I found an old Elmar 135MM/3.5 for about $100, but is has fungus on the lens. Just how bad is fungus? How much does it affect the photo? Does fungus continue to grow and worsen? And finally, what's an appropriate discount for fungus, i.e. what's fair value for the lens I saw without fungus?

-- Jung Suh (jsuh@enron.com), September 24, 2001

Answers

It's hard to say. In its early stages, fungus can be cleaned out (though you want to be vigilant in case it returns). If it's been there long enough though, it secretes a chemical that etches into the glass and destroys the lens. How much it affects the photo depends on how much fungus there is - the effect generally will be a loss of contrast. I consider lenses with fungus to be a high risk and to have a drastically reduced value, but not everyone seems to feel that way.

rick :)=

rick_oleson.tripod.com

-- Rick Oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com), September 24, 2001.

This may be slightly off-topic, but my grandfather was called to Moscow in the thirties to remove fungus from Lenin. It seems the old man had mushrooms growing on him in his oil bath and the Soviets needed that German fungus cleaning expertise to get it off. Unfortunately my Grandfather's collection of counter-revolutionary fungus disappeared during the upheavals of the war.

The only fungus I'll tolerate in my house is nowhere near my lenses, usually on a plate of tagliatelle.

Hope this helps...

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 24, 2001.

A lot depends on how much fungus is present and how long it has been there. Recent fungus may be able to be cleaned off. After a while it eats the coating and then etches into the glass itself. A stripdown and cleaning (whether effective or not) will cost about $75, so figure that into the cost. $175 for a decent-looking Tele- Elmar 135/4 (if it's really a 135mm f/3.5 you've got a rare one, as Leica never sold such a lens to the public!)isn't too bad if the fungus is just some little spots and most of the it can be cleaned off. First and best thing is to shoot a test roll with it and see if you'd be satisfied with the performance as-is, should cleaning not make any improvement.

-- Jay (infinityst@aol.com), September 24, 2001.

Delicious, Rob! When I'm in my Italian restauaunt and the waitress comes and gives me the menu, I look at it for a minute and then say, "okay"!! Sorry, Jung.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), September 24, 2001.

From a pharmacological point of view.

This, too, as many things in life, is a big question of probability. My evaluation is as follows:

1. The risk of any fungus spreading is unfortunately high, and,
2. The chance of elimination by cleaning is unfortunately low.

Under these circumstances (completely apart from any optical quality and/or photographic hindrances): 

1. Do not handle it without wearing rubber gloves,
2. Do not insert it into your camera body, and
3. Do not accept it even for zero dollars.

Just my 2 dollars worth. Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), September 24, 2001.

I agree with Michael. Fungus is a difficult enemy to defeat and I wouldn't even consider buying a lens with fungus. It's just not worth it.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), September 24, 2001.

I agee with Michael as well with one exception. If you live in a VERY dry climate, a lens which had fungus and was cleaned will not get it again. If you live or use the lens in a humid climate you asking for trouble. I just purchased a "fungused" SL2 for REALLY CHEAP. I have had it CLAed and it should be fine in Alberta's extremely dry climate. I will not take to any moist environment period.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), September 25, 2001.