No scale focus 120 folder forum?

oftheherd said:
The first I learned to use toothpaste was while in the US Army, to remove scratches from watch crystals. The chalk in toothpaste would do that surprisingly well. But I would agree I would be reluctant to use it on a precision ground lens. How did it work Borghesia?
Click to expand...

Hello Oftheherd, the lens on my Zenobia was cooked with dirt. I tried everything to get it of. An alcohol bath, ammonia, vinegar etc...
Slowly and gently rubbing with toothpaste cleaned it all up. I don't know if I messed up a coating ( if there is any ), but the lens became very bright, like a brand new marble.
It was either the choice of a non working camera and taking a risk for a working one. My Zenobia takes reasonable to fine pics, but I don't know if the results are better with the lens in a original state.
 
Limpovitj said:
I got the suggestion from Tomosy's Leica repair book. He claims that a lens surface with no coating is preferable to one with half of the coating gone. I have no idea if that's right or not. I bought a Yashica-Mat (right price, dim shop & in a hurry) that proved to have fungus on the first surface of the second element. It cleaned up nice enough, and the glass was unharmed, but the fungus had destroyed some of the coating. It shot just fine, but it was a bit unsightly. Anyhow, I removed the rest of the coating working carefully with toothpaste (diluted in isopropyl alcohol) and q-tips--it took several hours. The lens is now crystal clear, and you could never tell it has been worked on by looking at the assembled lens. I suppose contrast should be slightly lower, but it shoots just like before--and that's tack sharp!

(I do suppose it could be somewhat of a gamble as to what specific kind of optical glass that pariticular element is made of--I wouldn't try it on the first element of a scratch prone collapsible Summicron or something like that...)
Click to expand...

Well, that's one more thing I'll have to disagree with Tomosy about. The isopropyl alcohol can be a gamble too. If your camera is an old folder with glued lens elements, you just may find out the hard way that isopropyl is a dandy solvent for canadian balsam cements.
 
Limpovitj said:
I got the suggestion from Tomosy's Leica repair book. He claims that a lens surface with no coating is preferable to one with half of the coating gone. I have no idea if that's right or not. I bought a Yashica-Mat (right price, dim shop & in a hurry) that proved to have fungus on the first surface of the second element. It cleaned up nice enough, and the glass was unharmed, but the fungus had destroyed some of the coating. It shot just fine, but it was a bit unsightly. Anyhow, I removed the rest of the coating working carefully with toothpaste (diluted in isopropyl alcohol) and q-tips--it took several hours. The lens is now crystal clear, and you could never tell it has been worked on by looking at the assembled lens. I suppose contrast should be slightly lower, but it shoots just like before--and that's tack sharp!

(I do suppose it could be somewhat of a gamble as to what specific kind of optical glass that pariticular element is made of--I wouldn't try it on the first element of a scratch prone collapsible Summicron or something like that...)
Click to expand...

i would agree Limpovit that i definitly wouldnt try it on Summircon or anything of that ilk..but in fact personaly i wouldnt do it to any lens unless it was something i just didnt vaule at all, although that may sound a bit harsh i simply mean that it may be a cheap common camera or lens and i would know that basically i am doing harm to the lens.

some time back i looked into having a xenon repolished profesionaly, it is not a cheap option and in most cases unless the lens is of reasonable vaule its just not economical to do so (cheaper to simply buy one in good condition). but as they told me they dont simply polish by hand they use a form (cant think of the right word but a shape) that is calibrated to the original lens. they advised that to polish by hand simply destroys the original formular and shape of the lens, it will still work more than likely and will look good to the eye but it is no longer the correct shape.

final polishing is a progressive procedure using progressivly finer oxides to get within a million of an inch (i think i have heard final lens polshing refered to as an art as well). for instance i have polished various surfaces of granite, marble and gem stones such as opals etc and the oxides used for that are much finer than toothpaste. if i was to use toothpaste near the end it would undo the work/smoothness i already reached with oxides. i also understand that aparently ziess used to have large vats below there factory with very pure water from which they used to (i dont know if they still do) collect oxide for the final polishing. apparently looking under a microscope at a lens repolished by someone compared to a zies lens at the factory is like comparing a rough surface of a country road to a sheet of glass.

