View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:30 pm Post subject: Just bought a Canon FD 85mm f1.2 L! |
|
|
DSG wrote:
Got it on ebay for just £310! ...Heres the auction link:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110443436022&_trksid=p2759.l1259
I'm not worried about the mount being seperated from the lens as I wont be using the FD mount anyway...The plan is to convert it to SA mount.
Whilst I wait for it to arrive (which could be a week or more away) the only thing that really worries me about it is that the outer diameter of the rear element holder tube may be bigger than 48mm...Because thats the biggest rear element diameter that the SA mount can take.
Does anyone know the diameter of the rear element tube?
Thanks. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
I think you're OK. I have an 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, which admittedly is a different formula, but probably not all that different when it comes to the rear element tube diameter. I just measured mine and it's right at 35mm. I can't see the L versions diameter being 13mm greater than that, so I think you're probably OK. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
wow! congrats! superb bargain, dream lens |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
I think you're OK. I have an 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, which admittedly is a different formula, but probably not all that different when it comes to the rear element tube diameter. I just measured mine and it's right at 35mm. I can't see the L versions diameter being 13mm greater than that, so I think you're probably OK. |
35mm seems quite small and I expected it to be a bit bigger than that from just looking at pictures of the rear of the lens...The rear element tube of my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 is 40mm diameter so I should think the 85mm f1.2 L would be at least that big if not larger? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
poilu wrote: |
wow! congrats! superb bargain, dream lens |
Thanks, but I'm not celebrating just yet as I've just found out from FM forums that the rear element is missing from the lens!
Guess I should have asked the seller more questions
What are the chances of finding a rear element for such as lens?...Probably zero I'm guessing, so my only hope is that I can find a similar lens element from another lens that might fit, else I'll have to sell it on again hopfully without losing any money |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Farside
Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 6557 Location: Ireland
Expire: 2013-12-27
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Farside wrote:
I notice the seller covers his ass by saying he doesn't know if any parts are missing.
From what I can see, the existing rear element looks complete - ie, I don't see how an additional rear element would be held in place, with any degree of accuracy. Is your informant absolutely sure there is another rear element that's really missing?
It's a lot of money to drop on an ornament. _________________ Dave - Moderator
Camera Fiend and Biograph Operator
If I wanted soot and whitewash I'd be a chimney sweep and house painter.
The Lenses of Farside (click)
BUY FRESH FOMAPAN TO HELP KEEP THE FACTORY ALIVE ---
Foma Campaign topic -
http://forum.mflenses.com/foma-campaign-t55443.html
FOMAPAN on forum -
http://www.mflenses.com/fs.php?sw=Fomapan
Webshop Norway
http://www.fomafoto.com/
Webshop Czech
https://fomaobchod.cz/inshop/scripts/shop.aspx?action=DoChangeLanguage&LangID=4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SVP
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 665 Location: Greece
Expire: 2017-12-17
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SVP wrote:
I'd rather agree with Dave, from the eBay listing pics no rear element(s) appear to be missing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
Are we sure the picture is of the actual item? You know how they are on ebay!
patrickh
DSG - real bummer if it's the case _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
patrickh wrote: |
Are we sure the picture is of the actual item? You know how they are on ebay!
patrickh
DSG - real bummer if it's the case |
Well its on its way so I will know for sure in a couple of days. I've got everything crossed at the moment! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
DSG wrote: |
cooltouch wrote: |
I think you're OK. I have an 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, which admittedly is a different formula, but probably not all that different when it comes to the rear element tube diameter. I just measured mine and it's right at 35mm. I can't see the L versions diameter being 13mm greater than that, so I think you're probably OK. |
35mm seems quite small and I expected it to be a bit bigger than that from just looking at pictures of the rear of the lens...The rear element tube of my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 is 40mm diameter so I should think the 85mm f1.2 L would be at least that big if not larger? |
Maybe we're measuring things differently? I have an FL 55mm f/1.2 also, so I measured its rear element size just now. I don't see how to measure the "tube" itself without dismantling the lens, but measuring from edge to edge of the rear element on my 55mm f/1.2, I get 35mm also.
Here's hoping your lens arrives with all optical groups intact! _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
trifox
Joined: 14 May 2008 Posts: 3614 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-05-29
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
trifox wrote:
Hi DSG --
It seems to be that the rear glass IS NOT ON YOUR LENS...
