Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in
Angenieux P2 - Nature of damage - need help
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:42 pm    Post subject: Angenieux P2 - Nature of damage - need help Reply with quote

The photo is of rear element of MF lens. The damage to the glass is obvious. But what is that? Is it fungus? Is it lens separation? Or is is something else entirely? Would be grateful for your opinion:



Last edited by guardian on Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where is the lens? Laugh 1


PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heavy fungus infection. After cleaning not necessarily bad lens.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those two slots will allow you to remove the rear element (lens spanner best) and clean off the fungus. I use a tiny drop of household mould and mildew remover on a lens cleaning (spectacles) pad, then rinse, let dry, finish with lens pen, but any detergent based cleaner will probably do.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just whip out that rear element, dead easy, and clean it. I use cold cream, but mould cleaner or isopropyl alcohol are equally good. It's worth a try, the lens is contaminated and on a rear element it affects the images a lot more.

Whatever the lens is, it's got to be worth a try?


PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I get seasick when I look the picture for a while. Shocked


PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say it's permanent coating damage due to fungus.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I cant stop looking through at the Aperture Blades! It will deffo been worth a try at cleaning of the Fungus.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of which - the aperture would also need to be repaired, looks like one of the blade is off its track.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Appreciate the kindness and goodwill of everyone who helped me out. Thanks.

Thank you!

I lost the lens on a bid of $333. It was just one of those things. Sometimes you get the bear. Sometimes the bear gets you. One of those things. How much would it have taken? I dunno. My guess is between $400 and $500. But I have really no way to know. Angenieux P2 lenses in good shape go for what . . . $1200 . . . $1500 . . . perhaps more? I dunno. It is a sought-after lens. It is a fairly rare lens. The winner is probably a lot smarter about all this than I am. I was third highest bidder, and my bid was within only a couple of bucks of the #2 bidder. So I was in some sort of ballpark. But the winner trimmed us both, and everyone else, too. There were many bidders, as you might imagine, for something like this.

Oh, well. I lost. But at least I was in the game. I'll chalk it up as a learning experience.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The fungus infection was severe, so it is likely permanently etched if the infection was there a long time, it's possible that it hasn't etched it yet, only one way to find out.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
The fungus infection was severe, so it is likely permanently etched if the infection was there a long time, it's possible that it hasn't etched it yet, only one way to find out.


Well, that is it exactly. That was my thinking. I have never visited Las Vegas. But I love MF lenses. Could never afford to buy an Angenieux P2 in great condition. Heck, it is tough enough just finding one being offered for sale.

So any bid was purely a gamble on the repairability of that lens. I would rather gamble on lenses than gamble in Vegas. Because if you win a lens gamble you end up with something more desirable than mere money.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most likely, or almost surely, not restorable to a former glory condition, as the fungus clearly "ate" the coatings. Yummy!

The highest bidder, almost surely an Asian, gambled as hell and almost surely didn't gamble well.

I recommend you not to obsessively stick on one collectible lens, never regret loosing such a wrecks (in fact, you should be happy) and, optimally, not to bid on solely listed C-condition collectibles unless cheap konvoluts and bargains.

By winning C-condition valuables, you mostly get lots of additional work, troubles, and probably nervous situations, with unsure results and foggy future valuation. But by winning the beauty, you bleed on your wallet for a while but usually do not carry any of mentioned problems, and the value may be price-rocketing literally earlier than you manage to get a decent photo with.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This post is intended as a warning to other MF lens fans, especially those in America.

The subject lens of this thread is being re-offered at auction. As I wrote up thread, I bid on this lens and lost earlier this month. Now the exact same lens is being auctioned again, here:

Click here to see on Ebay

How can I be certain it is the same lens? Well, there is a serial number match. Also, the aperture defect matches.

But in the referenced auction there is no indication of trouble with the rear element, as seen in the photo in the OP of this thread. There is no such photo contained in this auction!!

Did they service the lens in the last couple of weeks? I dunno. Professionally? I dunno. Certainly the aperture was not repaired, and any pro would have seen to that.

