!

[dan flanders]

There was a time when it was believed by many users that a bubble or two in a lens was a hallmark of BETTER quality, and much of the literature of the time supported the supposition. I don't know if it was ever determined one way or another but it didn't deter those users from making images, good or bad. A spotless lens is surely a desirable item but much extra has been paid therefor with little actual improvement in performance. In reality the "spotless" lens is a collector's paradigm, not a user's!

[love4leica]

Even brand new leica lenses have been known to a spec or two of dust between the elements. I think we sometimes spend more time microscopically examining the lenses rather than get out there and use them.

[mauroscacco]

Not bad result with this "broken lens" ...<div></div>

[mauroscacco]

Now I have found a new summaron f2,8 for m3, but without googles , perfect lens

Do you think I can change mount mechanical section from one lens to other?

[dan flanders]

Except to the user who put it together, a 'Frankenstein' lens or camera is often an abomination; and an inexperienced user can really create havoc in such attempts. Use the first lens as it is, and if the new acquisition isn't one that should have goggles but doesn't, keep it as a spare. Perhaps one of the better known lens mechanics could put the two together but it would be a costly operation. If the earlier lens makes good pics then why make an issue of it?