Fujinoneritis, or something else?

[Alex Benjamin]

So, received today my Fujinon 105mm f/8 which was (of course) advertised as NEAR MINT !!! and APPEARANCE BEAUTIFUL.

Well, this is what I saw when I unwrapped the thing. Of course, none of this was shown on the eBay photos...

I suspect Schneidereitis — Fujinoneritis, to be precise —, but I want to make sure nothing else is going on, here. Any thoughts?

The lens [edit: glass] itself is in very nice condition, so I am tempted to keep it (after I try it out, of course), but only after I'm sure that whatever has given it that look is actually harmless.

Thanks for your imput.

 

[xkaes]

That doesn't look like any Schneideritis that I've ever seen. I've got a 65mm Fujinon with a mild case. It's small, clearly defined white spots, on the far edges -- not like this GOO. That looks like a combination of fungus, mold, element separation, moisture, and coating deterioration.

Do a SEARCH for Schneideritis and you'll get plenty of good shots of what it normally looks like.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Do a SEARCH for Schneideritis and you'll get plenty of good shots of what it normally looks like.

I do know what it looks like. That's why I'm asking what else it could be.

That looks like a combination of fungus, mold, element separation, moisture, and coating deterioration.

Moisture is also one of my hypothesis. I didn't think of fungus or mold, since none of it appears on the glass.

 

[ags2mikon]

That is not near mint. I would return it real fast.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

That is not near mint.

That part I did figure out.

I would return it real fast.

Good chance that that's what's going to happen.

 

[Kino]

Water damage. Looks like the lens took a swim.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Water damage. Looks like the lens took a swim.

That's strange, as the rest of the lens — shutter, back element — is in really nice condition.

 

[Roger Thoms]

Wow that's "Ugly", not "Near Mint", and the seller neglected to show the damage in his listing. I'd return the lens and give the seller negative feedback once I had my refund. Just my 2 cents.

 

[film4Me]

Remove the fascia, lightly sand it and spray with semi gloss paint. The rest of the lens, as you have described it, is fine apparently.

I have a Zeiss Flektogon lens with a similar appearance, but not yet bad enough to warrant painting.

 

[mshchem]

I have a Fujica G617 w 105 f/8 no evidence of anything like this.

I wonder if your lens has been subjected to thermal cycles ? I'd be concerned about other potential problems.

 

[4season]

If that is lens #***943, it certainly doesn't look like auction photos! But having said that, the seller appears to be experienced in camera equipment, and has excellent feedback, and I see nothing to suggest that he was operating in bad faith. My inclination might be to work this out with the seller, and if he proposes a partial refund, that could be an excellent compromise, assuming that you're try a DIY fix.

No, I've never seen that much paint flake off that badly in transit, but what do I know. Auction photos do show slight paint separation.

 

[loccdor]

The glass looks good. Try it, but I bet it works pretty well. It is a very weird pattern the paint got, though. But if it was fungus or mold I'd expect the glass to look a lot worse than it does.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

It is a very weird pattern the paint got, though.

That's the part that's bugging me. If it was the usual Schneidereitis pattern, I wouldn't be worried. This is different, as I can't tell if it's the paint that peeled off, or if there is something on the paint.

It's going out for a test shoot later today. I'll figure out after I develop the film if I'm sending it back or asking for a partial refund.

 

[loccdor]

This is different, as I can't tell if it's the paint that peeled off, or if there is something on the paint.

One idea is that it is multiple layers of paint/primer interacting with each other.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

One idea is that it is multiple layers of paint/primer interacting with each other.

Must have been kept in very poor conditions for this to happen, no ?

 

[film4Me]

Remove the fascia, lightly sand it and spray with semi gloss paint

Correction: Actually it needs matt black paint, to absorb light, and act as an anti reflective surface.

The erosion of the original paint is a cosmetic defect. The onus was on the seller to show it anyway, hence buyers could ask questions about it and allay fears about the lens itself being defective, if it really was in good condition, and very suitably for picture taking.

I struck a seller years ago who deliberately hid bad exterior faults and when I complained about a purchased camera, he referred me to his small print at the bottom of the listing page. His small print implied that it was up to the buyer to "guess" that an item may have a serious problem .... And this somehow gave him immunity from criticism about hiding the bad fault. He only had to post one extra photo. But no, he'll catch a sucker. Never ever clicked on his name again.

We have to swallow our pride sometimes.

 

[Saganich]

I would send it back. One wonders how the optics were immune and in what world can you take representative photographs of an item and somehow leave that out? BS

 

[Ian C]

The condition is absurd. Return for refund if possible.

 

[tezzasmall]

It could just be eroded paintwork, but it worries me that the seller didn't show it or mention it in the listing. And just checking out a LOT of other images of the same lens for sale, 100% of the sellers showed the front of the lens as their first image.

As said, unless you are a diy-er, (and even then I'd contact the seller and expect a good partial refund if you are inclined to keep it), I would get it wrapped up straightaway to send back.

And whatever the seller says, the lens is definitely NOT 'NEAR MINT !!! and APPEARANCE BEAUTIFUL' and others should know about your experience, ideally with pictures on the selling platform used.

Terry S
UK

 

[Kino]

Was the lens air shipped over a long distance? I had a Mitchell Baltar NC prime lens (very expensive) that separated the elements during transit to China when I was selling on Ebay. That was an expensive failure on my part.

Resolved from then an there on, if shipping a very expensive lens overseas or long distances I would buy a cheap weather proof case to insure the lens got there in good condition.

The combination of temperature, humidity and pressure cycles during transport must have caused the separation; at least that is what I think.

Maybe that is what happened here? Maybe the front elements aren't sealed as well as the rear and moisture condensed inside the lens? I doubt the shutter would show signs anyway...

 

[Chuck1]

Water damage. Looks like the lens took a swim.

Looks like salt water.
I'd get a refund

 

[loccdor]

If salt water got in, wouldn't you also see residue on the glass?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Was the lens air shipped over a long distance?

Japan to Canada.

This was the photo on the original post.

 

[loccdor]

There's also the possibility that the seller took the pics, packed it away in a box for who knows how many years, then made the sale.

 

[ags2mikon]

As @loccdor stated above, or there was a mix up. Japanese sellers are very good about customer service. Anytime I had a problem they always fixed it pronto. Japan is a high trust society and as a whole have very high standards.