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

Radioactive lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:57 am    Post subject: Radioactive lenses Reply with quote
My inventory of radioactive lenses:

Kodak Color Printing Lens 103/4.5
Kodak Printing Ektar Lens 113/4.5
Soligor 35/2.8
Auto Revuenon 55/1.4 flat rear lens
Canon FL 58/1.2
Zoomar 36-82/2.8
Pancolar 50/1.8 sn:854xxxx
Prakticar 50/1.4 1st version
Flektogon 50/4

Suddenly I started to "collect" them - bought two useless (for me) Flek's and Pancolar just for need to have more rad lenses.

I think a lens collector should have a meter and the awareness concerning radioactivity (eg. not to use them as a loupe, gather bigger amount of sources nearby and what about radon?).

I keep them separately in a steel box.

There is a camerapedia source of a listing of radioactive lenses, Soligor 35/2.8 is not listed but Biometar 2.8/80 Zebra is - I have few if them in this finish and they are not radioactive. My UV Topcor 50/2 sn 6809xxxx is not too.

Last edited by macheck on Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:11 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I also like them. Some of them probably owe their special qualities and high status because of it.

In your list is a Pancolar 50mm 1.4. You probably mean 55mm 1.4 or Prakticar 50mm 1.4.

Can you post a photo of that Soligor?

Here are mine:

EBC Fujinon 50mm 1.4
Kodak Ektanar 44mm 2.8
Olympus 55mm 1.2
Olympus 50mm 1.4
Pancolar 50mm 1.8
Prakticar 50mm 1.4
Super Multicoated Takumar 50mm 1.4
Topcor GN 50mm 1.4


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
In your list is a Pancolar 50mm 1.4. You probably mean 55mm 1.4 or Prakticar 50mm 1.4.

thank you blotafton Prakticar - post edited

Two pictures of Soligor:




PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:
I also like them. Some of them probably owe their special qualities and high status because of it.

In your list is a Pancolar 50mm 1.4. You probably mean 55mm 1.4 or Prakticar 50mm 1.4.

Can you post a photo of that Soligor?

Here are mine:

EBC Fujinon 50mm 1.4
Kodak Ektanar 44mm 2.8
Olympus 55mm 1.2
Olympus 50mm 1.4
Pancolar 50mm 1.8
Prakticar 50mm 1.4
Super Multicoated Takumar 50mm 1.4
Topcor GN 50mm 1.4

Didn't know Olympus 50mm 1.4 is radioactive as well. It seems it is not listed on that website.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Porst Color Reflex MC 1.2/55mm


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Radioactive lenses Reply with quote
macheck wrote:
My inventory of radioactive lenses:

Kodak Color Printing Lens 103/4.5
Kodak Printing Ektar Lens 113/4.5
Soligor 35/2.8
Auto Revuenon 55/1.4 flat rear lens
Canon FL 58/1.2
Zoomar 36-82/2.8
Pancolar 50/1.8 sn:854xxxx
Prakticar 50/1.4 1st version
Flektogon 50/4

Suddenly I started to "collect" them - bought two useless (for me) Flek's and Pancolar just for need to have more rad lenses.

I think a lens collector should have a meter and the awareness concerning radioactivity (eg. not to use them as a loupe, gather bigger amount of sources nearby and what about radon?).

I keep them separately in a steel box.

There is a camerapedia source of a listing of radioactive lenses, Soligor 35/2.8 is not listed but Biometar 2.8/80 Zebra is - I have few if them in this finish and they are not radioactive. My UV Topcor 50/2 sn 6809xxxx is not too.

The whole content of the Camerapedia website is collaboratively created - it's a Wikipedia-like site (Wikia). Anyone can contribute his/hers findings. Personally, I've contributed my own findings and also various measurements gathered on the inet.