But the sale price earlier this month was under US$400, whereas this lens in good condition can fetch between US$1500 up to US$2000 and perhaps even more. For example, see this auction in Europe:

Click here to see on Ebay

Something is afoot. I do not know what it is. Just be careful and keep a weather eye. I will not be bidding this auction big, I can tell you that! To me the lens is worth no more than I bid last time. But absent revelation of a possibly problematic rear element, I expect bids to rise much higher than that!


Last edited by guardian on Thu Mar 30, 2017 9:49 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's no mechanical damage that I can see to the lens body or (including your original pic) to the external faces of the glass. So I suppose the question is, in your worst case - iris leaf out of whack, suspect oil contamination and certainly mould - is your ability enough to bring it back to life ?

Perhaps the original buyer is offloading because he doesn't have the wherewithal to make a success of it. Just throwing things up there. Thinking horses not zebra's as they say.

I suppose I'm saying that regardless of the why's and wherefore's, and on a worst case basis of it's condition, can you bring it back to serviceable life? If you can and the price is right, then its itinerant history becomes irrelevant.

I would agree there is still a risk attached however. Say if the iris leaf is not just stuck but missing/broken/irrepairable.


Last edited by Sciolist on Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:34 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sciolist wrote:
There's no mechanical damage that I can see to the lens body or (including your original pic) to the external faces of the glass. So I suppose the question is, in your worst case - iris leaf out of whack, suspect oil contamination and certainly mould - is your ability enough to bring it back to life ?

Perhaps the original buyer is offloading because he doesn't have the wherewithal to make a success of it. Just throwing things up there. Thinking horses not zebra's as they say.

I suppose I'm saying that regardless of the why's and wherefore's, and on a worst case basis of it's condition, can you bring it back to serviceable life?


I badly failed up thread to make clear the following:

The seller earlier this month, and the seller now . . . well . . . it is the same US seller!

I own this disclosure miscue, and I apologize for the oversight. There is/was no intent to conceal this information. I just messed up. Embarassed


Last edited by guardian on Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:56 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

guardian wrote:
Sciolist wrote:
There's no mechanical damage that I can see to the lens body or (including your original pic) to the external faces of the glass. So I suppose the question is, in your worst case - iris leaf out of whack, suspect oil contamination and certainly mould - is your ability enough to bring it back to life ?

Perhaps the original buyer is offloading because he doesn't have the wherewithal to make a success of it. Just throwing things up there. Thinking horses not zebra's as they say.

I suppose I'm saying that regardless of the why's and wherefore's, and on a worst case basis of it's condition, can you bring it back to serviceable life?


I badly failed up thread to make clear the following:

The seller earlier this month, and the seller now . . . well . . . it is the same seller!

I own this disclosure miscue, and I apologize for the oversight. There is/was no intent to conceal. I just messed up.


Mmm.. it looks like they may have had to take it back. If it was me, I'd simply confront the seller with your thoughts (in the nicest possible way) and see what the reply is. I can't see any harm in doing this, and I see the seller has the Q&A box open for questions.


Last edited by Sciolist on Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:40 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sciolist wrote:
guardian wrote:
Sciolist wrote:
There's no mechanical damage that I can see to the lens body or (including your original pic) to the external faces of the glass. So I suppose the question is, in your worst case - iris leaf out of whack, suspect oil contamination and certainly mould - is your ability enough to bring it back to life ?

Perhaps the original buyer is offloading because he doesn't have the wherewithal to make a success of it. Just throwing things up there. Thinking horses not zebra's as they say.

I suppose I'm saying that regardless of the why's and wherefore's, and on a worst case basis of it's condition, can you bring it back to serviceable life?


I badly failed up thread to make clear the following:

The seller earlier this month, and the seller now . . . well . . . it is the same seller!

I own this disclosure miscue, and I apologize for the oversight. There is/was no intent to conceal. I just messed up.


Mmm.. it looks like they may have had to take it back. If it was me, I'd simply confront the seller with your thoughts (in the nicest possible way) and see what the reply is.


