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

Fuji Fujinon 55mm f2.2 Lens Radioactive
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2024 10:29 pm    Post subject: Fuji Fujinon 55mm f2.2 Lens Radioactive Reply with quote

I did not know that some of the Fujinon 55mm f2.2 Lenses are Radioactive. Has anyone tested the optical quality differences in the three different versions?
Video showing that the slightly newer version has Thorium. https://youtu.be/0AyXktR5qWI


PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have an X-Fujinon FAX mount version serial number 305453. As part of my effort to make a list of all my various photographic items I have done radiation testing for a large number of them now. My test results were 0.17uSV/hr at the front lens and 0.16uSV/hr at the rear lens. Those readings are almost indistinguishable from background readings taken with that instrument in my location, so I would say the likelihood of that particular lens having radioactive elements is very low.

As a comparison, a 7 element copy of the Super Takumar 50mm F/1.4 lens measured 0.72uSV/hr at the front element and 1.78uSV/hr at the rear using my particular tester, roughly 10 times higher.

edit: From the video, it's an M42 'newer' version that is quite radioactive. It does seem odd for Fujinon to use a different optical design for the middle version of their entry grade kit lens, and then either redesign it again, or return to the original design, especially when radioactive glass types would traditionally have been more expensive and normally only used on the top lenses offered. But something definitely happened.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

His version of the newer m42 mount showed around 35 microsieverts/h which is pretty high. I have one in the original 200,000 serial number range that shows no radiation.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems i should get the new version. Laugh 1


PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2024 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pimpy1 wrote:
His version of the newer m42 mount showed around 35 microsieverts/h which is pretty high. I have one in the original 200,000 serial number range that shows no radiation.

Probably just stored in Fukushima vicinity.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2024 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I bought one of the newer m42 versions off of ebay. Going to test one out for myself.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2024 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pimpy1 wrote:
His version of the newer m42 mount showed around 35 microsieverts/h which is pretty high.


Not really.

Sieverts and their subfractions are dosage measurements, not emissions measurements, so that's not even a useful measurement here, since no, you are not going to have the front of that lens against your skin for any significant periods of time.

Why? Because a)all the glass and metal between you and the lens when you mount it is going to block more or less 100% of Alpha and Beta particles (the vast majority of the dosage coming from thorium decay), which are not reflected by the mirror or refracted by the prism into your eye, and b) radiation is subject to the inverse square law, so the 10cm or so of space alone between you and the rear of the lens (where it's already attenuated 10x) during use would attenuate any remaining gamma rays generated to a microscopic fraction of that supposed 35 usv/hour. Even with the counter directly against the rear of the lens, he's getting only ~1 usv/hr! That's like one bunch of bananas' worth of exposure per hour.

For some further perspective, even if you somehow received the full 35 usv/hr dose, it would take close to 25 hours to get the same dosage as a single mammogram, or 600+ hours to reach what's considered the yearly safe dosage for a radiation worker (20,000 usv or 20 msv). [/i]


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2024 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally I would be more worried about the ever-increasing background levels on non-ionising RF and microwave radiation everyone is exposed to these days.

Not known to cause cancer but I would like to see more research done on how it interacts with the human biochemistry and immune system, especially re. problems like triggering autoimmune conditions such as eczema and psoriasis etc.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Probably just stored in Fukushima vicinity.[/quote]
🤭😜🙊


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2024 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fujinon 55 2.2 lens is famous its radiation and its harming radiation effect to the people.
lens was sold in huge numbers in Asia due to its affordable price and decent quality.
Many photographers in Asia saw it as a great value for money, making it an extremely popular choice.
A lot of females who were in contact with lens and later gave birth, had to cope with the phenomenon of 'siamese twins' syndrome.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2024 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex_d wrote:
fujinon 55 2.2 lens is famous its radiation and its harming radiation effect to the people.
lens was sold in huge numbers in Asia due to its affordable price and decent quality.
Many photographers in Asia saw it as a great value for money, making it an extremely popular choice.
A lot of females who were in contact with lens and later gave birth, had to cope with the phenomenon of 'siamese twins' syndrome.


References please... Smile


PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2024 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex_d wrote:
fujinon 55 2.2 lens is famous its radiation and its harming radiation effect to the people.
lens was sold in huge numbers in Asia due to its affordable price and decent quality.
Many photographers in Asia saw it as a great value for money, making it an extremely popular choice.
A lot of females who were in contact with lens and later gave birth, had to cope with the phenomenon of 'siamese twins' syndrome.