So if you have any new info/measurements/serial numbers to share, feel free to share them at the the Radioactive lenses list! Everyone will benefit from that info Smile

As far as Biometar 2.8/80 Zebra is concerned, our member no-X tested a copy and found it to be slightly active. However, these levels were about 5 times lower compared to well-known SMC Takumar 50/1.4! It's a bit tricky to measure such lens - eg. SMC Macro Takumar 50/4 requires really exact placement of the measuring probe.

vivaldibow wrote:
Didn't know Olympus 50mm 1.4 is radioactive as well. It seems it is not listed on that website.

It does list the lens: "Olympus Zuiko Auto-S 1:1,4/50 mm (only first version "Silvernose" is Radioactive)"


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
macheck wrote:
Quote:
In your list is a Pancolar 50mm 1.4. You probably mean 55mm 1.4 or Prakticar 50mm 1.4.

thank you blotafton Prakticar - post edited

Two pictures of Soligor:



Thanks for the photo. I have two of these 35mms and some 105mm in this line. Is your sn starting with 16 or 17? Can you please recommend some Geiger meter? Thanks!


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd take those lists with a grain of salt, some seems to be hearsay and possibly based on coating tint vs a tint in the glass, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few listed that shouldn't be.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A lot is of those postings has the quality of "...lens has radiocative coating" ... DUHHHHHH


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
macheck wrote:
Quote:
In your list is a Pancolar 50mm 1.4. You probably mean 55mm 1.4 or Prakticar 50mm 1.4.

thank you blotafton Prakticar - post edited

Two pictures of Soligor:


Thanks, I'll be looking for one of those!


vivaldibow wrote:
blotafton wrote:
I also like them. Some of them probably owe their special qualities and high status because of it.

In your list is a Pancolar 50mm 1.4. You probably mean 55mm 1.4 or Prakticar 50mm 1.4.

Can you post a photo of that Soligor?

Here are mine:

EBC Fujinon 50mm 1.4
Kodak Ektanar 44mm 2.8
Olympus 55mm 1.2
Olympus 50mm 1.4
Pancolar 50mm 1.8
Prakticar 50mm 1.4
Super Multicoated Takumar 50mm 1.4
Topcor GN 50mm 1.4

Didn't know Olympus 50mm 1.4 is radioactive as well. It seems it is not listed on that website.


I haven't tested any of my lenses myself but looked at lists, videos and yellowing of the glass. Of my two Olympus 50mm 1.4 I think one is the "silver nose".

Here is a youtube video where it is tested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkh0bEdjiFY


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vivaldibow: starting with 17 as per photo Wink
Concerning Geiger counter: the easiest choice would be a military surplus one (cumbersome)
I have two of them (DP-63 and DP-66 of Polish manufacture) and did two according to: http://mirley.firlej.org/kieszonkowy_licznik_geigera
y: I found camerapedia listing very informative but didn't dare to make any input (btw. if everyone updates the listing with their serials it will overgrow), my background level outside is 30-40nsv/h inside 80-100nsv/h compared to no-X 120-200nsv/h but in Czech Republic they have more natural radioactivity.
Radiometry is rather obscured/sophisticated science, calibrated measurements need standard radiation sources so for me anything above ground level is radioactive. Not to mention type of radiation.
But to have a possibility to measure it is rather informative fun - checking house for radioactivity (decorative glass, china, tiles, bricks, rocks, old watches) - I found elevated source of radiation at our fireplace granite finish.

Last edited by macheck on Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:03 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
A lot is of those postings has the quality of "...lens has radiocative coating" ... DUHHHHHH

OK, feel free to edit those out, point out the obvious mistakes or give us a better or more scientific comprehensive list... DUHHHHHH


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
macheck wrote:
I found camerapedia listing very informative but didn't dare to make any input (btw. if everyone updates the listing with their serials it will overgrow), my background level outside is 30-40nsv/h inside 80-100nsv/h compared to no-X 120-200nsv/h but in Czech Republic they have more natural radioactivity.
Radiometry is rather obscured/sophisticated science, calibrated measurements need standard radiation sources so for me anything above ground level is radioactive. Not to mention type of radiation.

