Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

CZJ 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar (stupid?) cleaning idea
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:29 pm    Post subject: Re: CZJ 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar (stupid?) cleaning idea Reply with quote

Himself wrote:
Spotmatic wrote:
Guys (and Gals of course!),

How smart/stupid would it be to dunk the whole piece in a bath of pure naphta to clean EVERYTHING?


I did it. I mean immerse it into a bath of Naphta.
Slight improvement.
I finished by dismantling everything and cleaned the blades one by one. Dry them one by one.
Use cotton gloves.
It worked like a charm.


Congrats!! Not an easy job at all.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually acetone is the stronger solvent, although much harsher, than naptha. Naptha is much milder, does not dissolve paint nearly as quickly, does not melt plastic, for example. Both are toxic, acetone is extremely toxic, both are easily absorbed by skin. Wear gloves, have adequate ventilation...check the MSDS before using either naptha or acetone! Acetone is typically very pure, evaporates completely, and leaves no residues. Light fluid is also very pure, but it will leave a residue on lens surface that is easily cleaned off with lens fluid.

Methyl alcohol (Eclipse) is also toxic, easily absorbed through skin contact, read the MSDS!


PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What don't you try to lubricate the blades with graphite ? Rub a black pencil on a file and apply the resulting fine powder on the blades.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jieffe wrote:
What don't you try to lubricate the blades with graphite ? Rub a black pencil on a file and apply the resulting fine powder on the blades.


Tiny black specs spread to elements?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

siriusdogstar wrote:
Tiny black specs spread to elements?

I succesfully tried this method on a Tomioka 55mm (after 3 or 4 cleaning with naphta). You just apply a very small quantity of graphite with a fine brush. If you're careful enough, nothing will fall on the elements.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jieffe wrote:
siriusdogstar wrote:
Tiny black specs spread to elements?

I succesfully tried this method on a Tomioka 55mm (after 3 or 4 cleaning with naphta). You just apply a very small quantity of graphite with a fine brush. If you're careful enough, nothing will fall on the elements.


Good to know, thanks! I was worrying about particles falling from the aperture during use.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting ideas! I think I will try the "dunk in naphta" method first. I'll check back in this topic to let you all know my experiences Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:53 am    Post subject: Re: CZJ 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar (stupid?) cleaning idea Reply with quote

Himself wrote:
I did it. I mean immerse it into a bath of Naphta.
Slight improvement.
I finished by dismantling everything and cleaned the blades one by one. Dry them one by one.
Use cotton gloves.
It worked like a charm.


Based on your cleaning above, how much of the actual cleaning & contaminant removal do you think was accomplished by each of the two steps (immersion vs dismantled cleaning)? Question

For example, was it a case where the immersion did 80% of the cleaning and the dismantled cleaning took care of the remaining 20%? Or was it the other way around, or even 50/50?


PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It doesn't matter.
30%, or 50% or 80%, it simply doesn't matter.
It will always be a difference between a perfectly snappy diaphragm and a 80% working one.
More than that there is a lot of time involved, especially in the first procedure, immersing the whole diaphragm into the bath.
That is, you let it there for at least 24 hours, dry it carefully with a hot air blower, put the lens together and voila! the bitch doesn't work 100%.
And then start dismantling again. Doing what? Bath or clean one by one?
I chose cleaning even if putting the blade together was a painful job. I have a lot of tweezers but I wouldn't touch those fragile things with a tweezers. They bend so easily.
I worked only with flat surfaces.
Of course the idea came after couple of hours, 2 whiskeys and 4 cigarettes ( worry not, I don't smoke inside the house). Did I mention the nervous trembling?
Anyway, I magnetized a Robertson bit, a long one, and I put the blade into the position, keeping it there with Q tip( there was a moment when I prayed for a third hand Very Happy).
But they wouldn't stay there, because they are so light, and the sill they are sitting on is so small, and there is a huge hole in the middle. Couple of more cigarettes, a whiskey and a hour later I came up with another solution:I cut off part of the wooden handle of the broom, I wrapped around it some gaffer tape until it fit the hole perfectly, coming through it, of course. Now the blade would stand still while I put them together, around that wooden thing.
Everything worked 100% not 80 or 50.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Despite the comments above I just decided to give it a try (the "dunk in Naphta" method).

It looks it worked like a charm. I didn't just immerse it, but I opened and closed the diaphragm over and over again while immersed. I did the same with the focusing helicoid. The lens appeared to be very dirty inside.

After this treatment I also had to regrease the helicoid. This worked well too.

Before cleaning, look at the dirty blades:


Immersed:


After cleaning:


A lot of thrash came from the inside...


The diaphragm is clean now...


The first shot at f/8


PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YEEEEEEEEEES Very Happy ........thanks Peter Wink
just hope that it will now works more than few weeks Laughing .....


PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, at least I can guarantee my work for a few weeks Laughing Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi guys!

I found Pancolar 80mm 1.8 for little little little little money Smile but the aperture doesn't work.

Can someone please take a picture from the place, where the blades should sit actually?
Because it seems there is no blade at all.

On the other hand the lens doesn't look reassembled, or touched. It's like mint.


PS: Sorry for posting this in 2 different threads Smile


Regards
Hasan


PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks to Spotmatics photos and the description here: http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=15881
I managed to open the Pancolar.

And yessss; the blades are not missing, were just hiding deeply Smile
In next step, I will bath it, like explained by Spotmatic.

And if that works out aswell, I will post some photos.

This lens has incredible IQ, even wide open.

Regards
Hasan


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hasan, Keep us posted please. I have the same problem.
Would it be possible to photograph your different steps ?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I usually use medicine gasoline for cleaning blades separately, and then use alcohol just to clean gasoline. This is the best combination for now.
I m very confused with you lens you showed photos because you out it all together with inner ant outer thread. Didi you relube it after cleaning?


PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2024 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm happy to have found this forum and, even more, this thread. A few days ago I acquired a Pancolar 1.8/80 alongside with a Pancolar 1.8/50 and a Praktica super TL 1000. All items require a thorough internal cleaning.

After giving the 80mm a 1st quick external cleaning, it looks much better. Not mint, but pretty close, IMO.
UV lamp shows some shades at the edges, which appear to be inner elements. Can't tell for sure. Hope there's no fungus.
Focusing of both lenses is way too stiff, so regreasing is required. Also the aperture blades of the 80mm are stuck wide open, as described in the opening post.

So obviously naphta is the way to go, but I'll start something different at first: Around 6 weeks ago I bought a bunch of cheap vintage lenses (6 of them for 45 Euros) to practise.

2 of them I have already fixed:

The Tokina Macro 3.5 35-105 for Nikon F only had a very loose rubber ring which made zooming mostly impossible. A bit of padded doublesided tape, and it's like new. This is not a gem, but usable on my D7100.

The M42 Auto Universar PC 3.5 / 200 was more labour intensive: very stiff focusing with slighly screaching sounds. I found the occasional degraded grease and a decent amount of sand (!). Fortunately the optical elements are not affected. I managed to clean (Isopropanol 99.9%) everything, regrease (Liqui Moly LM47) and reassemble it. Works like charm now!

Back to the main topic: in that bunch of lenses was an Auto Hanimar 3.5 / 135, which also has a sticky aperture. This is still dismantled, because I don't want to reassemble it before this issue is solved. Applying Isopropanol drop by drop and agitating makes the blades move ever so slowly. Now I'll start by bathing the aperture assembly in naphta, agitating the mechanics from time to time. We'll see.

Then I'll need two weeks or so for my sprained left wrist to heal, and I can decide how many cheap practising lenses I'll take care of before actually dismantling the precious Pancolar 80. I want two healthy and reliable hands to start this serious task.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2024 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

simplex wrote:
I'm happy to have found this forum and, even more, this thread.

Welcome to the forum simplex!


simplex wrote:
...but I'll start something different at first: Around 6 weeks ago I bought a bunch of cheap vintage lenses (6 of them for 45 Euros) to practise.

That is definitely the right way to do it; DIY lens servicing/repair requires experience and practicing on something of little value is a wise move! Like 1 small


simplex wrote:
The M42 Auto Universar PC 3.5 / 200 was more labour intensive: very stiff focusing with slighly screaching sounds. I found the occasional degraded grease and a decent amount of sand (!). Fortunately the optical elements are not affected. I managed to clean (Isopropanol 99.9%) everything, regrease (Liqui Moly LM47) and reassemble it. Works like charm now!

Sand is murder on helicoids. Unfortunately the way most lenses are constructed leaves the front edge of the helicoid exposed to ingress of dust & sand.

LiquiMoly LM47 would not be my first choice of lubricant; the safety sheet specifies it has a specific odour (= likely outgassing) and the data sheet mentions mineral oil as a base oil. This grease is primarily aimed at the automotive industry & heavy machinery. Greases with a synthetic base oil and thickeners/dry lube additives specifically designed for helicoids used in optical instruments would be a better choice I think (JapanHobbyTool, Polar Bear Camera, Pig Iron, Microlubrol & Losimol market such greases).

https://japanhobbytool.com/collections/camera-repair-material/products/hg
https://polarbearcamera.com/products/helicoid-lube-damper-grease-for-lenses
https://pigiron.eu/grease.html
http://www.microlubrol.com/opticalhelicoidgrease.aspx
https://www.losimol.de/en/products/#cameras


simplex wrote:
...Then I'll need two weeks or so for my sprained left wrist to heal, and I can decide how many cheap practising lenses I'll take care of before actually dismantling the precious Pancolar 80. I want two healthy and reliable hands to start this serious task.

