Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/08/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
> At 10:38 PM 8/2/96 -0600, Chris Fortunko wrote:
>
> >I will second this. Van Stelten is local and a hell of a nice and
> >competent guy. I don't think he does this in his shop in
> >Louisville, since I did not see any equipment there. However, the
> >work gets done correctly. I know this on "good authority."
>
> REPLY: John has the work done by a scientific laboratory nearby.
>
> >
> >I did not know about the drip process. However, a friend of mine
> >who worked at Leitz in the 1980s, did not think that Leitz coatings
> >were state of the art at that time.
>
> REPLY: Leitz coatings have ALWAYS been "state of the art" insofar
> as patents allowed them to be. I would like to know on what basis
> your friend makes this judgement -- did he ever work at, say, Zeiss
> or Rollei or Kodak or Wollensak? He might well know what he's
> talking about, or he might not, but I think we're entitled to a
> precis of his credentials.
"State of the art", or the lack of it, often hangs on whether patents
are held, not held, licensed or not licensed. Often, the existance
and use of a particularly meritorius patent by a firm will virtually
define "state of the art". That seems to be the basis of Chris'
friend's gratuitous assertion. This can be just as gratuitously
denied, but certainly doesn't "entitle" us to a listing of his
credentials. He may choose to give that listing, but is not
obligated. The whole shtick of "the Leica look" is so subjective as
to be a gratuitous assertion.
> >I have a DR Summicron with a superb coating. Could it have been
> >redone? My DR looks very good and much different from the other
> >Summicrons (Rigid, DR, and collapsible) I have seen. Many of them
> >seem to have a shiny quality, which a sales person in Palo Alto
> >attributed to incorrect cleaning.
>
> REPLY: The NF/DR Summicron dates from 1956 to 1968; Leitz was
> using vacuum-coating techniques by 1960 or thereabouts. Perhaps
> your NF/DR lens is post-1960 and your other two lenses are pre-1960.
> As the drip coatings were moist and soft, they were much more
> susceptible to abrasion in cleaning than are later coatings.
>
> >A friend of mine (Robert Benjamin) in Boulder, and a Leica expert
> >(now at Jones Drug at Camera), attributes the bad condition of
> >some of the older lenses to overuse of Kodak lens cleaner. He does
> >not recommend the use of this particular concoction at all.
> >According to him, RoR should be used at most once a year.
>
> REPLY: Sounds like a great case of more speech than thought. Maybe
> we should stick to what Leitz/Leica recommend and not to what some
> guy who works at a Drug Store claims.
Another gratuitous assertion, this time by Marc, replying to an
equally gratuitous assertion by Chris. The drug store association,
in no way, precludes Benjamin from being the Leica expert that
Chris contends. Leica "experts" come from sundry walks of
life. Why I know of a Leica expert that is ((gasp)) an attorney!
> Leica has traditionally recommended the use of lens tissues and
> cleaner, whether Kodak or not. They now recommend the use of
> micro-fibre cleaning cloths. Lenses should be cleaned only when
> they need it, whether this be once a week or once a decade.
Good point. My use may require cleaning every three days; yours every
decade. Assigning values to cleaning frequency is poor form. If we
could get folk to realize how cruddy a lens surface has to be before
it is noticed in the typical work produced with it, there would be
much less lens cleaning done by owners.
--
Roger Beamon, Naturalist & Photographer
Docent: Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
Leica Historical Society Of America
INTERNET: beamon@primenet.com