Are the white blotches with concentric rings fungus or separation?
?? Fungus or Separation ??
-
A
- Thread starter Old-N-Feeble
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Konica FT-1 battery door
- Started by photogear
-
Want to Buy WTB: Apo digitar 43mm XL lens
- Started by HakuZLQ
-
For Sale FS: Speed Graphic Model FP 4x5 Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Canon EOS-1 with 50mm f/1.8 STM lens
- Started by SocalAstro
-
For Sale Mamiya M645 1000s film camera w/ 35mm Wide Angle Lens
- Started by SocalAstro
Forum statistics
This is fungus, absolutely. although if it is a doublet, that doesn't mean the fungus can't be in between. If you can't clean it from the front or back, drop it in a jar of methylene Chloride until the double separates. Then re glue with Balsam gum sap. May take a month till they separate, but they eventually will.
Thank you. That's what I thought but the seller swears it's not fungus and seemed a bit angry when I suggested it.
If he sold you a working lense he needs to refund you.
I have bought greatly reduced priced lenses with less fungus than that, that only needed to be pulled apart and wipe the fungus away, but it is a risk you won't be able to fix.
I have bought greatly reduced priced lenses with less fungus than that, that only needed to be pulled apart and wipe the fungus away, but it is a risk you won't be able to fix.
The seller described it as separation and still insists this is what it is. I bought the lens believing his description because I can have the elements separated and recemented, albeit for a hefty fee. However, it being fungus, the glass might be etched. The only way to tell is to start the repair. The problem is the return privilege ends once I do the slightest thing to the lens. I really don't like the seller's accusatory reply to my message to him. I can't afford to waste the money I spent on this.
You never mentioned what the lens was.
It's a 55mm f/1.9 Computar DL that's in very nice condition other than the fungus.
First - I'll admit to being inexperienced in these matters and defer to those who know more.
The photo shows concentric rings in each white patch, which made me think of Newton's Rings and so my thought is that it is separation. Fungus that I've seen, when I've been unfortunate enough to encounter it, has always been a random tangle of spiderweb-like lines.
Still, this lens is nasty. Don't waste time on it and send it back.
The photo shows concentric rings in each white patch, which made me think of Newton's Rings and so my thought is that it is separation. Fungus that I've seen, when I've been unfortunate enough to encounter it, has always been a random tangle of spiderweb-like lines.
Still, this lens is nasty. Don't waste time on it and send it back.
There's one on ebay right now for only $1999. If that's where you got it, send it back. It's fungus. a 4 year old child could tell that. If you got it off ebay, MAKE them take it back. Raise hell and put a prop under it if you have to. I've ALWAYS won when I knew I was right and got it in my mind to declare war. It's either fungus or snowflakes. No other choices. Back it goes, PDQ.
Maybe it's separation AND fungus.
O-N-F, did the seller not provide you with a photo?
Separation is usually a 'spread' pattern. This is a hideous fungal infestation like no other I have seen, and it is likely to have embedded itself in the glass (etching), thus making repatriation a potentially expensive proposition -- possibly outweighing the net worth of the lens. I would never ever open up a lens with active, proliferate fungal activity.
Yes, the photos were clear enough. I don't have much experience with lenses infected with fungus so I accepted the seller's word that it's separation. The only fungus I've seen is the spiderweb-looking type. Before I sending the lens to be recemented, I showed it to a local camera technician who told me it's fungus.
I just want to be certain before filing a case with eBay because I want to be fair with the seller and because the price was fair if it only needs one pair of elements recemented.
Oh you can be sure alright. Separation looks like water has creeped in at the edges. This is fungus. Absolutely no doubt about it. Fungus can look like spider webbing, but thatst not an exclusive sign of it. Send it back. Save a link to this thread for the eBay reviewers. The seller can call it separation, he can call it green eggs and ham. But all these people can't all be wrong. I've bought and sold cameras for 45 years.
Send it back. None of the 8 photos has any evidence of any problem as mentioned in the text. Therefor you have only his word. Separation is one thing and not a concern (at least not to me) . Fungus is a concern and can be irreparable. Judging from your photos of it I'd say the glass itself is likely etched. He says it is a boil on your head. We all know its not a boil--it's a gunshot. Send it back.
Edit: Photo 8. I passed it off unnoticed as reflection.
Edit: Photo 8. I passed it off unnoticed as reflection.
Last edited:
Dan, yes indeed. I did want the lens. However, the so-called "evidence" was misleading... in effect, a lie. I provided the link to the eBay listing and in the description it clearly states it's 'separation'. Separation can be repaired. Etching from fungus cannot be 'completely' repaired. But you know that... don't you?
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,362
- Format
- 35mm RF
All the internet warriors above are totally wrong. That is separation. Every Computar DL (all focal lengths) I have seen had it and I've repaired a few of them now. Usually the separation occurs in the rear towards the film side. The cement they used for some reason did this. I'd find out how much it would cost to fix, then decide if it is worth it to you. I'd go so far as to say if you want that lens, you will never find one that doesn't have separation unless it has already been fixed. So I guess you might as well have it fixed if you already have it in your hand....
Well there's your answer. Who would have thought the seller was a member on this site and saw the thread you started? Yeah, separation. Right.
Lens seperation starting at center? On the net so far I only found one example (shown by a photoengineer).
It even was a case where the elements had been cemented at their flat planes, which would make seperation of this kind even harder to imagine.
It even was a case where the elements had been cemented at their flat planes, which would make seperation of this kind even harder to imagine.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,362
- Format
- 35mm RF
I am not the seller. If that lens was mine, I wouldn't sell it. And it is separation. They all do it. You might want to stick to things you know something about instead of giving people bad advice then lashing out when you get your ego hurt. Have you ever even seen a Computar? Didn't think so. Lol.
"Get my feelings hurt?". What are you, some kind of nut? What's with the attitude? Anybody on here would be just as glad to be proven wrong if something was learned and knowledge increased. Doesn't bother me one bit. Ok you say you've handled these before and have first hand experience? Fine, the floor is all yours. I don't get the combative attitude. All I have is a picture to go by and it looks like fungus. But I don't have the luxury of having the lens in my hand. I might be wrong. It has happened before. You need to settle down and knock off the asshole act. None of this is personal.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
dude, chill out .. and please keep your insults and foul language to yourself.
you suggested previously that he was the seller and you misdiagnosed the lens's problem ...
seems you are being combative and name calling & c , not him.
a quick google search suggests these lenses suffer from separation ... ( unfortunately no pix )
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |