back alley
IMAGES
much to my own amazement, i took apart my 35/3.5 lens tonight.
by myself...
i removed the front lens assembly by unscrewing the round plastic thingy that holds the front lens assembly to something...i did this by myself.
i cleaned the lens with lens cleaner and q-tips and then a micro cloth.
about 4 q-tips into it the lens must have been clean cause there was no more black stuff on the last q-tip.
i did this too by myself.
then it was time to clean the rear assembly, from the inside. this could be done cause the whole thing fell into my hand about the time that i discovered how to take that back part out.
anyway, there was no black stuff on any of the q-tips which i thought would be a good thing.
except for the back of that lens...it is still a bit opaque, like dried spilled coke.
the lens cleaner does nothing and alcohol does nothing also.
so the lens is waaay cleaner than when i started but it could be cleaner still if someone here can tell me what to try next...all i have on hand is ronsonal & goo gone.
should i try any of that???
joe
by myself...
i removed the front lens assembly by unscrewing the round plastic thingy that holds the front lens assembly to something...i did this by myself.
i cleaned the lens with lens cleaner and q-tips and then a micro cloth.
about 4 q-tips into it the lens must have been clean cause there was no more black stuff on the last q-tip.
i did this too by myself.
then it was time to clean the rear assembly, from the inside. this could be done cause the whole thing fell into my hand about the time that i discovered how to take that back part out.
anyway, there was no black stuff on any of the q-tips which i thought would be a good thing.
except for the back of that lens...it is still a bit opaque, like dried spilled coke.
the lens cleaner does nothing and alcohol does nothing also.
so the lens is waaay cleaner than when i started but it could be cleaner still if someone here can tell me what to try next...all i have on hand is ronsonal & goo gone.
should i try any of that???
joe
ChrisN
Striving
Sounds like you've gone as far as mere mortals can with that cleaning, Joe. I got about that far with my 50/1.2 element, that is badly etched, with the same approach. Beyond that it's probably a job for the experts. I'll be sending my lens off to Arax some time soon, to see if they can improve it.
And hey - good work on the strip-down! You're getting pretty brave!
And hey - good work on the strip-down! You're getting pretty brave!
back alley
IMAGES
i have a hard time seeing myself as brave when it comes to this stuff.
i just thought that since i got the lens at a good price and if i screwed it up i was likely gonna send it off anyway...lol!
now, i'm not too sure what i'll do.
shoot first and think about it later i guess.
joe
i just thought that since i got the lens at a good price and if i screwed it up i was likely gonna send it off anyway...lol!
now, i'm not too sure what i'll do.
shoot first and think about it later i guess.
joe
ChrisN
Striving
Sounds like a good plan. I'm just scanning some negs from the 35/2.8. I'll post them soon. Nice!
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Hi Joe,
Ronsonal won't hurt. I woulsn't try goo gone myself. Foe really sticky lenses that need cleaning, I have had good results with Flitz as sold by microtools. (The usual disclaimers of course!!) It will depend on the value of the lens to you. A pro job is likely to cost a fair amount and may not be 100%. If the lens was cheap and you don't mind too much if it goes wrong, I would try it. If the lens is that important to you, leave it to the pros but you have already started so this probably isn't the case.
Kim
Ronsonal won't hurt. I woulsn't try goo gone myself. Foe really sticky lenses that need cleaning, I have had good results with Flitz as sold by microtools. (The usual disclaimers of course!!) It will depend on the value of the lens to you. A pro job is likely to cost a fair amount and may not be 100%. If the lens was cheap and you don't mind too much if it goes wrong, I would try it. If the lens is that important to you, leave it to the pros but you have already started so this probably isn't the case.
Kim
back alley said:
back alley
IMAGES
thaks kim.
i already tried goo gone and ronsonal. they each seemed to take a tiny bit off. (wishful thinking?)
i may try that flitz as i'm open to trying anything right now (1:30 a.m.)
the lens was only 130 u.s. but is in very nice shape so i would like it to work well.
i will shoot with it tomorrow and check for any changes in it's bahaviour from yesterday.
i can live with a low contrast lens so at this point it will depend on if there is an increase in apparent sharpness from the cleaning.
joe
i already tried goo gone and ronsonal. they each seemed to take a tiny bit off. (wishful thinking?)
i may try that flitz as i'm open to trying anything right now (1:30 a.m.)
the lens was only 130 u.s. but is in very nice shape so i would like it to work well.
i will shoot with it tomorrow and check for any changes in it's bahaviour from yesterday.
i can live with a low contrast lens so at this point it will depend on if there is an increase in apparent sharpness from the cleaning.
joe
laptoprob
back to basics
Joe, is this the lens that produced the somewhat flarey tree shot you posted a few days ago? That would be a great improvement.
Remember how to put it together!!
Rob.
Remember how to put it together!!
