View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 Posts: 1741 Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2024 9:36 pm Post subject: Mamiya Sekor 645 C 35mm f3.5 - haze inside the lens |
|
|
LittleAlex wrote:
I own Mamiya Sekor 645 C 35mm f3.5. I had not been satisfied by it from the very beginning. There was some haze inside. So, I decided to clean it up. When I disassembled the last element (it consists from the single lens at the back, and the second element inside), I discovered, that all elements in the lens are perfectly clear, excluding only that internal element in the back component.
After closer examination I discovered, that the haze was inside of the component.
It is constructed from two lenses, glued together. Perhaps by Canada balsam. Or something other. I did hear that certain Mamiya Sekor lenses suffer from the problems with the glued elements. I myself was once on the rim to bay Mamiya 645 80mm f/1.9. At the last moment however I discovered that there were the problems inside of the two glued lenses back element. There was the very evident separation inside.
So, I am considering what might be done. Looks like to disassemble, and to re glue it will be quite impractical. To obtain the another one? Well, but if it not the bag, but the general feature with that lenses?
Does not look that it has to affect the general sharpness. Only it lowers the general contrast. So, on the digital back it might be marginally usable. Especially if to close down. I mean after rising up the contrast at the after processing.
But anyway it doesn’t look very good for me. _________________ "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - © H. Cartier Bresson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 Posts: 1741 Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2024 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LittleAlex wrote:
After that unpleased discovery I decided to consider the possibility to obtain the second lens of that kind. But I worried much, that there might be se same trouble also and with the second sample.
To minimize that possibility, I decided to explore the market with the latest possible production examples in mind. Or – the AF lenses. Which unfortunately have the same optical formula. However, might be at the better condition yet. So I considered.
The AF samples are even some cheaper then preceding fully mechanical. I discovered several at Ebay. However, under the description of one of the items, the really honest seller mentions, that there is: “LIGHT HAZE UNDER THE REAR GLASSâ€. And gives the photo of it:
Which is exactly the same problem as in my own example!
So, I see it is really not the occasional bag, but the general feature with that lenses!
Which means that there is no way to obtain not the defective exemplar! And, so, it is completely useless to seek for it!
So, I had been pacified at the end in that my wish.
The problem is, that there really doesn’t exist any possible alternative in the system. I have incredibly good Zodiac-8 3,5/30mm lens, but it doesn’t really fills the hole, because it is fish-eye lens. Which puts it into the somehow different class.
So, it is the sad end of that story.
Still am not able to believe, that with the so professional system of so respectable brand were possible so abominable failures in the production quality!
_________________ "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - © H. Cartier Bresson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4020 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2024 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
LittleAlex wrote: |
Which is exactly the same problem as in my own example!
So, I see it is really not the occasional bag, but the general feature with that lenses! |
No. I have a manual focusing Mamyia Sekor C 3.5/35mm which is - on careful examination with strong LED lights - completely free from haze. I'll have to shoot a few images tomorrow to confirm its general contrast.
LittleAlex wrote: |
Still am not able to believe, that with the so professional system of so respectable brand were possible so abominable failures in the production quality!
|
That happens when you only have engineers construction a lens. Engineers do consider the actual material properties at the time of building the lens. No time involved.
I'm a chemist. Chemists do observe how a material changes its behaviour over time ("chemical reactions"). Time involved!
Actually it's quite difficult do make predictions about the long-term behaviour of a (possibly new) material. Only experience can tell you. And in case of e. g. a lens you (as the engineer) may never know what other chemicals / tempertaures / radiation a lens will be exposed to.
If it's really the cement of a doublet which is causing the (slight) haze in your lens, you may try to separate the doublet by slowly applying heat. I have done this with the well known Sigma haze on the notorious Sigma 3.5-4.5/50-200 APO lens.
Re-cementing and centering is another thing, but there's information on that in the net for sure.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 Posts: 1741 Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2024 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LittleAlex wrote:
[quote="stevemark"]
LittleAlex wrote: |
No. I have a manual focusing Mamyia Sekor C 3.5/35mm which is - on careful examination with strong LED lights - completely free from haze. I'll have to shoot a few images tomorrow to confirm its general contrast.
