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

Your Top Ten Classic Lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Antoine wrote:
My problem with nFD is the bearings for focusing are plastic which in many case have degraded/degrade... That's what happened with my nFD 24 mm 2.8 and led me to give it away and only buy Minolta MD. This should not be the case for FD SSC...nor for high range lenses (L,...) who should be allright though... You may also choose Olympus, Pentax as alternatives.
One of the main advantages of legacy lenses is robustness...


Hello, up to now I've only been a silent reader. This is my first post.
I've been repairing plenty of Canon FD lenses and the material of the roller bearings is indeed a problem. Nevertheless, Canon didn't use plastic but brass and rubber which was supposed to be superior at the time but unfortunately didn't stand the test of time since the rubber usually disintegrates, leaving only the brass center and sticky black residue and causing thus play in the zoom and/or focus rings. The nFD 50 mm f/1,4 is not among the lenses with sticky bearings, given it's a fixed focal lens without floating elements - the nFD 24 mm f/2.8 often has this problem by showing play in the focussing helicoids, as well as the older SSC version.

Best regards

Volker


PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Volker for correcting my mistake. I had read this thing about plastic and wrongly reproduced it. Good to know for everybody that this can be repaired (too late for me though...).
So, it is a matter of rubber degrading.
Also good to note that the problem is limited to zooms and lens with floating elements.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:

Hello, up to now I've only been a silent reader. This is my first post.
I've been repairing plenty of Canon FD lenses and the material of the roller bearings is indeed a problem. Nevertheless, Canon didn't use plastic but brass and rubber which was supposed to be superior at the time but unfortunately didn't stand the test of time since the rubber usually disintegrates, leaving only the brass center and sticky black residue and causing thus play in the zoom and/or focus rings. The nFD 50 mm f/1,4 is not among the lenses with sticky bearings, given it's a fixed focal lens without floating elements - the nFD 24 mm f/2.8 often has this problem by showing play in the focussing helicoids, as well as the older SSC version.

Best regards

Volker

I too fixed Canon bearings in the past on two lenses, and I don't agree with established mode of failure (bushings being disintegrated by grease).
Bearing which engages focus is 100% coated with plastic. Sliding helical bearings are metal coated in some sort of low friction plastic, I believe.

My conclusion is: the failure has nothing to do with grease and everything to do with excessive mechanical load.
This is the case with CRC glass (more friction to move additional elements) and with FDn 24/2.8, which is blessed with one of the most poorly machined helicals I've ever seen.

It is my understanding that bearings simply crack under stress and if lens still continues to being used, they are ground to dust, mixed with oil.
Hence the impression of them melting.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aidaho wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote:

Hello, up to now I've only been a silent reader. This is my first post.
I've been repairing plenty of Canon FD lenses and the material of the roller bearings is indeed a problem. Nevertheless, Canon didn't use plastic but brass and rubber which was supposed to be superior at the time but unfortunately didn't stand the test of time since the rubber usually disintegrates, leaving only the brass center and sticky black residue and causing thus play in the zoom and/or focus rings. The nFD 50 mm f/1,4 is not among the lenses with sticky bearings, given it's a fixed focal lens without floating elements - the nFD 24 mm f/2.8 often has this problem by showing play in the focussing helicoids, as well as the older SSC version.

Best regards

Volker

I too fixed Canon bearings in the past on two lenses, and I don't agree with established mode of failure (bushings being disintegrated by grease).
Bearing which engages focus is 100% coated with plastic. Sliding helical bearings are metal coated in some sort of low friction plastic, I believe.

My conclusion is: the failure has nothing to do with grease and everything to do with excessive mechanical load.
This is the case with CRC glass (more friction to move additional elements) and with FDn 24/2.8, which is blessed with one of the most poorly machined helicals I've ever seen.

It is my understanding that bearings simply crack under stress and if lens still continues to being used, they are ground to dust, mixed with oil.
Hence the impression of them melting.


Thank You for shedding some light on the possible reasons for the degraded rollers. What's interesting is that the problem happens with heavily used lenses and with "NOS" lenses - so basically, unless the lens has been serviced recently it will show the consequences - excessive play in the zoom or focus rings and/or bad centering of the lens elements. Up to now, i've been buying a dozen lenses showing clear signs of decay, all of the 35-70 f/4, 35-70 f/2.8-3.5, 28-85 f/4, 28 f/2, 24 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/4 specimens had roller bearings with degraded coating material. If the latter is made of rubber or plastic i've got no idea, my personal guess is the use of similar material as the one used by Sigma for that hideous ZEN coating (polyurethane ??) since it dissolves even without use of the lens.