Rob.
back alley
IMAGES
it is indeed the same lens.
and it fit back together like it wanted to, i was pleased with myself.
i hope to get out today or tomorrow to see if there is any improvement.
joe
and it fit back together like it wanted to, i was pleased with myself.
i hope to get out today or tomorrow to see if there is any improvement.
joe
bmattock
Veteran
Joe,
Is the stuff on the lens surface or between two cemented elements that appear to be one element out of the lens barrel? If it is between elements, it takes a pro to dissolve the balsam-based cement, clean, and reglue. That's my understanding of it, anyway.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Is the stuff on the lens surface or between two cemented elements that appear to be one element out of the lens barrel? If it is between elements, it takes a pro to dissolve the balsam-based cement, clean, and reglue. That's my understanding of it, anyway.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
back alley
IMAGES
i'm not sure bill.
it might be between the 2 rear elements.
the inside rear element did clean up a bit last night but that could have seperate dirt and what i see remaining could be sandwiched in there.
that would explain why it refuses to be cleaned off.
perhaps if i really want a 35/3.5 lens as a user i'll have to find another sample.
that would likely be cheaper than sending this one off for a bath.
joe
it might be between the 2 rear elements.
the inside rear element did clean up a bit last night but that could have seperate dirt and what i see remaining could be sandwiched in there.
that would explain why it refuses to be cleaned off.
perhaps if i really want a 35/3.5 lens as a user i'll have to find another sample.
that would likely be cheaper than sending this one off for a bath.
joe
bmattock
Veteran
back alley said:
I was also wondering about the 'black stuff' you got off the lens - could it have been black paint from the sides of the lens? I have found that many times, lens elements are painted black on the sides - I am guessing to prevent internal reflection back into the lens by stray light hitting the sides of the element from inside. I need to pick up a small bottle of craft black paint to redo that when I remove it with enthusiastic cleaning!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Good work, joe. I'd drop an email to DAG and see what he'd charge; it might well be cheaper than you think.
William
William
back alley
IMAGES
bmattock said:
i don't think it's the black paint bill. the glass was still in the tiny mount and i cleaned only the glass surface. i think the lens had not been cleaned in many years (if ever) and it was just an accumulation of years of use.
as for sending this sample off i need to ponder that.
this was never going to be my daily user lens and i am just not too sure what i would be comfortable investing in it.
i love the 35/2.8 i have and use it the most, i have the 1.8 & 2 if i need/want the sharpest more modern look.
still thinking...
joe
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
not sure if this helps joe, but i was quoted $55 for a cleaning and relube of a 40/2 summicron from DAG. i would assume that should give you a pretty good idea of a starting point. my lens was fine (just a bit stiff), and i opted not to have the service, but it couldn't hurt for you to get a quote. if it is just one element that seems to be the problem, you might not even be looking at more than that! that said...i know the predicament you are in. sometimes a service makes that "cheap" lens you buy not so cheap!
Just reformateed Hard Drive, Re-installed OS, back from Digital Death...
If the effected spot is in between the rear elements, in the Balsam, it will be hard to get it cleaner than you have done.
You would need to separate the elements and then reglue or use my Oil trick.
If the effected spot is in between the rear elements, in the Balsam, it will be hard to get it cleaner than you have done.
You would need to separate the elements and then reglue or use my Oil trick.
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
and if that is the case, i would assume it costs a lot more than $55. sorry ;-)
back alley
IMAGES
and i'm thinking it IS in between the elements.
i was surprised at how simple/easy it is to take that lens apart and i'm thinking that a simple cleaning from a professional won't be much different from what i did.
taking that rear group apart, cleaning and re-cementing would be a bit pricey i would think.
joe
i was surprised at how simple/easy it is to take that lens apart and i'm thinking that a simple cleaning from a professional won't be much different from what i did.
taking that rear group apart, cleaning and re-cementing would be a bit pricey i would think.
joe
bmattock
Veteran
LOL - you might try this:
http://www.skgrimes.com/popsci/pops/
These guys are known for this type of work:
http://www.focalpointlens.com/fp_intro.html
Anyway, just some thoughts. Not something I'd tackle myself, and I have no lenses that I think worthy of expensive repairs - they're just not that good to begin with. If I owned a really rare or high-end lens, that would be something else again.
Sorry for the frustration you must be feeling!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
http://www.skgrimes.com/popsci/pops/
These guys are known for this type of work:
http://www.focalpointlens.com/fp_intro.html
Anyway, just some thoughts. Not something I'd tackle myself, and I have no lenses that I think worthy of expensive repairs - they're just not that good to begin with. If I owned a really rare or high-end lens, that would be something else again.
Sorry for the frustration you must be feeling!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I took the cemented pair on the 135/3.5 apart, cleaned the glass with isopropyl alchohol, and put it back together with index matching oil. The mount keeps it together, and almost two years later it looks fine.
Index Matching Oil, like that used for oil immersion microscope lenses.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=2346&cat=3204
Index Matching Oil, like that used for oil immersion microscope lenses.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=2346&cat=3204
back alley
IMAGES
'Sorry for the frustration you must be feeling!'
actually not so frustrated.
taking that lens apart was a thrill for me (plus getting it back together) and if it had been a more expensive lens or in a little better shape i might not have tried.
also, i kinda liked the look of the flare...made the photo take on a 40's look.
i think it might be a great 'landscape' lens or maybe play with some infrared film with it.
and who knows, it might be an ok lens now that i did some clean up on it.
joe
actually not so frustrated.
taking that lens apart was a thrill for me (plus getting it back together) and if it had been a more expensive lens or in a little better shape i might not have tried.
also, i kinda liked the look of the flare...made the photo take on a 40's look.
i think it might be a great 'landscape' lens or maybe play with some infrared film with it.
and who knows, it might be an ok lens now that i did some clean up on it.
joe