i fully understand why you polished your lens in this way-its a usable camera and lens for you now and by your tesimony is very sharp now. Anyone can do anything they like to their own lens. however what concerns me is if people get the impresession that polishing a lens with toothpaste is an acceptable procedure and fix...there are enough problems with buying cameras (particularly on ebay) without the added problem of people possibly choosing to buff up lens to look good (to the eye only) for resale purposes and to remove those cleaning marks. i would hope but wouldnt expect the way things are nowadays that if someone did repolish a lens they would disclose that before resale. i am sure people have heard it before but in most cases cleaning marks ect are best left alone and the lens still performs well---better than if it was to be polished -especially with toothpatse IMO
 
chippy said:
i would agree Limpovit that i definitly wouldnt try it on Summircon or anything of that ilk..but in fact personaly i wouldnt do it to any lens unless it was something i just didnt vaule at all, although that may sound a bit harsh i simply mean that it may be a cheap common camera or lens and i would know that basically i am doing harm to the lens.

some time back i looked into having a xenon repolished profesionaly, it is not a cheap option and in most cases unless the lens is of reasonable vaule its just not economical to do so (cheaper to simply buy one in good condition). but as they told me they dont simply polish by hand they use a form (cant think of the right word but a shape) that is calibrated to the original lens. they advised that to polish by hand simply destroys the original formular and shape of the lens, it will still work more than likely and will look good to the eye but it is no longer the correct shape.

final polishing is a progressive procedure using progressivly finer oxides to get within a million of an inch (i think i have heard final lens polshing refered to as an art as well). for instance i have polished various surfaces of granite, marble and gem stones such as opals etc and the oxides used for that are much finer than toothpaste. if i was to use toothpaste near the end it would undo the work/smoothness i already reached with oxides. i also understand that aparently ziess used to have large vats below there factory with very pure water from which they used to (i dont know if they still do) collect oxide for the final polishing. apparently looking under a microscope at a lens repolished by someone compared to a zies lens at the factory is like comparing a rough surface of a country road to a sheet of glass.

i fully understand why you polished your lens in this way-its a usable camera and lens for you now and by your tesimony is very sharp now. Anyone can do anything they like to their own lens. however what concerns me is if people get the impresession that polishing a lens with toothpaste is an acceptable procedure and fix...there are enough problems with buying cameras (particularly on ebay) without the added problem of people possibly choosing to buff up lens to look good (to the eye only) for resale purposes and to remove those cleaning marks. i would hope but wouldnt expect the way things are nowadays that if someone did repolish a lens they would disclose that before resale. i am sure people have heard it before but in most cases cleaning marks ect are best left alone and the lens still performs well---better than if it was to be polished -especially with toothpatse IMO
Click to expand...

There used to be a thread on the Classic Camera Repair Forum that was started by some guy who "polished" all his lenses with Flitz metal polish. He was especially proud of the way it cut through that "mottled gunk that looks like an oil slick" on the lenses of antique cameras. When it was carefully explained to him that he had removed the natural lens coating of bloomed lenses, and thereby had also removed about 99 percent of their value, he became somewhat upset.
 
chippy said:
Hi oftheherd, no i am sure if it was MacArthur i would of remembered his name!...i thought he was a shadow god :angel: haha ..at least it seems his reputation and ego was lol

i'll see if i can can dig up what i had on it


EDIT; indeed oftheherd it looks as if my memory was a bit off as it was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers that signed off on the decree 1535 (whom could only of been the mighty Douglas MacArthur-i just didnt have his name written down it seems) that said all items exported from Japan after 9 september 1947 be marked MIOJ and he would have been still in charge in 1949 Decmber 5 when decree 2061 was issued recinding the previous requirement of decree 1535. some people say that it went on until 1951, probably because for some reason there were still some cameras (and other items) realeased with the mark MIOJ up until early 1951 but my notes say that decree 2061 was issued in Dec 1949
Click to expand...

Been out of touch a couple of days. Interesting that if would have gone on that long then suddenly stopped while Mac was still Supreme Commander and we were still an occupying power.
 