😂


PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2024 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex_d wrote:
fujinon 55 2.2 lens is famous its radiation and its harming radiation effect to the people.
lens was sold in huge numbers in Asia due to its affordable price and decent quality.
Many photographers in Asia saw it as a great value for money, making it an extremely popular choice.
A lot of females who were in contact with lens and later gave birth, had to cope with the phenomenon of 'siamese twins' syndrome.


The problem of stochastic behaviour.

Since on-one is actually going to set up a controlled experiment where people are exposed to radiation of a radioactive lens in typical use, with a control group, and making sure all other environmental parameters are constant, we will never know.

So we are left with anecdotal reports, with far too many other potential environmental factors involved.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2024 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

for the one who didnt know: fuji was japanese secret service thing, and 'fujifilm' was just outside cover of that intel.
but the cover got better than the main thing (book).
and yes they did a lot of bad .. baaaadd... veeeryy baaaddd .. things


PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2024 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have you been chatting with GTP again?


PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@d1no well, one more proof that GPT is a fools gold: here is a yashica J series RF sold as a Fuji(ca) RF


PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2024 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread turned ever so slightly off topic. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Fuji Fujinon 55mm f2.2 Lens Radioactive Reply with quote

pimpy1 wrote:
I did not know that some of the Fujinon 55mm f2.2 Lenses are Radioactive. Has anyone tested the optical quality differences in the three different versions?
Video showing that the slightly newer version has Thorium. https://youtu.be/0AyXktR5qWI


No, I own just a single version. I enjoy using my M42 copy, but my experience has been different from that of the author of the linked video.

Regarding the video, at 1:09 the author states the M42 versions are "well made". In my opinion, these Fujinons are among the cheapest feeling lenses I've owned. The plastic trim ring above the focus ring is prone to cracking and breaking.
And at 7:27, there's a reference to the author's radioactive copy having a 5xxxxx serial number. I've measured my #575858 copy with a Geiger counter and it isn't radioactive.

Here it is:




#1


PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Slightly OT, but I am surprised at the number of people who have, or imply they have, a geiger counter at home.

Did I overlook some major event that made so many go out and buy one?

I mean, as far as I understand it they are not cheap devices that you buy and just put in the back of a cupboard until one day you have a need for it; I thought they need regular recalibration to make low readings meaningful...


PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RokkorDoctor wrote:
Slightly OT, but I am surprised at the number of people who have, or imply they have, a geiger counter at home.

Did I overlook some major event that made so many go out and buy one?

I mean, as far as I understand it they are not cheap devices that you buy and just put in the back of a cupboard until one day you have a need for it; I thought they need regular recalibration to make low readings meaningful...


£15 on Amazon, would I trust it? Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote:
Slightly OT, but I am surprised at the number of people who have, or imply they have, a geiger counter at home.

Did I overlook some major event that made so many go out and buy one?

I mean, as far as I understand it they are not cheap devices that you buy and just put in the back of a cupboard until one day you have a need for it; I thought they need regular recalibration to make low readings meaningful...


£15 on Amazon, would I trust it? Rolling Eyes


I've seen those; from what I understood is that those are OK for detecting average levels of alpha and beta radiation, but completely unreliable when it comes to measuring near-background level gamma radiation, if they have that facility at all.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to have one that is insensitive to beta but sensitive to gamma and X ray only. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2024 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:
I would like to have one that is insensitive to beta but sensitive to gamma and X ray only. Wink


i have an example for you sir, rare as a hens teeth & a tomioka lens ..

that will be 2,495.0 euro sir ..


PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2024 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex_d wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
I would like to have one that is insensitive to beta but sensitive to gamma and X ray only. Wink


i have an example for you sir, rare as a hens teeth & a tomioka lens ..

that will be 2,495.0 euro sir ..

Laugh 1 Friends Tuzki with lens


PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:
alex_d wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
I would like to have one that is insensitive to beta but sensitive to gamma and X ray only. Wink


i have an example for you sir, rare as a hens teeth & a tomioka lens ..

that will be 2,495.0 euro sir ..

Laugh 1 Friends Tuzki with lens


sure, but wait ..!!! thats not all - at all !!

if you buy another one in (a)x-fuji mount, you will get 2 lenses almost free!! only 4.449,0 eiro !! it's a steal killa deal