Practice on more than just a handful, and good luck with your wrist!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2024 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RokkorDoctor wrote:

LiquiMoly LM47 would not be my first choice of lubricant; the safety sheet specifies it has a specific odour (= likely outgassing) and the data sheet mentions mineral oil as a base oil. This grease is primarily aimed at the automotive industry & heavy machinery. Greases with a synthetic base oil and thickeners/dry lube additives specifically designed for helicoids used in optical instruments would be a better choice I think (JapanHobbyTool, Polar Bear Camera, Pig Iron, Microlubrol & Losimol market such greases).

https://japanhobbytool.com/collections/camera-repair-material/products/hg
https://polarbearcamera.com/products/helicoid-lube-damper-grease-for-lenses
https://pigiron.eu/grease.html
http://www.microlubrol.com/opticalhelicoidgrease.aspx
https://www.losimol.de/en/products/#cameras


Thank you for your extensive answer and especially for the links regarding lubricants. This list is exactly one of the things I'm looking for. I'm absolutely in the right place here!

I chose LM47 to start with because it was praised in different forums or YouTube videos, and it is easily available. Next I'll check out your link list. And if LM47 does not work well, it is only applied to two of my practising lenses at the moment.

Do you think a possible outgassing of LM47 might affect optical elements?

And yes: I'll be looking for several more cheap lenses to practise!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2024 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

simplex wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote:

LiquiMoly LM47 would not be my first choice of lubricant; the safety sheet specifies it has a specific odour (= likely outgassing) and the data sheet mentions mineral oil as a base oil. This grease is primarily aimed at the automotive industry & heavy machinery. Greases with a synthetic base oil and thickeners/dry lube additives specifically designed for helicoids used in optical instruments would be a better choice I think (JapanHobbyTool, Polar Bear Camera, Pig Iron, Microlubrol & Losimol market such greases).

https://japanhobbytool.com/collections/camera-repair-material/products/hg
https://polarbearcamera.com/products/helicoid-lube-damper-grease-for-lenses
https://pigiron.eu/grease.html
http://www.microlubrol.com/opticalhelicoidgrease.aspx
https://www.losimol.de/en/products/#cameras


Thank you for your extensive answer and especially for the links regarding lubricants. This list is exactly one of the things I'm looking for. I'm absolutely in the right place here!

I chose LM47 to start with because it was praised in different forums or YouTube videos, and it is easily available. Next I'll check out your link list. And if LM47 does not work well, it is only applied to two of my practising lenses at the moment.

Do you think a possible outgassing of LM47 might affect optical elements?

And yes: I'll be looking for several more cheap lenses to practise!


First, I am not an expert in lubricants, so I am not 100% sure if outgassing is really the correct term to use here, but I have heard it used in context of greases. I am referring to greases having a mix of base oils, some of which may be more volatile and these tend to evaporate over time. The organic base oil constituents of traditional greases gives some of them a strong "petroleum" type of smell. E.g. lubricants such Carlube LM2, Lucas Oil Red'n Tacky or Lucas Oil Heavy Duty green grease have a VERY strong smell.

Modern greases specifically formulated for (optics) helicoid lubrication tend to use a more stable polyalphaolefin (PAO) synthetic oil base and tend to have little to no smell at all. Because of their controlled structure these do not contain the lighter more volatile components found in mineral oils or other organic oils.


'Outgassing' can cause a few issues:

1) As a volatile component is slowly evaporating, the chemical constituency of the grease is also changing slowly. I have had this issue with some strong-smelling lithium greases I was using in my very early DIY lens repair days, like CarLube LM2 (don't Rolling Eyes ). Those greases were slowly getting "thicker" over time as the more volatile oils evaporated, leaving them with increasingly stiff focus. The modern purpose-made helicoid greases you will notice have no smell to speak of.

2) The volatile component outgassing can potentially affect older balsam lens cements (although those balsams themselves outgas turpentine oils over time.) These volatile components can also condensate on some of the inner glass lens surfaces, building up over time and eventually capillary action can draw them into the very thin (~10 micron) gap between the lens element and the pocket or lens retaining ring.

I have opened up many old lenses and quite a few of them had oil underneath some of the lens retaining rings as well as around the circumference of some of the elements. Those elements were nowhere near a clear diffusion path from the helicoid, so this will not have been due to oil separating from the grease and then migrating along the aluminium surface of the lens mounts; it must have been an evaporation/condensation mechanism that got that oil there over a few decades.

Again, I am not an expert in the field of lubricants and oil diffusion along surfaces with high surface energy, so other members may want/need to correct me here on some points...