My 90mm Elmarit has one little scatch on the surface. I bought it for $600 Australian. It flares when I shoot directly into the sun, so I don,t. But at that price, for a lens I'll only use for portraits, it will be fine. Does your equipment have scratches, dints etc. Should I bother fixing it. Second hand gear seems to be the way to go, and their condition is a virtue not a regret. Does anyone agree, pristine equipment seems at odds with the whole M tradition.

-- Bartolomeo (andjesuswept@hotmail.com), March 04, 2001

Answers

A little scratch is not going to be responsible for flare, but a slight internal haze (very common on many older Leica lenses)will. Shine a flashlight into the lens and look inside carefully. I had a tele-elmarit 135mm lens that had a slight haze. $50 later for a good cleaning, the lens is noticeably better in contrast and resistance to flare.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 04, 2001.

In my experience things on lenses like small scratches or a few little dust specks on the inner elements rarely have a negative impact on the imaging quality of a lens when used normally. I imagine if you were to compare the performance of scrathed vs pristine lenses on an optical bench, you could probably detect some differences -- whether or not they would be significant is another story. Deeper scratches and more significant amounts of dust CAN, however, increase the propensity for the lens to flare when shooting towards a bright light-source.

I tend buy most of my gear on the used market because of the cost- savings. I also tend to search for really clean "pieces in "very good" to "excellent" condition. If something has a scratch, excessive dust, or other defect, I want the price to be low enough to compensate for the defect, or fully cover the cost of a professional CLA. However, I also know a photographer who feels the "well-used" lenses are the ones to buy; the logic being that it must be a really good lens if the shooter who owned it before him used it that much! And, I must admit that he is a better photographer than I...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 04, 2001.

OOPs, I mean 135mm Tele-Elmar--got my Elmar and Elmarits mixed up. What is an "Elmar" anyway? Always reminds me of Elmer Fudd from the Looney Toon cartoons.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 04, 2001.

I generally prefer stuff that's a bit worn cosmetically--it's cheaper, and I don't have to worry about the additional "damage" I'll do. Cleaning marks or light scratches on outer elements don't bother me, but haze or fog is unacceptable. Of course, if I can get like-new equipment for a user price, that acceptable, too. : )

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 04, 2001.

I agree. I love to find a lens at a good price owing to minor cosmetic damage. I general pass up anything with more than nearly invisible damage to the elements.

I think "Elmar" was somebody's wife; possibly Barnack's; just as "Hektor" was somebody's dog. If not Barnack, then the lens designer, Max Bereck.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 04, 2001.

Bob, do you know out of curiosity where the name Summicron came from?

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 04, 2001.

from leica

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), March 04, 2001.

I have 2 21mm S/A's (R lenses) both with small, light "cleaning marks) on the front element, one lens has them dead center and the other somewhat off-center but longer marks. Evidently the previous owners believed that Leica lens coatings were extremely tough and UV filters would degrade their images, and thanks to that I got both of these lenses for about what one with perfect glass would have cost. I had intended to get the front elements replaced, but just for kicks I shot test films on Kodachrome-25 with both lenses, with B+W MRC UV filters on them, at all apertures, with the sun in some of the frames, and I was truly amazed. I had read Erwin Puts' review of this lens on his website, which speaks of low contrast and generally not-so-great performance, yet the results I got were sharp and contrasty, so perhaps sometimes a few coating scratches and a UV filter actually improve a lens' performance?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 05, 2001.

Andrew,

"Summi" is from summit, meant to suggest the summit or peak of performance. "Cron" was derived from "chroma," referring to color. So "Summicron" implies the lens has the best possible correction for chromatic abberation.

"Lux" is latin for light. At the time the Summilux was named, it was their fastest lens, that is, the one that passes the most "lux." Or at least it was the fastest one available to the public. In 1934 Leitz made an f/0.85 75mm Summar for the German post office!

Best wishes,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 05, 2001.

Vvvvvvvvvvery interesting Bob.Thanks for sharing.

-- R. Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 05, 2001.

Here comes the answer to the names question(s) with German Gründlichkeit (thoroughness): "Elmar" is a male name in German. (It's true, however, that Hektor was a dog.) 'Summi...' is derived from the Latin adjective summus, 'highest'. (Most Germans didn't learn English before the 1950ies, but you could bet on every engineer knowing Latin; doctoral thesis papers were written in that language.) They often learned ancient Greek as well (it was mandatory at many schools in Oscar Barnack's days) and wouldn't have turned chrom... into 'cron': that one comes from Kronglas, vs. Flintglas, the names for the two major types of glass in German. Lux is Latin for 'light'. BTW, nox is 'night', inflected => noctis--a 'Noctilux' uses all the night's light.

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), March 06, 2001.