It's a wiki - it got a history log, etc. So no need to worry and add feel free to add your findings.

As for "overgrowing" with all the s/n, it's not a problem to make the whole page hierarchic.

Sure, vast majority of those measurements is surely not scientific in any way. Although, as you noted anything above the background is interesting.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
y: Like 1 small


PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
y wrote:

It does list the lens: "Olympus Zuiko Auto-S 1:1,4/50 mm (only first version "Silvernose" is Radioactive)"


Thanks. I saw it. And now I understand why it is called a silver nose. I have a Vivitar 135mm which is called silver nose
and it is different. Just realized that I have the silver nose Oly 50mm 1.4.

blotafton wrote:

I haven't tested any of my lenses myself but looked at lists, videos and yellowing of the glass. Of my two Olympus 50mm 1.4 I think one is the "silver nose".

Here is a youtube video where it is tested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkh0bEdjiFY


Thanks for the link. Looks like it is pretty radioactive. Smile)


macheck wrote:
vivaldibow: starting with 17 as per photo Wink
Concerning Geiger counter: the easiest choice would be a military surplus one (cumbersome)
I have two of them (DP-63 and DP-66 of Polish manufacture) and did two according to: http://mirley.firlej.org/kieszonkowy_licznik_geigera


Never thought those Soligor would be radioactive. Usually it is for high end glass. Tokina's Vivitar 28mm f/1.9 is radioactive but that is
for their Series 1 line. I also have the 28mm and 105mm in that Soligor line. Not sure if they are radioactive or not.
Thanks for the information on the Geiger counter. Looks like in US we can only get a civil one.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Soligor 35/2.8 radioactivity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J66BXJosN3g&t=52s


PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
macheck wrote:
Soligor 35/2.8 radioactivity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J66BXJosN3g&t=52s


Thanks. I read on the internet forum that a guy working in a nuclear plant said the safety threshold for the plant environment is to keep the radiation level at 0.1mSv/h yearly, while these lenses typically show 0.5uSv/h radiation level so should be safe. This is certainly hearsay and his conclusion might not be true.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vivaldibow wrote:
Quote:
Thanks. I read on the internet forum that a guy working in a nuclear plant said the safety threshold for the plant environment is to keep the radiation level at 0.1mSv/h yearly, while these lenses typically show 0.5uSv/h radiation level so should be safe. This is certainly hearsay and his conclusion might not be true.

Keep in mind that those measured levels are in very close distance from probe so if you will not use the lens in direct vicinity of your body for a long periods of time and more important your eye it will not be harmful.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
macheck wrote:
vivaldibow wrote:
Quote:
Thanks. I read on the internet forum that a guy working in a nuclear plant said the safety threshold for the plant environment is to keep the radiation level at 0.1mSv/h yearly, while these lenses typically show 0.5uSv/h radiation level so should be safe. This is certainly hearsay and his conclusion might not be true.

Keep in mind that those measured levels are in very close distance from probe so if you will not use the lens in direct vicinity of your body for a long periods of time and more important your eye it will not be harmful.


Thanks again! I wonder if you could help me do another test with the Soligor lens: if you place the detector a few centi-meter away from the lens, how much does the radiation level drops compared to the case where the detector is placed right against the glass? Thanks.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
I'd take those lists with a grain of salt, some seems to be hearsay and possibly based on coating tint vs a tint in the glass, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few listed that shouldn't be.


Good advice but just don't make it 'Low Salt' that's radioactive too Laugh 1


PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
vivaldibow wrote:

Thanks again! I wonder if you could help me do another test with the Soligor lens: if you place the detector a few centi-meter away from the lens, how much does the radiation level drops compared to the case where the detector is placed right against the glass? Thanks.


That would be a useful test as alpha particles are almost completely blocked by a few cm of air! Though I'd prefer to see it with a sheet of paper instead of the air gap (also removing the alphas). Beta & gamma will also drop from distance by at least the inverse square law...

