View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
kido
Joined: 06 Jun 2013 Posts: 105 Location: Chile
|
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:49 pm Post subject: What are these dots inside the lens? |
|
|
kido wrote:
I bought a $20 Sears 200m f/3.5 (Mamiya-Sekor, possibly Tokina made as discussed in this thread) and it arrived last week. Looks and works fine but under closer inspection I've noticed this inside the barrel:
To me it looks as if someone removed one of the elements using a chisel and scraped the paint in the process. But maybe it's something else, like a vicious paint-eating bacteria, so I figured: I'll better ask.
Whatever it is, can it affect the lens performance in any way?
Haven't really got a chance to test it properly. Here are a few snapshots, all done handheld, indoors, f/3.5, flash bounced off ceiling, shot from ~3m:
_________________ [C&C] on my pictures are most welcomed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
danfromm
Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 585
|
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
danfromm wrote:
Its hard to be sure, but it might be Schneideritis. Vicious poorly-adhering paint on the elements' edges. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much about it. It doesn't look like fungus and it obviously doesn't affect the image quality, which is great. _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16643 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
I agree with Dan, must likely Schneideritis _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7788 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Possibly the result of slight condensation at some time, I've got lenses with similar marks on the internal coating / paint and can't see any problems with the images. The 'marks' on the glass are reflections. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
Doesn't look like Schneideritis to me, looks like the black paint coming off the elements which is used to increase contrast. Sometimes the paint doesn't adhere all that well, I had one lens where it pealed off very easily, a fresh coat of black paint and it was as good as new.
Schneideritis seems to be a condensate from paint, glue, etc... that gets deposited on the element surface, the Rokkor M 28 is typically effected, and can be caused to happen if the lens gets very warm, its elements are glued in and no way to clean elements... Very stupid IMO. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pd1987
Joined: 08 Dec 2013 Posts: 74 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pd1987 wrote:
If the lens was disassembled that might be some mechanical damage or coating layer scratch. It definitely won't affect your image.
I got a Polish projection lens - Polkinar 120/1.8 with something like this:
and it works. I mean... not perfectly (yet! - waiting for customized adaptor), but works. I took some samples freelensing, so a lot of light leaks, but it wasn't that bad at all:
http://lenscraze.blogspot.com/2013/11/zk-polkinar-120-mm-118-polish-cinema.html
I believe some lenses have a lot of tolerance for mechanical damage.
Keep calm, it's not fungus
(In your case. I have no idea what's wrong with my Polkinar.) _________________ Samples and subjective tests of manual lenses here:
LensCraze.blogspot.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
danfromm
Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 585
|
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
danfromm wrote:
Lightshow wrote: |
Schneideritis seems to be a condensate from paint, glue, etc... that gets deposited on the element surface, the Rokkor M 28 is typically effected, and can be caused to happen if the lens gets very warm, its elements are glued in and no way to clean elements... Very stupid IMO. |
That's your idiosyncratic non-standard definition. In the large format world, where most discussions of Schneideritis have taken place, it is defined as paint separating from the elements' edges. Also known as Boyeritis, many of their lenses do it too.
Your definition is the standard definition/explanation of haze inside lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Whateveritis....
The lens looks like a great performer, congrats.
I had the Tokina RMC 3.5/200, it was pretty poor, tons of CA and nowhere near as sharp as this lens. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mir
Joined: 07 Feb 2011 Posts: 979 Location: Montreal, Canada
Expire: 2017-09-30
|
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mir wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Whateveritis.... |
_________________ "Obsta principiis, finem respice"
"There is a fine line between hobby and mental illness"
MISC: Tamron SP 35-80 (01A), Auto Chinon Tomioka 1.4/55, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90, Tamron SP 5,6/300 (54B)
ZEISS: WG Distagon 2.8/25, WG Distagon 2.8/35 HFT, WG Planar HFT 1.4/50, Ultron 1.8/50, WG Sonnar 2.8/85, WG Sonnar HFT 2.8/135
VOIGTLÄNDER : Ultron Aspherical 1.8/21, Ultron 2/28, Nokton Aspherical 1.2/35, Nokton Classic 1.4/40, Nokton Aspherical 1.5/50, Color-Heliar 2.5/75
MINOLTA: MD 3.5/35-70 Macro, MD 1.2/50, MC Rokkor-X 1.2/58, MD Macro 3.5/50
LEITZ: SUMMICRON-R 2/35 (II), SUMMICRON-R 2/50 (II), TELE ELMARIT-M 2,8/90 (Thin)
CANON RF: 2.8/28, 2/35, 1.2/50, 1.4/50, Serenar 1.8/50, 2/85, 2/100, 3.5/100
LTM : FUJINON L 2/5cm, CHIYODA KOGAKU SUPER ROKKOR 1.8/5cm, CHIYOKO SUPER ROKKOR C 2/5cm, TOKYO KOGAKU Topcor-S 2/5cm, Nippon Kogaku NIKKOR-H.C 2/5cm, KMZ Jupiter-8 2/5cm
DKL : VOIGTLÄNDER SKOPAREX 3,4/35, SEPTON 2/50, DYNAREX 3,4/90, SUPER-DYNAREX 4/135, Scheiner-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon 1,9/50
And a small Minolta AF set: 2.8/20, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, 2/100, 4.5/100-200
@we3fotography
@7plus_pictures
@_whats.that.car_ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kido
Joined: 06 Jun 2013 Posts: 105 Location: Chile
|
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
kido wrote:
danfromm wrote: |
Its hard to be sure, but it might be Schneideritis. Vicious poorly-adhering paint on the elements' edges. |
OMG!, I feared it might be something with ominously sounding name. Lets hope it's not contagious and that paint won't come off anything else around here
Thanks guys for the explanation, yet again I have learned a new term.
pd1987 wrote: |
I have no idea what's wrong with my Polkinar. |
It looks as if it was frozen, nice pattern
Anyway, I suppose every single lens of mine would come out looking awful in the flashlight test. Since I like the idea of owning nice objects, I won't let any of my lenses hanging out with focused sources of light.
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
The lens looks like a great performer, congrats.
|
Thanks, I admit it looks promising. For $20 anyway. Whenever I'll take it for a spin, I shall post more samples. Yes, that definitely means more CATS _________________ [C&C] on my pictures are most welcomed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David
Joined: 13 Apr 2011 Posts: 1869 Location: Denver, Colorado
Expire: 2013-01-25
|
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
David wrote:
I have that, though much worse, on my Nikkor-P 105mm 1:2.8. It's where the paint inside the lens barrel didn't adhere to the substrate and became dislodged. It comes off in dots because those are the holiday bubbles formed by poor adhesion. The paint just goes away. I think it just falls off, gets sucked into the mechanism when focusing changes the internal air pressure, and gets lodge or ground up there. I've never had any issues with it working its way back into the lens. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/hancockDavidM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
danfromm wrote: |
Lightshow wrote: |
Schneideritis seems to be a condensate from paint, glue, etc... that gets deposited on the element surface, the Rokkor M 28 is typically effected, and can be caused to happen if the lens gets very warm, its elements are glued in and no way to clean elements... Very stupid IMO. |
That's your idiosyncratic non-standard definition. In the large format world, where most discussions of Schneideritis have taken place, it is defined as paint separating from the elements' edges. Also known as Boyeritis, many of their lenses do it too.
Your definition is the standard definition/explanation of haze inside lenses. |
"idiosyncratic non-standard definition" Thanks for taking it easy on me... I stand corrected, that was what it was called in every forum I found while searching about the Rokkor M 28, and no that was not haze, it was more like patches or blobs of something at the very edges, which is very different from haze, so I never dug deeper into the term Schneideritis.
Who would have thought the internet would lead me astray? _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZoneV
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 1632 Location: Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
ZoneV wrote:
Regarding the Schneideritis. Sometimes the black color seems partial no longer attached to the lens - but when I try to get rit of it it was still much work.
In the few cases I examined I found no peeling paint on the back of the lens.
pd1987 wrote: |
...
(In your case. I have no idea what's wrong with my Polkinar.) |
Looks like Delamination/Separation of a lens group - the glue is no more glueing the two lenses together.
Separation can sometimes be seen in the bokeh - depending which lens is affected. _________________ Camera modification, repair and DIY - some links to look through: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html
I AM A LENS NERD!
Epis, Elmaron, Emerald, Ernostar, Helioplan and Heidosmat.
Epiotar, Kameraobjektiv, Anastigmat, Epis, Meganast, Magnagon, Quinar, Culmigon, Novotrinast, Novflexar, Colorplan, Sekor, Kinon, Talon, Telemegor, Xenon, Xenar, Ultra, Ultra Star. Tessar, Janar, Visionar, Kiptar, Kipronar and Rotelar.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
danfromm
Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 585
|
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
danfromm wrote:
[quote="Lightshow"
"idiosyncratic non-standard definition" Thanks for taking it easy on me... I stand corrected, that was what it was called in every forum I found while searching about the Rokkor M 28 ...
Who would have thought the internet would lead me astray? [/quote]
The Internet was invented to make it easy to lead the innocent astray. Give up your innocence.
More seriously, there's a common language. Or, rather, there was a common language before the Internet became generally available.
Consider, for example, "back focus." Once upon a time back focus was an attribute of a lens, meant the distance between the vertex of the lens' rear element and the image plane when the lens was focused at infinity. Useful concept.
Now back focus describes what a lens and an autofocus system do together. When a maladjusted (old euphemism for crazy) AF SLR or a defective lens focus the lens so that the plane of best focus as seen from the image plane is behind the plane of best focus as seen on the SLR's ground glass, we say the system back focuses or has back focus. Another useful concept, as is its brother front focus.
People talk about point and shoot cameras, film and digital, that back or front focus; I think its better to say that their autofocus systems don't work properly since with them just where the plane of best focus ought to be is hard to see.
We had one good back focus concept, now we have two. The tower of Babel will never be completed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
And Back-focus could have just as easily been used instead of bokeh.
English loves to acquire new words to describe things already described.
Oh, in case it was missed, my comment about the internet was subtle sarcasm. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pd1987
Joined: 08 Dec 2013 Posts: 74 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pd1987 wrote:
ZoneV wrote: |
Regarding the Schneideritis. Sometimes the black color seems partial no longer attached to the lens - but when I try to get rit of it it was still much work.
In the few cases I examined I found no peeling paint on the back of the lens.
pd1987 wrote: |
...
(In your case. I have no idea what's wrong with my Polkinar.) |
Looks like Delamination/Separation of a lens group - the glue is no more glueing the two lenses together.
Separation can sometimes be seen in the bokeh - depending which lens is affected. |
Thanks for confirmation!
I was just guessing that, but nothing for sure. As soon as I get my adaptor I'll check that bokeh thing. Sounds really interesting! _________________ Samples and subjective tests of manual lenses here:
LensCraze.blogspot.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|