FallisPhoto said:
U.S. Coast Guard here. Toothpaste for polishing plastic and Brasso for glass. The viewfinder lenses on old box cameras are not precision ground and they pretty much just tell you what the camera is pointed at. Same thing with the small pyramidal viewfinders on folding cameras. They tend to yellow and to get cloudy. Polishing them with toothpaste (or Brasso, if they are glass), will brighten them up a LOT. You never realize how dull those things are until you do that. This camera has received (among other things) the toothpaste treatment:



All the visible lenses were polished with toothpaste, are crystal clear and look like new. They are so bright and clear that they practially glow in the dark. The meniscus taking lens in the center (behind that hole) just got a lot of naptha, some vinegar, and some cotton swabs though. It wasn't hugely sharp even new and literally grinding the surface off of the lens wouldn't improve things. I had thought the viewfinder lenses were clean before doing this to it, and I guess that, technically, they were. I hadn't realized how dull 60+ year old plastic can get though, until I did this. The viewfinder lens on top had a scratch in it and I remembered the old watch crystal trick.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's a beautiful retouch job. It's a trick I will remember and use on some of my oldies.
 
oftheherd said:
Been out of touch a couple of days. Interesting that if would have gone on that long then suddenly stopped while Mac was still Supreme Commander and we were still an occupying power.
Click to expand...

as i remember these sorts of labels wernt so much placed on the cameras (or other items) because the countries were occupied and a form of 'showing whom was in control' so to speak (i.e. America in charge of japan and germany along with other allied powers including russia in the east). it was tied up with economics of the winning powers.

particularly England and France (in comparison to America) but also most of the others needed to build up their own enconomies and discouraged thier own peoples from buying imported goods. So heavy taxes were applied to import goods by many countries such as england, france and possibly a lesser extent america etc. with the label Made In Occupied Japan it allowed a tax break to americans whom could purchase these through PX stores etc (and at the same time provide a market for the japanese factories). these labels (including the ones placed on german cameras by the russians) only lasted those couple of years; no doubt the laws changed somewhat or need for the labels were no longer needed or became impractable.
 
Last edited:
it is probably interesting to add that the stratergies to rebuild Japan's and Germany's industry so that they could be strong (not military but economically) again was in part due to the lesson learnt after the great war....without going too deep into politics and facisiam it was understood one of the reasons Germany went down the path they did was because they were reduced (tried to it seems) by the winning powers to virtually a farming community (silly to try to a community that has the engerneering and inteligence that they had) with heavy repayments to the allied powers for losing the war. these severe restrictions caused an understandable bitterness among the Germans, as they, as a country endured great hardships as a result, and led to pure evil of you know who comming to power. Whilst things wernt perfect afterwards and in hindsight could of been done better it seems there were some smart people in charge after the second war...after all there would have been a lot of prejeduce and hate going around back then
 
FallisPhoto said:
There used to be a thread on the Classic Camera Repair Forum that was started by some guy who "polished" all his lenses with Flitz metal polish. He was especially proud of the way it cut through that "mottled gunk that looks like an oil slick" on the lenses of antique cameras. When it was carefully explained to him that he had removed the natural lens coating of bloomed lenses, and thereby had also removed about 99 percent of their value, he became somewhat upset.
Click to expand...

couldn't agree more...whilst a crystal clear lens looks great they are better left alone, with their coating, whether deminished from new or natually formed afterwards as some vintage lenses are. whilst somewhat unsightly they work better
 
The iterations of the Zenobi AFAIK

The iterations of the Zenobi AFAIK

The Zenobia was a meticulously well done copy of a little Zeiss 645 folder. I think it was called Zeiss 516.

I snatched up a bunch of these on eBay when they were selling there for $15-20 and became quite intrigued with the camera. It's a great little shooter, delivering crisp 6X4.5 images. It's a front cell focusing lens that came in two models... the earlier Hesper Anastigmat, and the later tessar style 4 element Neo Hesper.

The company was Daiichi Optical and they produced their own shutter early on... the D.O.C shutter, then there was a D.O.C Rapid shutter followed by a Daiichi Rapid shutter and another shutter... Seikosha Rapid. All the shutters had 1/500th top speed. The Daiichi built shutters were a bit unreliable.

There was a rangefinder model designated the Zenobia R. Once I found out there was a rangefinder model, the hunt began. I did finally find a working complete Zenobia R that needs restoration and I found a parts camera with all the rangefinder parts. In the time I looked for the rangefinder model, the two I have were the only one's I have ever encountered.

