Angenieux P2 - Nature of damage - need help

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

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:

Gerald · Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil

Where is the lens? Laugh 1

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Heavy fungus infection. After cleaning not necessarily bad lens.

marcusBMG · Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1304 Location: Conwy N Wales

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.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

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?

kansalliskalaCafe · Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:10 am Post subject:

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

Gardener · Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA

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

Eddie46 · Joined: 05 Dec 2016 Posts: 135 Location: cardiff,UK

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

Gardener · Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA

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

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

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.

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary

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.

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

Marek · Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:13 pm Post subject:

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.

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

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!

Sciolist · Expire: 2021-04-16

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.

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

Sciolist · Expire: 2021-04-16

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

Sciolist · Expire: 2021-04-16

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

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.

Eddie46 · Joined: 05 Dec 2016 Posts: 135 Location: cardiff,UK

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

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

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.

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

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.

Sciolist · Expire: 2021-04-16

It sold for $1,358.00. Shocked