FYI alpha particles are about 20 times more damaging to live tissue than beta particles, but the layer of dead skin all over your body pretty much mitigates any external dose from them.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
I'd take those lists with a grain of salt, some seems to be hearsay and possibly based on coating tint vs a tint in the glass, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few listed that shouldn't be.

Well, some entries on this list actually point to posts that include photos of the measurement. And some of those show pretty good equipment. So at least for my edits, its not just hearsay.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My pseudo scientific measurements


STS-5 tube 5 mm recessed in mesuring device, tube window with no cover.
My observations:
For Soligor: tube covered with a normal printing paper gives almost no attenuation, 1 mm thick sheet of aluminum (Al) brings radiation to about ground levels.
Lead (Pb) screen 1.8 mm thick attenuates radiation for Ektar and Prakticar to nearly the same level.
Attenuation coefficients for 1 mm Al sheet are: Soligor 4.33, Ektar 2.39, Prakticar 1.08 at dist. of 5 mm from tube.
Attenuation coefficients for 1.8 mm Pb sheet are: Soligor 5.33, Ektar 5.23, Prakticar 1,35 at dist. of 5 mm from tube.
My conclusions: Soligor's radiation is weak and easily attenuated by Al and Pb but no paper (levels measured are significantly smaller it might impair comparisons), Ektar's one is very strong even at a distance but attenuated more efficiently by Pb screen than Soligor's one and Prakticar's radiation is most resistant to screening albeit no so strong as Ektar's one.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
macheck wrote:
My pseudo scientific measurements


STS-5 tube 5 mm recessed in mesuring device, tube window with no cover.
My observations:
For Soligor: tube covered with a normal printing paper gives almost no attenuation, 1 mm thick sheet of aluminum (Al) brings radiation to about ground levels.
Lead (Pb) screen 1.8 mm thick attenuates radiation for Ektar and Prakticar to nearly the same level.
Attenuation coefficients for 1 mm Al sheet are: Soligor 4.33, Ektar 2.39, Prakticar 1.08 at dist. of 5 mm from tube.
Attenuation coefficients for 1.8 mm Pb sheet are: Soligor 5.33, Ektar 5.23, Prakticar 1,35 at dist. of 5 mm from tube.
My conclusions: Soligor's radiation is weak and easily attenuated by Al and Pb but no paper (levels measured are significantly smaller it might impair comparisons), Ektar's one is very strong even at a distance but attenuated more efficiently by Pb screen than Soligor's one and Prakticar's radiation is most resistant to screening albeit no so strong as Ektar's one.


Wow, super! Really appreciate! I am quoting all your finding as it is very informative.
I guess it could be a paper for IEEE. Smile For Soligor, with 10cm air, the radiation level
drops almost similar to the background level. Kodak seems to have pretty strong
radiation.

Thank you again!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
macheck wrote:
My pseudo scientific measurements


STS-5 tube 5 mm recessed in mesuring device, tube window with no cover.
My observations:
For Soligor: tube covered with a normal printing paper gives almost no attenuation, 1 mm thick sheet of aluminum (Al) brings radiation to about ground levels.
Lead (Pb) screen 1.8 mm thick attenuates radiation for Ektar and Prakticar to nearly the same level.
Attenuation coefficients for 1 mm Al sheet are: Soligor 4.33, Ektar 2.39, Prakticar 1.08 at dist. of 5 mm from tube.
Attenuation coefficients for 1.8 mm Pb sheet are: Soligor 5.33, Ektar 5.23, Prakticar 1,35 at dist. of 5 mm from tube.
My conclusions: Soligor's radiation is weak and easily attenuated by Al and Pb but no paper (levels measured are significantly smaller it might impair comparisons), Ektar's one is very strong even at a distance but attenuated more efficiently by Pb screen than Soligor's one and Prakticar's radiation is most resistant to screening albeit no so strong as Ektar's one.


Very informative!
Could you add the near paper test for the Kodak? (it's pointless for the prakticar, which is just showing gamma)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2