There are two items on these old Japanese cameras to be aware of. Postwar, cameras made in Japan could not be sold in the home market. All cameras were produced for export. Cameras built in japan were for a some time marked MIOJ for Made In Occupied Japan. The MIOJ on the Zenobia was on the trim strip on the end of the camera. These were synthetic and are mostly gone from the cameras. The other route out of the country was for cameras to be sold to US solders and shoppers in Post Exchange. Cameras sold through these exchanges have a red emboss lettering on the wind-on which I recall as being EPX.

The cameras marked as post exchange and cameras marked as MIOJ generally sell for a bit more. Even more interesting, cameras made in the era and sold ONLY outside Japan are more valuable to Pacific Rim (asian) buyers than US and other country buyers.

The Zenobia's are a real catch with the Neo Hesper and the Seikosha Rapid shutters, but they are all very nice pocket folders. They are actually smaller than the Voigtlander Perkeo, because of the 645 rather than 6X6 format.
 
chippy said:
it is probably interesting to add that the stratergies to rebuild Japan's and Germany's industry so that they could be strong (not military but economically) again was in part due to the lesson learnt after the great war....without going too deep into politics and facisiam it was understood one of the reasons Germany went down the path they did was because they were reduced (tried to it seems) by the winning powers to virtually a farming community (silly to try to a community that has the engerneering and inteligence that they had) with heavy repayments to the allied powers for losing the war. these severe restrictions caused an understandable bitterness among the Germans, as they, as a country endured great hardships as a result, and led to pure evil of you know who comming to power. Whilst things wernt perfect afterwards and in hindsight could of been done better it seems there were some smart people in charge after the second war...after all there would have been a lot of prejeduce and hate going around back then
Click to expand...

As I recall, cameras made for a while in Germany were labled as being made in whatever occupied zone they were made. Probably other goods as well. I always wondered what the exact reason was. As to prejudice, it sure did occur. The Russians had reasons to dislike the Germans. In the US we tended to dislike the Japanese more that the Germans (not trying to bring a lot of political discussion, just my recollections from that time, and others may remember differently). I agree we had some far sighted people making decisions. I assume we in the US didn't decide those things on our own, although we were probably in a better financial position to make it happen.

History can be interesting.
 
oftheherd said:
As I recall, cameras made for a while in Germany were labled as being made in whatever occupied zone they were made. Probably other goods as well. I always wondered what the exact reason was.
History can be interesting.
Click to expand...

interesting....yep it is that, oftheherd

you would no doubt of heard the term 'Monte' en Sarre' that would get a leica collector all overexposed and out of focus if found on a IIIa 😉 .assembled or made in the French occupied German zone of Saarland of course...same thing ..it was to avoid the french paying the high import taxes
 
kuzano said:
It's a front cell focusing lens that came in two models... the earlier Hesper Anastigmat, and the later tessar style 4 element Neo Hesper.
Click to expand...

Both lenses are 4-element tessar types. See:
http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Zenobia

"The lens is a four-element Tessar-type coated Hesper 75mm
f:3.5. (Many people seem to believe that the Hesper has three
elements and the later Neo-Hesper four, but the advertisements
clearly state otherwise.) " [Camerapedia]
Click to expand...
 
chippy said:
interesting....yep it is that, oftheherd

you would no doubt of heard the term 'Monte' en Sarre' that would get a leica collector all overexposed and out of focus if found on a IIIa 😉 .assembled or made in the French occupied German zone of Saarland of course...same thing ..it was to avoid the french paying the high import taxes
Click to expand...

LOL on Leica owners. But no, I hadn't heard of that. I have seen American and British made items marked as being made in their respective zones on ebay a few times. As I said in a recent thread, I never cease to be amazed.
 
chippy said:
couldn't agree more...whilst a crystal clear lens looks great they are better left alone, with their coating, whether deminished from new or natually formed afterwards as some vintage lenses are. whilst somewhat unsightly they work better
Click to expand...

They certainly do! The first commercially successful coatings, on Zeiss lenses, were an attempt to dublicate a natural lens coating. It helped, quite a lot, but it wasn't as good as the real thing. It wasn't until multicoating was developed that the optical characteristics of artificial lens coatings surpassed those of natural ones. Until well after the war, naturally bloomed lenses were in very high demand among the cognoscenti, and a bloomed lens would often sell for ten (or more) times the price of raw glass lenses. This state of affairs continued until Pentax developed a type of coating that could be baked (and was thus fused to the glass), making multicoating possible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom