Lens haze/fungus

[ctrout]

In trying to find my next lens for my RB67, I am seeing what appear to be lenses in exceptional overall condition but with "tiny fungus" or "little haze." It is my plan to assume that any of the old Sekor C lenses that I purchase will probably benefit from a CLA so as long as the lens is opened up anyway, how fixable is a haze or fungus issue if it truly is "tiny" or "little"

 

[Leigh B]

Haze and fungus are two VERY different conditions.
Fungus appears as randomish whiskers radiating from a starting point.

Fungus destroys the glass surface.
It eats the magnesium fluoride coating and excretes hydrofluoric acid, which etches glass.

You can remove the fungus itself with various chemicals.
The only way to correct the etching is to re-polish the surface, which changes the element geometry.

Also, fungus propagates by releasing spores that spread through the air.
Any of these that land on other lenses will contaminate them.

The few fungus-afflicted lenses I've encountered have immediately filled a trash bag.
I then sealed the bag without expelling any air and took it outside to the trash can.

- Leigh

 

[shutterfinger]

Strong UV aka direct sunlight for 8 to 12 hours will kill lens fungus. Fungus is a mold. Mold spores are in the air. Storing a lens in an environment that supports mold growth will likely develop fungus.
My 35-135 zoom Nikkor developed fungus from a damp closet, other lens in the camera bag did not. I removed the elements, sat the effected one on a sunny window sill for 2 days, reassembled the lens cleaning each element as I reinstalled them and it has not spread or contaminated the other lens in the camera bag. It has been 15 years since that cleaning/sunlight treatment. I found another 35-135 Nikkor zoom mint copy for a fair price, bought it, and cannot tell the difference in images taken with either of the zooms.
Fungus caught early and killed/cleaned does not adversely affect glass. Throwing a lens with fungus away is foolish/overkill unless the glass is damaged to the point of affecting image quality.

 

[ctrout]

I guess then that it would just be best if I look for one that is perfect both externally and internally to avoid any trouble. The 15% price premium is probably worth it in the long run.

 

[chuck94022]

I guess then that it would just be best if I look for one that is perfect both externally and internally to avoid any trouble. The 15% price premium is probably worth it in the long run.

Yes. The 15% is not a "price premium". It is a "discount", if you want to think of it this way.

Do not buy trouble. Buy clean lenses. For RB67 systems, the absolute best quality is so cheap relative to what it cost new there is no argument. They are spectacular lenses, buy the best and don't look back.

 

[anfenglin]

Fungus is not as bad as people make it.
I have cleaned a lot of lenses at work, mostly Zeiss Jena and Meyer Görlitz, maybe half of them had fungus.
Technically, yes, fungus etches the glass but not always.
I have seen lenses full of fungus which cleaned out just fine, some had only a tiny spot and the spot remained a spot, even when cleaned.
It depends and I can never say if the lens will be fine after cleaning or if remains of the mycels can be seen.

Throwing lenses away which have a little fungus in them is idiotic IMHO, the fungus in there comes from the spores in the air we breathe.
Are you going to throw you lungs away because they have fungus spores in them? The immune system takes care of that.

I have bought lenses for my own personal use which had fungus in them, I cleaned them and as I said, used them. I have never seen any difference in the pictures from non-etched to etched lenses.
For a while I used a beaten, ancient Nikkor 3,5cm 3.5 I believe, it had scratches on the front element, I have never seen loss of contrast or anything else that would make me get rid of the lens.
"User condition" lenses or the ones with fungus tend to go for a lot less than perfectly fine ones, if you know how to repair them you can save a lot of money.

I store my cleaned lenses in the same cupboard as my other stuff and there is nothing of fungus to be seen.
If you are not sure wether you've killed all of the fungus spores in your lens, take it out shooting. UV light kills fungus spores.
No use hoarding lenses if you're not using them.

 

[BMbikerider]

I agree with post immediatly before this one. A good while ago I bought an early Leica M3 (double wind) with a collasible F2 Summicron and the lens was badly affected with fungus. It cost about £400 complete. Leica UK, serviced the camera and lens (It cost a fortune -almost as much as the camera/lens cost) but it was worth it. The lens was returned as prestine with no trace of the fungus and the camera itself performed like new.

