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

MC Rokkor-SI 28mm f/2.5 "radioactive" repair attem
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:50 pm    Post subject: MC Rokkor-SI 28mm f/2.5 "radioactive" repair attem Reply with quote

I got this lens for only $20 and it's super clean except it has the classic yellowing that can happen with one or more of the elements which are doped with Thallium. I've heard of people exposing the whole lens to UV light to clear it up, but I decided I'd go ahead and just take all the elements out and try to expose them to a high power UV lamp we have at my work.

Here's the lens. See the yellowing!:


Rearmost element removed... Little/no yellowing:


Front element. No yellowing:


Left: Inner lens cell #1. This clearly contains the yellowed element. Right: Inner lens cell #2 (includes aperture assembly):


This inner lens cell contains 2 elements. 1 is removeable, the other appears to have the retaining ring potted in place:


And here we have the culprit! It appears to be a doublet. I hope that the information online about the doped optics yellowing is not incorrect and that we don't have a cemented doublet in which the cement has yellowed. If this is the case, I fear nothing can be done:




Next up I will try to treat the yellow element with a chamber which we had constructed for Ozone cleaning, as it has a wide UV spectrum. I tried the UV Arc lamp for 240 seconds and didn't see any change, but it has a fairly narrow wavelength band (it is for UV curing adhesives).

I'll report back if I make any progress, and reassemble!
Like 1 small


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Success! I went back to the UV lamp and hit it for longer and it finally cleared up. After about 10 minutes of exposure, I noticed what appeared to be a spiderlike pattern in the outer edge of the adhesive in the cemented doublet, so I stopped. I'd say the lens is probably 85% clearer than it was, but I couldn't go any more and risk it.

I also had to clean a few surfaces of some of the elements due to them having quite a bit of what appeared to be lubrication film (common on old lenses). I used optics grade Methanol and clean swabs and blew them off with a deionizing air gun.

UV lighting the yellowed lens:


The improved lens:


And all put back together!:



And a couple of quick snaps with it. It's quite sharp!:




[/img]


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congratulations! Job well done. Smile Lens looks good. Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congrats and thank you very much . I have this lens and I have tried already a UV treatment without success . So I use it as it is , loosing 0.7 ev and adjusting the WB . Now I know what I have to do.

Thanks from Poland to Portland !!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does appear to be the glass that yellows rather than the cement, though I believe both can occur. I don't believe the mechanism for the yellowing is specifically understood, but supposedly caused by disruption of chemical bonds (between the different materials in the glass?) as a result of gamma ray emission and decay of the radioactive products within the glass.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teemō wrote:
It does appear to be the glass that yellows rather than the cement, though I believe both can occur. I don't believe the mechanism for the yellowing is specifically understood, but supposedly caused by disruption of chemical bonds (between the different materials in the glass?) as a result of gamma ray emission and decay of the radioactive products within the glass.


Yeah, I definitely agree the mechanism is in the glass, since I was able to "undo" most of it with the UV high power light. Adhesives do not behave this way. I am glad I caught the process of the doublet cement beginning to fail at the edges though. It would appear that with too much high power UV, it will start to break down.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

memetph wrote:
Congrats and thank you very much . I have this lens and I have tried already a UV treatment without success . So I use it as it is , loosing 0.7 ev and adjusting the WB . Now I know what I have to do.

Thanks from Poland to Portland !!


No problem! It's actually not terribly hard to take apart. I had the luxury of doing it in a clean room, but with gloves and care, you could do it at home. You just need an adjustable spanner wrench like this:

https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cfm?partnumber=SPW801

to do all the various size rings.

I used this lamp for the UV:

http://www.excelitas.com/Pages/Product/Omnicure-S2000.aspx

It is quite powerful at 40Watt/Cm^2.


BTW, I have a lot of Polish in my family.. Probably just about 50% of my blood! Like 1 small


PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

devinw wrote:
I used this lamp for the UV:

http://www.excelitas.com/Pages/Product/Omnicure-S2000.aspx

It is quite powerful at 40Watt/Cm^2.


What wavelength range did you use?

I managed to de-yellow my MC28/2.5 (MC-X version) without dismantling it. I tried a UV-A ccfl first but 2 weeks of treatment did nothing, another 2 weeks under a UV-C lamp (peak output at 254nm) cleared up the yellowing almost completely:



Directly exposing the yellowed element would probably work much quicker and these UV-C lamps are fairly cheap:
https://www.amazon.com/Philips-325126-9-watt-Germicidal-2-Pin/dp/B00172Y0H4


Last edited by Boris_Akunin on Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:02 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's interesting, Boris.. I think we have the "standard filter" in there which is ~350-500, but I'll go check. If that's the case, it sounds like I could have benefited from a bit deeper UV (lower wavelength). Like 1 small


PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

devinw wrote:
Teemō wrote:
It does appear to be the glass that yellows rather than the cement, though I believe both can occur. I don't believe the mechanism for the yellowing is specifically understood, but supposedly caused by disruption of chemical bonds (between the different materials in the glass?) as a result of gamma ray emission and decay of the radioactive products within the glass.


Yeah, I definitely agree the mechanism is in the glass, since I was able to "undo" most of it with the UV high power light. Adhesives do not behave this way. I am glad I caught the process of the doublet cement beginning to fail at the edges though. It would appear that with too much high power UV, it will start to break down.


Wouldn't the cement be UV-cured. I didn't know that would break-down with too much intense exposure to UV.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teemō wrote:
devinw wrote:
Teemō wrote:
It does appear to be the glass that yellows rather than the cement, though I believe both can occur. I don't believe the mechanism for the yellowing is specifically understood, but supposedly caused by disruption of chemical bonds (between the different materials in the glass?) as a result of gamma ray emission and decay of the radioactive products within the glass.


Yeah, I definitely agree the mechanism is in the glass, since I was able to "undo" most of it with the UV high power light. Adhesives do not behave this way. I am glad I caught the process of the doublet cement beginning to fail at the edges though. It would appear that with too much high power UV, it will start to break down.


Wouldn't the cement be UV-cured. I didn't know that would break-down with too much intense exposure to UV.


I'm not sure how they were doing that in the late 60s. Today, certainly some of the UV cure adhesives such as ones from Norland and Dymax are used to bond doublets. They could have used a 2-part or something different back then. It's hard to say. It's also hard to say if it may have changed composition slightly over time, but I'm no chemist Very Happy.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

devinw wrote:
Teemō wrote:
devinw wrote:
Teemō wrote:
It does appear to be the glass that yellows rather than the cement, though I believe both can occur. I don't believe the mechanism for the yellowing is specifically understood, but supposedly caused by disruption of chemical bonds (between the different materials in the glass?) as a result of gamma ray emission and decay of the radioactive products within the glass.


Yeah, I definitely agree the mechanism is in the glass, since I was able to "undo" most of it with the UV high power light. Adhesives do not behave this way. I am glad I caught the process of the doublet cement beginning to fail at the edges though. It would appear that with too much high power UV, it will start to break down.


Wouldn't the cement be UV-cured. I didn't know that would break-down with too much intense exposure to UV.


I'm not sure how they were doing that in the late 60s. Today, certainly some of the UV cure adhesives such as ones from Norland and Dymax are used to bond doublets. They could have used a 2-part or something different back then. It's hard to say. It's also hard to say if it may have changed composition slightly over time, but I'm no chemist Very Happy.


Ah of course! I wasn't even thinking about whether they had UV-resin in the 60's... I think the most common stuff was Canada Balsalm? It's apparently quite brittle and even solved by lens greases and oils that leak from the other mechanisms. It also happens to be amber-coloured when solid and yellow as liquid! Perhaps intense light (radiation) does break the stuff down on a chemical level.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, that Canada balsam is fully organic, so I could definitely see that getting screwed up by things especially like lubricants which may have petroleum products. It would be interesting to find out what they were actually doing back then.

Another interesting thing I noticed is that several of the lenses have a black coating on the outer diameter, presumably for scatter resistance? Whatever it is, it was not in great shape after 50 years. It didn't come off but was definitely quite soluble to the Methanol I was using to clean the lenses. Care had to be taken near the edges.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The black paint(?) reduces unwanted internal reflections and scattering and helps increase contrast.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
The black paint(?) reduces unwanted internal reflections and scattering and helps increase contrast.


That might be another concern for UV treatment, the UV-C light has bleached the finish on my MC28/2.5 quite a bit, it might also damage the black paint inside the lens (though most of the UV would be blocked by the glass).

Before:


After 3 weeks of UV-C (>130W/m):


I think this bleaching is only caused by UV-C, natural sunlight has less than 1W/m (vs ~80W/m UV-A and ~4W/m UV-B) so the three weeks under a UV-C lamp are equivalent to several years of direct sunlight.

I've seen this kind of bleaching on other lenses (my MD 35/1.8 seems to have spent some time under the sun...) but never this severe.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's really interesting. Did it affect the 28mm F2, on the inside?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teemō wrote:
Did it affect the 28mm F2, on the inside?

What? No. Only the 28/2.5 got the UV treatment, the 28/2 is only there for comparison (because the before and after pics aren't shot under the same light).


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boris_Akunin wrote:
Teemō wrote:
Did it affect the 28mm F2, on the inside?

What? No. Only the 28/2.5 got the UV treatment, the 28/2 is only there for comparison (because the before and after pics aren't shot under the same light).


Ah okay. I wonder what those parts were painted with compared to the rest of the lens. Do you think it's oxidisation?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plastic and paint can be damaged by UV, so I would recommend that you protect what you can from exposure, ideally removing the effected element(s) and treating them away from the rest of the lens.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would guess actually the metal outer parts are black anodized aluminum. Bleaching of the organic dies is very common due to laser light of certain wavelengths or UV light. There are a couple of places that do a special "optical black" anodize in the US, but it's a niche market.

I have parts laying around here at work which were exposed to only years of red (640nm) laser light and even those have turned a beautiful "copper" color, but were black to begin with. I also have some which have had the anodize bleach all the way to silver just like Boris' pictures.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

devinw wrote:
I would guess actually the metal outer parts are black anodized aluminum. Bleaching of the organic dies is very common due to laser light of certain wavelengths or UV light. There are a couple of places that do a special "optical black" anodize in the US, but it's a niche market.

I have parts laying around here at work which were exposed to only years of red (640nm) laser light and even those have turned a beautiful "copper" color, but were black to begin with. I also have some which have had the anodize bleach all the way to silver just like Boris' pictures.


Interesting, thanks.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teemō wrote:
It does appear to be the glass that yellows rather than the cement, though I believe both can occur. I don't believe the mechanism for the yellowing is specifically understood, but supposedly caused by disruption of chemical bonds (between the different materials in the glass?) as a result of gamma ray emission and decay of the radioactive products within the glass.


The element is Thorium (not really doped but made a part of one element). Some lenses had 40% thorium oxide make-ups, like Kodak Ektars. The thorium has a 14 billion year half-life so the poster will have to do the UV thing every 20 years for the foreseeable future Smile


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RichA wrote:
Teemō wrote:
It does appear to be the glass that yellows rather than the cement, though I believe both can occur. I don't believe the mechanism for the yellowing is specifically understood, but supposedly caused by disruption of chemical bonds (between the different materials in the glass?) as a result of gamma ray emission and decay of the radioactive products within the glass.


The element is Thorium (not really doped but made a part of one element). Some lenses had 40% thorium oxide make-ups, like Kodak Ektars. The thorium has a 14 billion year half-life so the poster will have to do the UV thing every 20 years for the foreseeable future Smile

Actually, you only need to keep using the lens and not store it or long periods.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:53 pm    Post subject: Re: MC Rokkor-SI 28mm f/2.5 "radioactive" repair a Reply with quote

Hi to everyone,

Well done Dewinw. That's a very nice job.

I have the same issue with the same lens. I started to disassemble it but I am stuck with the inner cell.

devinw wrote:
This inner lens cell contains 2 elements. 1 is removeable, the other appears to have the retaining ring potted in place :


Can you tell me please how exactly did you remove the inner cell first element?


PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:59 pm    Post subject: Re: MC Rokkor-SI 28mm f/2.5 "radioactive" repair a Reply with quote

Kira wrote:
Hi to everyone,

Well done Dewinw. That's a very nice job.

I have the same issue with the same lens. I started to disassemble it but I am stuck with the inner cell.

devinw wrote:
This inner lens cell contains 2 elements. 1 is removeable, the other appears to have the retaining ring potted in place :


Can you tell me please how exactly did you remove the inner cell first element?


I used a ThorLabs adjustable spanner wrench for all the retaining rings:

https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cfm?partnumber=SPW801