[Leica] could it be a defective lens?

[jsmith342 at gmail.com (Jeffery Smith)]

I should probably  mention that I picked up a 50/1.4 Nikkor LTM last
year. It looked very clean, but close inspection revealed some dust
inside of the lens, on the inner elements. A roll of film came back
with the prints looking wonderful. I'm not changing a thing on it. I
would rather not have anyone fiddling with the elements for fear of
having a clean but less-well-centered lens, etc.

Jeffery

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Qiao Li <qiao_li@mentor.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
>  I have a problem with a suspected answer. However, I am still
>  in a bit of denial, and hope perhaps it is normal for some Leica
>  lenses.
>
>  I bought a 1969 Leicaflex SL with 50mm Summicron a couple of
>  weeks back. The eBay listing said they were not sold before,
>  perhaps only used as display items. From the exterior conditions
>  of the camera and lens, I believe that could be case.
>
>  I had not owned a Leica before, and had always been
>  fascinated by the consistent praises for Leica. Needless to
>  say, I am very happy with the build quality of the camera and
>  lens. Shot a roll of Fuji Superia 400 from Costco, and was very
>  happy with the result also.
>
>  Last night, I decided to take out the lens, and clean the
>  rear element a little. When the lens came, there was a finger
>  print smudge on the rear element, so I used a lens paper to
>  clean it up a little before I ran the roll of film through.
>
>  Perhaps due to the oily nature of the finger print smudge,
>  a couple of lens paper afterwards, there were still this
>  discernible oily smear traces following the strokes of the
>  lens paper.
>
>  Can I use the lens cleansing solution to clean the rear element
>  without damaging it?
>
>  After the aforementioned efforts, I came to inspect the lens
>  a little closely. As I can barely claim myself a little more
>  serious than the average point-and-shoot Joe, my inspection
>  efforts can only be amateur in nature. So I held the lens against
>  my desk lamp (40W), and I found a sparkle on one of the inner
>  elements of the lens.
>
>  The way I found it is to tilt the lens such that the black
>  barrel interior would come into the line of sight. The sparkle
>  is like that from a chipped glass. And seems to be comging from
>  one of the inner elements of the lens due to its movement
>  relative to the tilt variation, barrel rotation, focus ring
>  rotation. And the sparkle is relatively around the same (inner)
>  spot when viewed from the front or the back.
>
>  After the discover to this sparkle, I was disturbed too much to
>  continue. Given the stringent quality control of Leica, I wasn't
>  expecting anything like this.
>
>  Was it just bad luck, or glasses couldn't be made perfect then
>  (or and now), and Leica allow slightly defective glasses to be
>  used?
>
>  I wanted a mint condition Leica. Mint M's are too expensive for
>  me. So I opted for Leicaflex. Got a mint one, and now, I am very
>  disappointed. Not that I can justify another Leica purchase soon.
>  But in case I have funds for another Leica purchase, I would
>  probably go for user condition ones. Scratches on lens elements
>  can't be too much worse than dust and sparkles. And paying
>  premiums for mint looking ones is a bit too much a gamble for the
>  mint condition.
>
>  Qiao
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Leica Users Group.
>  See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
Jeffery L. Smith
New Orleans, LA