S |
Well, your message encourages me. But it means, that it is impossible to by that lens without the strong personal inspection. And that there never be the certainty that the problem might not be expected after the few years of storage.
[quote="stevemark"]
LittleAlex wrote: |
Re-cementing and centering is another thing, but there's information on that in the net for sure.
S |
It is exactly that, which alerts me most of all in that business. _________________ "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - © H. Cartier Bresson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4020 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2024 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
I have been comparing a Minolta MD 2.8/35mm and my Mamiya Sekor C 3.5/35mm side-by-side by shooting into bright LED lights with a rather dark background. Of course with both lenses there's some flare/blooming aound the light sources, but the amount is nearly identical for both lenses.
Stopped down to f11, the Mamiya Superwide has some quite pronounced "blobs" and the Minolta doesn't - but that's simply beacuse the Mamiya has much more lenses (9 vs 5) and much, much larger glass surfaces than the Minolta (in fact five times larger area). Otherwise there's not more flare than with the Minolta.
Which means that practical shooting confirms that my Mamyia Sekor C 3.5/35mm doesn't have haze (it's the oldest, pre-N version).
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 Posts: 1741 Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2024 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
LittleAlex wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
(it's the oldest, pre-N version).
S |
Then it is quite possible, that the problem touches the later production lenses. Might be later they considerably improved the technology for the gluing of lenses to the more advanced. With the evident consequences. _________________ "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - © H. Cartier Bresson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 880
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Since you consider this lens a write off why not send the doublet to a professional for re cementing.
I have been told that schools in France like Sup Optique could do the job as student training if you get acquainted with someone. That could be a no cost solution. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 Posts: 1741 Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LittleAlex wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
Since you consider this lens a write off why not send the doublet to a professional for re cementing.
I have been told that schools in France like Sup Optique could do the job as student training if you get acquainted with someone. That could be a no cost solution. |
For me it will be too complicated at the present time.
Well, today I visited one private seller, who sold to me Mamiya A 645 150/2.8 C lens. Beside I discovered that he also has for selling and Mamiya Sekor 645 C N 35mm f3.5 in perfect condition. After close examining I discovered that there isn't any haze inside. So, I also bargained it from him in addition for $300. It solved the problem for me. Hope that in the future its condition would not been spoiled. _________________ "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - © H. Cartier Bresson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 Posts: 1741 Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2024 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LittleAlex wrote:
Looks like that haze simply "just happens" from some production faults. For example - next sample:
"Mamiya 645 150mm f2.8 A - The glass is perfect other than slight haze around the very edge of the rear element"
https://ianbfoto.com/product/mamiya-645-150mm-f2-8-a-2/
So, not only with 35mm
My sample of the same lens doesn't have anything like that.
So, maybe the occasional slips with the lens glue consistence, or something like that. _________________ "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - © H. Cartier Bresson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4020 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2024 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
LittleAlex wrote: |
Looks like that haze simply "just happens" from some production faults. For example - next sample:
"Mamiya 645 150mm f2.8 A - The glass is perfect other than slight haze around the very edge of the rear element"
https://ianbfoto.com/product/mamiya-645-150mm-f2-8-a-2/
So, not only with 35mm
My sample of the same lens doesn't have anything like that.
So, maybe the occasional slips with the lens glue consistence, or something like that. |
No, most probably NOT a production issue! Haze (and as a result also fungus) means that some oil from a grease has spread onto a lens surface, creating a thin hazy layer.
Greases are made by mixing an oil with a soap. Over time, the oil and the soap may separate - and the oil starts to explore the interior of the lens, including the lens surfaces. Grease separation followed by oil spreading can be induced by heat, such as in cars (easily >50°C, sometimes even much higher). Which in turn means that the storage of a lens is mostly responsible for the process of oil separation => oil spreading => hazing of lens surfaces => fungus growth.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|