 

[tedr1]

Haze is a relatively harmless misting of the surface due to accumulated dust and atmospheric film. It reduces contrast and causes flare especially when the subject includes strong light. Haze can be removed by gentle cleaning using isopropyl alcohol and a cotton bud.

Fungus, as others have explained, is more serious because it may permanently damage the glass. If the fungus is all over the lens, it is probably toast. If the fungus is restricted to a small area away from the center it can probably be removed and the lens performance would be degraded only very slightly.

I too have acquired used RB67 lenses recently and agree the value for money is excellent. In my experience some ebay sellers, in particular some from Japan, include in the listing a disclosure of the presence of slight dust/haze as a precaution to prevent the misunderstanding that the lens is in mint condition. Listings that include mention of fungus are another matter and should be treated with great caution.

 

[RichardJack]

my two cents....when faced with buying optics with a slight haze or tiny fungus, avoid both. Pay the extra money and get clean, clear glass. The fungus is also a clue to the conditions in which the camera was stored or cared for, there might be hidden problems in the body or with electronics. You usually get what you pay for, I'm only trying to save you (everyone) future grief.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Throwing away a lens that has just a little fungus is much worse than buying a lens with a little fungus. In fact it's even past borderline nuts it's plain ass-n-nine! I've bought many cameras that had light fungus and the reason I did was because I got them very cheap. I bought two very nice Rolleiflex 3.5 E Planars each with visible fungus 4 or 5 years ago. I removed the lens groups and disassembled them for cleaning. Neither one cleaned up spotless, but both are still taking some of the best photos any camera could take. Thank God I didn't throw them in the trash!

 

[ctrout]

Well, from what I can see on ebay, the prices on what I'm looking for range from 185 to 210 shipped. The extra $25 to get a lens in perfect condition vs one that's cosmetically ugly or has flaws in the optics seems well worth it to me. I guess I'll just watch the auctions for one that comes available when I have the funds for it. I have so much gear that I want but so little cash. My budget for toys is a mere $200 a month and I blew the whole wad a few days ago buying an original Asahi AP with lens so if the Sekor C 50mm is a dime over $200, it will take me two months from today to come up with the scratch to pick one up.

 

[jjphoto]

Lenses with internal shutters, ie RB/RZ will all eventually have a small amount of haze around the aperture/shutter mechanism because the shutter mechanism itself creates fine dust as it move and wears over the years. That's one of the reasons such lenses should be regularly serviced. I have a few RZ lenses which were always well looked after but they also have a small amount of haze in them. A CLA is the cost of doing business with these kinds of lenses.

As others have mentioned, fungus is another matter.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well, from what I can see on ebay, the prices on what I'm looking for range from 185 to 210 shipped. The extra $25 to get a lens in perfect condition vs one that's cosmetically ugly or has flaws in the optics seems well worth it to me. I guess I'll just watch the auctions for one that comes available when I have the funds for it. I have so much gear that I want but so little cash. My budget for toys is a mere $200 a month and I blew the whole wad a few days ago buying an original Asahi AP with lens so if the Sekor C 50mm is a dime over $200, it will take me two months from today to come up with the scratch to pick one up.

I agree with your reasoning 100%. If it's a few bucks more for excellent or near mint? I'll do the excellent to near mint every time. Now if it's 50% or more off, with the option to inspect and return? That's another story. I do like buying the better condition stuff for resale reasons, but if I want a bang-a-bout user piece, that doesn't have to be babied, then it's leaning on the cheaper side.

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to sell a lot of cameras and lenses on Ebay. I had my lenses on a shelf with plenty of light and ventilation. One newly purchased lens developed fungus. It was probably there when I bought it but I couldn't see it. Well I got rid of the lens and another lens that had been sitting next to it developed fungus. so I lost money on two lenses.

I can't prove that the fungus migrated from one lens to the other. I'll just say that fungus to me means run like hell.

Haze decreases sharpness. Why buy a lens with haze when there are so many clean lenses out there?