I am sorry to say that --- BUT FINGERS CROSSED ANYWAY...
We have taken this lens in a bits before. The rear glass is in fixed position and it's overhanging the barrel AT ALL FOCUSING DISTANCES.
it looks like this:
----
There were a few lenses on German Ebay some time ago. They had the same problem and went for 300 EURos or so..
I almost bought them -- but the seller had a statement about this in his description..
tf _________________ Flickr.com
Last edited by trifox on Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Click here to see on Ebay
rear glass are perfect condition in my term this is not means MISSING!
Even if sold as is blah-blah , report immediately to paypal. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
DSG wrote: |
cooltouch wrote: |
I think you're OK. I have an 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, which admittedly is a different formula, but probably not all that different when it comes to the rear element tube diameter. I just measured mine and it's right at 35mm. I can't see the L versions diameter being 13mm greater than that, so I think you're probably OK. |
35mm seems quite small and I expected it to be a bit bigger than that from just looking at pictures of the rear of the lens...The rear element tube of my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 is 40mm diameter so I should think the 85mm f1.2 L would be at least that big if not larger? |
Maybe we're measuring things differently? I have an FL 55mm f/1.2 also, so I measured its rear element size just now. I don't see how to measure the "tube" itself without dismantling the lens, but measuring from edge to edge of the rear element on my 55mm f/1.2, I get 35mm also. |
Yes, the rear element itself is 35mm but the rear element holder tube is 40mm diameter...The reason why this is important to me is because the rear element tube passes through the SA mounting plate when focussing towards infinity with only about 1.5mm clearance all round, as can be seen here:
If the rear element tube of the FD 85mm f1.2 L is larger than 43mm diameter then it wont pass through an SA mounting plate and I wont be able to get it to focus to infinty, making the lens useless to me.
Even if the rear element is fixed and does'nt actually move back and forth during focussing it will still have to pass through an SA mounting plate to focus to infinity. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
I got ya. I took another look at my 85/1.2 Asph. The rear element protrudes out far enough where it is flush with the rear "flange", and appears to be encased in a very thin tube. If I measure the opening diameter that the element pokes through, I'm getting about 37mm. Comparing what I have in my hand to the photo of the 1.2L above, it looks to me like the 1.2L's rear element tube diameter is roughly the same and that the element itself might be just a tad smaller in diameter. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
I got ya. I took another look at my 85/1.2 Asph. The rear element protrudes out far enough where it is flush with the rear "flange", and appears to be encased in a very thin tube. If I measure the opening diameter that the element pokes through, I'm getting about 37mm. Comparing what I have in my hand to the photo of the 1.2L above, it looks to me like the 1.2L's rear element tube diameter is roughly the same and that the element itself might be just a tad smaller in diameter. |
Thanks for the info, well at least it should pass through ok then...I reckon its going to be a lot of work getting this lens to work but I dont mind a challenge. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Farside
Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 6557 Location: Ireland
Expire: 2013-12-27
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Farside wrote:
trifox wrote: |
Hi DSG --
It seems to be that the rear glass IS NOT ON YOUR LENS...
it looks like this:
|
Bummer
So, it's held by the removed rear piece? _________________ Dave - Moderator
Camera Fiend and Biograph Operator
If I wanted soot and whitewash I'd be a chimney sweep and house painter.
The Lenses of Farside (click)
BUY FRESH FOMAPAN TO HELP KEEP THE FACTORY ALIVE ---
Foma Campaign topic -
http://forum.mflenses.com/foma-campaign-t55443.html
FOMAPAN on forum -
http://www.mflenses.com/fs.php?sw=Fomapan
Webshop Norway
http://www.fomafoto.com/
Webshop Czech
https://fomaobchod.cz/inshop/scripts/shop.aspx?action=DoChangeLanguage&LangID=4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
trifox
Joined: 14 May 2008 Posts: 3614 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-05-29
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
trifox wrote:
basically ---- yes ..
the thing is: there is not reason to take this element out of the rear piece --
until you do some operation with it --
it must be fixed to the lens barrel to be in the fixed position because of the floating element..
tf _________________ Flickr.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
That rear piece is shown in the auction photos, and it looks pretty clear to me that there is no glass in it. I can only think that this is probably where the damage originated, which caused the dismantlement in the first place. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
That rear piece is shown in the auction photos, and it looks pretty clear to me that there is no glass in it. I can only think that this is probably where the damage originated, which caused the dismantlement in the first place. |
I got the lens today and its worse than I thought....No way to stop it down unless you can somehow link the metal lever that sticks out of the lens straight onto the aperture dial. I did'nt pay over £300 for lens I can only use WO all the time...I cant return the lens so I just wish there was some way to get my money back as I cant do anything with it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rx7speed
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rx7speed wrote:
I would report it to paypal then as item not as described and see if you can get your money back.
you have two things that might work for you here.