Already done. We shall see.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

guardian wrote:
Sciolist wrote:
guardian wrote:
Sciolist wrote:
There's no mechanical damage that I can see to the lens body or (including your original pic) to the external faces of the glass. So I suppose the question is, in your worst case - iris leaf out of whack, suspect oil contamination and certainly mould - is your ability enough to bring it back to life ?

Perhaps the original buyer is offloading because he doesn't have the wherewithal to make a success of it. Just throwing things up there. Thinking horses not zebra's as they say.

I suppose I'm saying that regardless of the why's and wherefore's, and on a worst case basis of it's condition, can you bring it back to serviceable life?


I badly failed up thread to make clear the following:

The seller earlier this month, and the seller now . . . well . . . it is the same seller!

I own this disclosure miscue, and I apologize for the oversight. There is/was no intent to conceal. I just messed up.


Mmm.. it looks like they may have had to take it back. If it was me, I'd simply confront the seller with your thoughts (in the nicest possible way) and see what the reply is.


Already done. We shall see.


Good luck guardian. I hope it turns out to be innocent for you.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Innocent for me? Naaaa. I'm good. I have not even bid the new auction, and I'm unlikely to bid.

I just wanted to warn other (mostly but not exclusively) Americans who might see the new auction and who might not be aware of the questionable and fishy provenance of this particular lens.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Intrigue indeed. Am I missing something,the original seller was listed as Murmansk (Russia!) whereas the second example was the US?


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddie46 wrote:
Intrigue indeed. Am I missing something,the original seller was listed as Murmansk (Russia!) whereas the second example was the US?


The Murmansk lens, which just closed at circa US$1775 after vigorous bidding, and this lens are totally different lenses. This lens is the lens mentioned and seen in the OP of this thread. If you compare the Murmansk photos with the photos of the US lens, you can readily see that even the external condition of the two lenses is quite different, with the Murmansk lens having the better appearance.

But of course it is primarily the internal condition of the US lens which is questionable, and which is at issue.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After further review I am updating this thread. Once again the subject auction is here:

Click here to see on Ebay

Note carefully that the seller is indicating officially, at top of auction, condition of lens is "Used". From eBay America, here is eBay's definition of "Used":

"Used

An item that has been used previously. The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear, but is fully operational and functions as intended. This item may be a floor model or store return that has been used. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections.
"

The key question: Ask yourself whether a lens having rear element as shown in OP here is "fully operational". Also ask yourself whether a lens having this lens's aperture defect is "fully operational".

Full disclosure:

Elsewhere in the auction ad seller does post this warning:

"Wear from usage present, UNTESTED. Assumed to need parts/repair for full functionality."

That is an accurate description of the condition of this lens, IMO. This lens is not "Used". This lens should officially be listed as for "Parts or Repair" in my view.

To be as clear as I'm able, I myself bid over US$300 on this lens first time around, while knowing the defects. The lens surely has value because it is so, so rare and because it might be repairable. Opinions on that up thread vary. To find out if this lens is repairable you must first purchase it.

However, the damaged rear element apparently remains even though no photo is being provided in the current auction ad. That photo is in the OP here. As such the lens is worth nowhere near its customary value, which typically ranges between US$1500 and US$2000 for this lens in used condition.

I did contact the seller about all this much earlier today. There has been so far no response to my inquiry.

If you decide to bid this auction, proceed very, very carefully.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whoo Turtle Whoo Turtle

Well, they got away with it. Have another look at the OP. Now take a peek at the bidding for this lens:

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=332166574345&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2565

The seller never posted the photo in the OP among photos for this auction.

I feel sorry for the "winning" bidder. This was not a win from my viewpoint.

Conceded:

Have to make this one concession. The seller is offering a return privilege. So winner receives lens and attempts to clean that rear element as seen in the OP.

If things work out, if the element is not permanently damaged, he has obtained a rare lens for a low price.

If the cleaning goes poorly and only reveals serious damage he returns the lens for a refund.

Perhaps this is what the bidder was thinking. But more likely bidder is unaware of the OP here.


Last edited by guardian on Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It sold for $1,358.00. Shocked