lens test odd results ? ("new" Summicron collapsible)

[finnegan]

<p>I'm the rookie 1955 M3, Summicron 50 Collapsible guy...</p>

<p>At the risk of fatiguing everyone:<br>

1) Got around to doing the flashlight test. BUT, first: while learning the lens removal, the first time I just moved it halfway to the body red mark, then went in to look at on-line manual. Before I did I practiced focusing on a near object - and when I did weirdly for the first time saw two sets of rectangles, one I had always seen before at outward limits of the view through the eyepiece. But now there was another, much closer to the focus-patch.<br>

Later, after the flashlight test (which follows), I experimented by inserting the lens into the camera body and only turning it about half-way to the "click-spot". Through the viewfinder there the same two rectangles. I then turned the lens the rest of the way until it clicked. Now in the viewfinder there was just the outer rectangle, like it had usually been, just the one.<br>

So, anyone know what that is about? Should I always be seeing two rectangle outlines? If not, why does another show up at the half-way point of turning the lens to insert or remove? I.e. why does the lens have two rectangles period?<br>

2) RESULT OF FLASHLIGHT TEST, the front lens seems fine, a few very light scratches in one area, maybe, but they are so light I'm not sure if I really saw them or just a reflection of the light - hard to tell. Rest of lens smooth. So the forward lens to me looked very good; even if those were scratches they were the lightest I have ever seen.<br>

The rear lens is pristine looking EXCEPT :<br>

almost in the middle is a mark about as big or a bit bigger than this asterisk: <strong>*</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>It is <strong>IN</strong> the glass, like an indentation, rather than a mark <strong>ON</strong> the glass. I didn't touch the lens by the way, just looked. t won't get a test role back 'til Monday. Until then when I see: do you think this will have a noticeable effect on photos?<br>

And any thoughts about the weird second rectangle?<br>

<em>-I should publish my posts on my first Leica as an aid to insomniacs.-</em></p>

<p> </p>

[Troll]

<p>Forget all the testing -- just take some pictures and see how it performs.</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>Are you sure that you're not looking at a bubble in the glass? Some of the older vintage lenses have bubbles in the glass. They don't affect anything, and there's nothing you can do about them. If the images are fine, quit worrying.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Sorry, but if I was the <em><strong>"seller"</strong></em> of this camera combo to <em><strong>William</strong></em>, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night... </p>

[Brian1664876441]

Post a picture of it. You are looking at a 60 year old lens. It could be some minor crystals forming in the cement used to

hold together the elements, I had this happen to one collapsible Summicron and a Tanar lens. No big deal, shoot with the

lens.

[Jochen_S]

<p>If you look at LTM to M adapters they come in 3 variants: 135, 50 & 90mm. when I insert a 90mm lens the 135mm frame pops up first, next 50 then 90. - If I understand things right you could file a 90mm adapter down to be a 50 or 135mm.<br>

Sorry, my English is too bad to visualize the lens blemish you are describing. - My PZO enlarging lenses had bubbles in the glass and did a good enough job. In general: it is amazing how bad a lens can still take pictures. My physics teacher summarized in the 1980s: "If photography demanded the precission of a moon landing, we still wouldn't have any picture yet." but all of that is probably the wrong attitude for this forum. <br />- Maybe try to meet up with some other Leica user to get an opinion on the camera's condition. Just as an example: My M3's RF is dimmer than my M4-P's which seems a tad dimmer than the recent digitals'. - OTOH: it still isn't the worst RF I am using and I see no real need yet to let Mr. Lutton rage inside, although that would add shooting convenience. Everything depends on your plans for the camera.</p>

[finnegan]

<p>Thanks everyone. A test role I shot I'll see Monday. The imperfection seems too small to affect photos I believe - I never have had a leica, there's no past comparison to use on these or the "thread" in the eyepiece except the latter I know is not usual.</p>

[finnegan]

<p>...<strong>and to continue</strong>.. I'm very sorry I've posted this much but no idea everyone was so fed up. if i'd known I'd quickly have gotten off photo net but am now. I tried to delete my post that opened this thread so no one would have to read it but that is not possible.<br /> *I HAVE been shooting the camera<br /> * The Seller was only asked about the viewfinder<br /> * I've no familiarity with this brand of camera, no comparisons possible as to what is a problem or not (except the viewfinder which I know is not usual)</p>

<p>Take Care, farewell and thanks for all the posts and info! "Above and beyond...."</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>I'm very sorry I've posted this much but no idea everyone was so fed up. if i'd known I'd quickly have gotten off photo net but am now. I tried to delete my post that opened this thread so no one would have to read it but that is not possible.</i><P>

I just read through your last half dozen threads, and all I found was page after page of patient, helpful advice. I'm not sure where or why you're seeing that "everyone was so fed up."

[finnegan]

<p>No they have been, greatly - but in this thread clearly there is exasperation. In any case, I've overstayed the party, the host and hostess wants to go to bed. The camera will either work well or it won't. </p>

[finnegan]

<p>No they have been, greatly - but in this thread clearly there is exasperation. In any case, I've overstayed the party, the host and hostess want to go to bed. The camera will either work well or it won't.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Well that put's a pretty bow on top of this package.<br /> Among other things, what really turned me negative on this M3 buyer, was the nerve to blame somebody else<br /> for what is <strong>clearly</strong> a camera that many indicated simply required service.</p>

<p>i.e. <strong><em>"But I likely will file against USPS, fat chance but I lose nothing" </em></strong><em>William H.</em><br /> <br /> Well Sir, right there I feel you lost your integrity, at least with this member of the audience...<br /> Absent <strong>any</strong> mention in <strong>any</strong> of his detailed posts about<strong> any</strong> package/box <strong>damage</strong>, he desires given the opportunity, to file for the sake of seeing if it sticks !<br />His shortsighted entitlement, just makes all of us pay down the road with higher rates<br /> and more skeptical red tape to go through for any of our <strong>legitimate/honest</strong> claims...</p>

[finnegan]

<p>Well, Gus, Merry Christmas to you too.<br>

That's your interpretation. You don't know me whatsoever and haven't the faintest knowledge of anything about me and yet you're sure of my morality? how about getting off the high moral horse until you do, which you won't.<br>

Rather than fishing to blame someone I have a camera after shipping with either something in it or a crack in the prism. If the camera was sent without anything in it, and had something in it when it got here: which is more likely, that a hair or thread of fabric got into a cased camera surrounded by shipping material and within a box, or it's a crack in the prism which happened in ground-shipping. You figure it out.<br>

And that's why I was thinking of filing a complaint. Anyone capable of judging morality in others from an internet post can figure out also whether I did this or not. Next time you feel the urge to morph into an Ethics Evaluator, head for the nearest mirror.<br>

How about we return to our former relationship before we knew each other. Why kill a good thing?</p>

<p> </p>