Quote: |
Front and rear glass are perfect condition free from scuffs/scratches fungus or haze |
how can the rear glass be perfect if it isn't even there?
Quote: |
The aperture blades are fast and free of oil |
they aren't that fast if you can't move them.
so even being sold as-is he wasn't very good at describing the item and in some ways falsified the information I would say. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
rx7speed wrote: |
I would report it to paypal then as item not as described and see if you can get your money back.
you have two things that might work for you here.
Quote: |
Front and rear glass are perfect condition free from scuffs/scratches fungus or haze |
how can the rear glass be perfect if it isn't even there?
Quote: |
The aperture blades are fast and free of oil |
they aren't that fast if you can't move them.
so even being sold as-is he wasn't very good at describing the item and in some ways falsified the information I would say. |
Thanks, thats exactly the sort of stuff I'm looking for....I'll give it a try. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fatdeeman
Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 780 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fatdeeman wrote:
I really hate people like this, I'd say 50% of lenses I buy on the bay, be they cheap or expensive are in some way damaged or imperfect and the seller has deliberately tried to hide it either by acting as if they are a clueless novice, making a big deal of all the things that are good and not mentioning the bad things at all or by deliberately mis describing things such as calling fungus dust.
Then there are sellers that deliberately take pictures from angles that hide the flaws!
I even bought a lens from one seller, a tamron 103a that had extensive damage to the filter ring that he had blurred out in the photo!
I make a point now of emailing sellers a list of questions and even then they will lie and then say how they are "not an expert" when you complain as if it makes it ok.
You generally have a choice of keeping the faulty lens or sending it back at your own expense, which isn't so bad when the lens cost a lot but when you had a bargain lens where the postage cost more than the actual item it leaves you out of pocket!
I would fight this guy all of the way, he obviously knew the element was missing, it was probably him that broke the lens in the first place.
I cannot understand how people can sleep at night after taking £300 from someone like that, why is that when I sell something I feel compelled to describe every single flaw and defect?
Keep us updated mate, if I can think of any way to help I will let you know.
I'm very tempted to start a blog about the trials and tribulations of buying lenses on ebay. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I made hundred of successful purchases on Ebay and I did only a few less than ten with bad ends.
When they were not ended happily I bought those lenses are extremely cheap, obviously seller wasn't trustworthy. Nobody like to sell his own property for nothing. My basic rules is next:
I buy only from those sellers who has excellent feedback ratio and offer nice return policy and I can pay with Paypal.
If I buy from others who has any of them missing, I count it it probably will ending badly, these are low amounts so no big deal to loose them.
Current case is nasty, because seller clearly state this lens has rare part.
I believe you will claim successfully at Paypal based on evidences. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
fatdeeman
Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 780 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fatdeeman wrote:
Looks like he has recently purchased a Biotar 75mm F/1.5 for £250, the guy is obviously no newcomer to photography. He has also sold a CARL ZEISS JENA tevidon lens in the past, that's probably a few hundred quids worth. Via google I can also see he bought a Tokina 70-200mm ATX F/2.8, that's another pricey one!
Looking at his feedback, all he has bought in the past are lenses going by the names of the sellers such as r-aerophoto, cam.plus, jackscamera, team-photo and ferndowncameras (let's hope he had a taste of his own medicine there!)
I find it hard to believe he is the type of person who wouldn't know an element was missing from the Canon lens.
Ok, that's enough google stalking for now! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Everybody has fallen into an Ebay trap sooner or later.
I always got the best results when I spoke loud and strong. So start a Paypal dispute as soon as the timing allows, and say very clear what is wrong, and make the guy understand that if he does put obstacles to refund, you will take the lens and the Ebay/Paypal receipts to the next police station.
- _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|