 

[M Carter]

Hmm. I really wanted an Rb65mm; found a clean one that was part of a deal - came with a 127mm with "slight fungus". Got both for about $125. Didn't have the 127, never really interested in it. But $125 for a really clean 65, count me in.

Anyway, they were both like-new looking lenses. Pulled the front element from the 127 - there was a spot of fungus at the edge of the next element, maybe 1/4" round. Cleaned with peroxide and then 99% iso - no etching but clearly fungus - and got all the dust from both lenses. No problems since... and I use the 65 the most outdoors, but that 127? My word, that's a badass little lens. Haven't had much use for it but I will sometime.

So I feel I got an excellent deal and had no desire to run straight to the trash can in a hazmat suit, holding a burning lens in front of me with barbecue tongs while screaming "STAY BACK!!! FUNGUS!!!"... ymmv of course.

 

[spoolman]

I bought a number of Kodak Tourist cameras a year ago and all of the lenses had fungus on them. I remembered reading somewhere that using Listerine,either on a Q-Tip or cotton ball, is a good way of getting rid of the fungus. Most of it was in internal surfaces and by removing the rear element I was able to access the front element and boy !!!!! does that stuff work. There was no signs of etching so I must have gotten to it before etching began.

I believe the active ingredient,thymol, is an anti fungal and it works. Just rinse or wipe off the Listering and clean as normal and the fungus hasn't returned.

Doug

 

[Alan Gales]

So I feel I got an excellent deal and had no desire to run straight to the trash can in a hazmat suit, holding a burning lens in front of me with barbecue tongs while screaming "STAY BACK!!! FUNGUS!!!"... ymmv of course.

Not with my tongs you don't. I don't want fungus on my Q!

 

[M Carter]

Not with my tongs you don't. I don't want fungus on my Q!

I actually play in a punk rock (parody) band called Samee Skumn - I think our next hit will be "fungus on my Q"...

 

[Alan Gales]

I actually play in a punk rock (parody) band called Samee Skumn - I think our next hit will be "fungus on my Q"...

Your band is cool! Which one is you?

That would be the first time anyone ever used any thing I said for a song.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Avoid problems. Buy a clean lens and enjoy life.

 

[paul ron]

It all depends on how much, where it is, and what the haze consists of. Most lenses will have some dust in them.... they are over 40 n 50 years old after all. The image is not effected by small amounts of dust. BUT DONT TRASH THEM! Give them to me instead?

Killing fungus is important but you still have to remove the remnants. I use a sterilizing UV bulb in an ozone chamber. A few hours and its all done n smells good again.

The sun treatment involves too much heat and may spread oil n grease to parts it doesn't belong.

 

[M Carter]

Your band is cool! Which one is you?

That would be the first time anyone ever used any thing I said for a song.

I'm "Dikkie Smythe", with the purple guitar. Which was actually sort of a "little kid's" guitar I bought for my daughter when "everything had to be purple"... I've got some pricey guitars, but that one has some mojo!

 

[Alan Gales]

I'm "Dikkie Smythe", with the purple guitar. Which was actually sort of a "little kid's" guitar I bought for my daughter when "everything had to be purple"... I've got some pricey guitars, but that one has some mojo!

Well you certainly look and sound like a Rocker!

There is something to be said about inexpensive guitars on stage, especially if you decide to pull a Pete Townsend! I recently saw Neil Young on stage on my television. He brought out an acoustic guitar and told the audience that it had originally belonged to Hank Williams. The thing is priceless! I'd be afraid to even touch something like that.

 

[moto-uno]

^ Yet we roam the streets with high value cameras on public transit ! Peter

 

[M Carter]

Ha ha thanks, considering I'm old as hell!

On eBay a few years ago was an early 60's stratocaster that had been purchased by Hank - even had the signed receipt. $200k+. Whew! Sad to think nobody will ever play it again, bet it sounds pretty awesome.

The Samee Skumn thing started with a buddy writing fake punk songs, so I shot a music video for him, all green screen, took like a month of post work. My wife is the "punk rock mom" - in the bustier!