Best regards Volker


PostPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Summilux 75/1.4
Summilux Asph 35/1.4
Summaron LTM 28/5.6
Zeiss ZM 35/1.4
Canon LTM 85/1.5
Canon LTM 35/2
Canon LTM 28/2.8
Zeiss 80/1.8
OM 35-80/2.8
OM 100/2

actively used
currently retired
regretfully sold


PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:

Thank you.
Do you like the nFD 50/1,4 more than the older FD 50/1,4?
Why?

I love them all from the FL versions to the nFD. 21st century forums like to complain about the "plastic" nFD lenses, but in reality I would say that the nFD lenses have held up much better than the older FD versions in my experience. I own just about all of the Canon FD primes ever made and all of my nFD lenses operate as well today as when they were new. Granted, I baby them and take care of my crap very well, but the materials are very resilient and precise. The biggest problem with the older Canon lenses is that the apertures seize up and stop working at a point. I've had many chrome nose FD and FD lenses' lives end that way; I've never had a nFD lens do it to me. The older lenses' focus rings can dry up and get gritty too; another issue that hasn't yet shown up in my nFD's. While I like the heavy/solid feel of the metal lenses, on a modern body the nFD ones feel better balanced.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
eeec wrote:
papasito wrote:

Thank you.
Do you like the nFD 50/1,4 more than the older FD 50/1,4?
Why?

I love them all from the FL versions to the nFD. 21st century forums like to complain about the "plastic" nFD lenses, but in reality I would say that the nFD lenses have held up much better than the older FD versions in my experience. I own just about all of the Canon FD primes ever made and all of my nFD lenses operate as well today as when they were new. Granted, I baby them and take care of my crap very well, but the materials are very resilient and precise. The biggest problem with the older Canon lenses is that the apertures seize up and stop working at a point. I've had many chrome nose FD and FD lenses' lives end that way; I've never had a nFD lens do it to me. The older lenses' focus rings can dry up and get gritty too; another issue that hasn't yet shown up in my nFD's. While I like the heavy/solid feel of the metal lenses, on a modern body the nFD ones feel better balanced.


Yes - well said.
Also, there are some FDn lenses that simply do not exist as regular FD's.
T


PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I ask. My new lens, a Planar HFT 1,8/50 last

versión , with 4 elements at the front , been the

First plane, and 3 elements at the rear.

Is it in the same league than the metal older

ones ?

And with the old and great Zeiss-Voigtländer

Icarex Ultron 50/1,8 ?

I read some posts in the forum but is not clear to

me the answer.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:

Also, there are some FDn lenses that simply do not exist as regular FD's.
T


Yes, for example the various internal focus models, such as the two 200mm's and the 400mm f/4.5, just to name a few.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, there were very few -- if any -- "L" lenses that were made in the older breechlock style. True, there were a few fluorites, but only a few. And where would the Canon pro's of yesteryear have been without their "L" glass?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
I ask. My new lens, a Planar HFT 1,8/50 last

versión , with 4 elements at the front , been the

First plane, and 3 elements at the rear.

Is it in the same league than the metal older

ones ?

And with the old and great Zeiss-Voigtländer

Icarex Ultron 50/1,8 ?

I read some posts in the forum but is not clear to

me the answer.


Both Rollei Planar 50mm 1.8 have the same optics (and Voigtländer Color-Ultron). But different coating if I remember correctly.

Not the same as the older Ultron. If you google them you can see different schematics.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
and even if the rough sketches seem similar (double Gauss), glasses, curvature and mounting may have small, but crucial differences. Their use will prove if there are significant differences.

p.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I remember doing a list similar to this a few years back. My most used lenses of today weren't on that earlier list. I have a most used list, a best list, and a favorite list. Some lenses might appear in multiple lists. I'll attempt to pick lenses regardless of those lists, although it pains me to leave some out. Have to do 12. Tomorrow I may change my mind.

2/28 Vivitar Close Focus
2.8/35 Topcor
1.4/50 MC PG Rokkor
1.4/55 Mamiya Sekor TL
1.9/58 Primoplan (God-like)
2.5/90 Vivitar S1
2.8/100 Topcor
2.3/135 Vivitar S1
3/200 Vivitar S1
5.6/300 Ohnar Mirror
5.6/400 Sigma Mirror
5.6/500 Rubinar Mirror


PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In no particular order and constantly changing. I have owned a lot of lenses but only keep the ones that have some intangible that makes me want to use them and makes me enjoy the shots they take. Strangely the one lens I really wish I did not get rid of was a canon FL 50mm f1.4, those FL lenses perform surprisingly good.

1. Minolta MC 2 58mm f1.2
2. Minolta MC 2 35mm f1.8
3. Isco-Gottigen 180mm f2.8
4. Nikkor 135mm f2 AI
5. Helios 44 58mm f2, silver 13 blade
6. Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AIS
7. Nikkor 300mm f2.8 AIS
8. Isco-Gottigen 135mm f2.8 preset aperture
9. Minolta MC 55mm f1.9
10. 3M-5A 500mm f8 mirror
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3