My new 1956 Rolls Royce....(colordial IIIa)

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

Update:

The seller refunded me 100 of 237 because of seperation. Smile

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

I was tryin to decide what to do about the lens, and had some very reasonable offers of help--also considered DIY CLA.

However it's my only un-coated lens, my only lens that's pre-war, and it needs to do double duty with both Contax and Nex. Also I looked closely and came to the conclusion it had never been open. Tons of oil but not the slightest nick on the rings. Glass had 0 scratches. Sent some pics to Henry Scherer.

"The problem with your lens is oxidation of the lens cement in the rear element. The rear element is made of three lenses cemented together with balsam which is tree sap from balsam fir trees in Canada. Your lens was overheated in the past and this is what has caused this. The only fix is to separate and then re cement the lens. The cost of this is $125.00 for the lens overhaul plus $95.00 to separate and re cement the rear element.

Right now the separation has not gone far enough to have a visible effect on the optical performance of the lens. The condition is stable provided the lens is not overheated."

The CLA cost of course is high, but the dealing with seperation cost is very reasonable. The body is actually in incredible condition--no bumps, all speeds firing, smooth light focus, RF split is perfect. Meter non-working of course. So the body alone is worth more than the 137USD investment.

With that rationalization, I bit the bullet and sent it off to the eccentric and opinionated Henry, who has more than a few critics, a but also many fans. The wait to have your body done is years, but he gets right to the lenses. Today he got the lens, and I asked him to let me know what he thought:

"Hello Charlie,

I have an opening while waiting for paint to cure while working on a Contax III and so have moved forward with your lens and it is completely disassembled. It is very dirty but very fine. The lens elements are in perfect condition and so my guess is it's going to be a 10 when its done. It's distinguished by very fine surface oxidation of the front and rear lens elements. This shows it's never been cleaned. Whoever owned it previously cared for it very much. This surface oxidation acts like coating and significantly improves the lens so if I were you I'd invest in a UV filter and would never clean this lens. This surface oxidation is very rare and highly desirable."

music to my ears Smile

I should have it back in a week or so, and I will post up some shots both of the lens and how it's shooting.

Here's one more scan of a small print from my test roll with the IIIa

pretty good for a dirty old 1937 lens, and the print looks sharper than this--I don't have a good scanner yet.

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

Since oxidation is normally considered an issue, I wrote back to Henry asking him to explain why this is a good thing. Here is what he said:

"I can't possibly provide a complete lecture in the history of glass making but here's what you need to know in a nut shell. The history of lens glass is long and begins with plain glass made at very low temperature to make it very clear and very soft so it could be easily ground into lenses by hand through manual labor. A process of continual development and improvement took place in lens glass making it with higher and higher temperatures and it becoming harder and harder as mechanical methods of lens making were developed. Glass corrodes just like everything else. Softer glass corrodes faster and with a coarser grain and harder glass corrodes slower with a finer grain. Finally, Zeiss developed modern optical glass and improved it to the point that it corrodes so slowly and so finely that the corrosion actually improved the performance of the lens because it was thin enough and fine enough to act like a dichroic filter. Zeiss noticed this and began a program of development to duplicate this effect and this led to modern coatings. The corrosion on the surfaces of your lens results in an improvement. The corrosion on the surface of a lens made in 1900 results in the ruin of the lens.

The reason there is virtually no Colonial Era American glass existing today is that it simply corroded into sand because it was made under such low temperatures and was so soft and susceptable to corrosion. Low temperature glass can be made to be very brilliant. Tiffany experimented with it in some of his lamps and these lamps are distinguished by the fact that the glass pieces closest to the light bulb is still present whereas the pieces further away from the bulb have corroded into sand."

Has he got it right? Smile