Lens separation on Rolleiflex?

[HerSmokeySun]

Hello again APUG users-

I purchased a 2.8E Rollei kit on eBay for a great price. It was advertised as working/functional but not tested, etc. When I received it, it was in stellar condition (as were the accessories) however it felt very "gummy" and not as smooth as the Automat I purchased from eBay two years prior. Additionally, the lens had a strange yellowish ring surrounding the rim of the taking lens and some of the shutter speeds would stick open.

The seller was very understanding and refunded me a large portion of the final sale to use for a CLA. I reached out to Paul Ebel, Nippon Camera Clinic, Harry Fleenor and Kurt's Camera Repair and ultimately settled with Kurt's as they had the shortest turnaround time (2-2.5 months), decent reputation and good customer service when I talked to them.

Upon receiving the camera, their tech said the have the means to solve all the issues with a CLA/overhaul, except the lens. He said it looks like element separation.

Attached below is a link to three pictures of the lens. I'm aware lens separation is an issue with these older lenses, however 99% of the examples I've found from online research have the distinctive rainbow effect. In my case, no matter how I alter the angle of the light to the lens it still appears as a yellow oil color.

Lastly, I ran a test roll of T-MAX 400 using the working shutter speeds and all of the apertures, and didn't notice any effect to the image quality, at least so much so that I wouldn't use this camera.

(imgur link: http://imgur.com/a/JtGdr )


With all of that said, my questions are:

1. Is this in fact lens separation? If so, are there ways to prevent it from getting worse over time?
2. If it isn't element separation, what courses of action can I take to repair this?
3. Does this forum have restrictions on discussing experiences with camera repairmen? I'd like to share my CLA experience with Kurt's once it is complete (for better or worse) so that others can make decisions based off of that. However I don't want to step on any toes if sharing my experiences with a company isn't allowed.

I appreciate anyone's help and for taking the time to read this. Have a great day!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, that's certainly lens separation alright. Not much you can do about it unless you want to have it removed and re-cemented. That will be very expensive, but can be done. Your separation is in a lucky spot for you since it's on the very outer edge of the elements. Stopped down a little you will notice nothing and may not even notice anything wide open. Trust me! Just try a roll from F2.8 to f16. Once separation starts it's likely to continue, but if stored right it might be an extremely slow process. I say just use and enjoy.

 

[Fixcinater]

I had a 2.8E with more separation than that, it flared more than normal but still was a very nice and sharp optic.

Yes, you can share the experience with Kurt's, there is a dedicated sub forum that is hidden from search engines if you don't want it to be "public."

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In the short term, if you don't already have a lens hood for it, get a lens hood. It's an essential accessory even if your optics are in factory-fresh condition.

 

[Brett Rogers]

I think you'd have a much better chance of assessing whatever that is if you can unscrew the front lens group from the shutter to look at the rear piece, because it's not separation of the front glass. If you can post some images from the rear, it might be possible to be more specific.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[Dan Daniel]

Is everyone else certain that this is lens separation? I am not seeing it. I DO see a horrible case of 'Schneideritis' element edge paint separation. The paint applied to the outer edges of lens elements will bubble and create small white dots, like in the photos from the OP.

Did you send photos to Focal Point in Colorado? http://www.focalpointlens.com/ These types of problems are their specialty.

Aside- Paul Ebel is running 3 months or more for a repair??

 

[Brett Rogers]

Is everyone else certain that this is lens separation? I am not seeing it. I DO see a horrible case of 'Schneideritis' element edge paint separation. The paint applied to the outer edges of lens elements will bubble and create small white dots, like in the photos from the OP.

Did you send photos to Focal Point in Colorado? http://www.focalpointlens.com/ These types of problems are their specialty.

Aside- Paul Ebel is running 3 months or more for a repair??

Hi Dan,
No I'm not sure it is, at all. The lens is after all, an 80mm Xenotar, and as you know, unlike the Planar alternative the front isn't a cemented doublet. If anythng has separated it would have to be at the back (hence my suggestion). As a result, I think you may well be right (as usual!).
Cheers,
Brett

 

[HerSmokeySun]

Is everyone else certain that this is lens separation? I am not seeing it. I DO see a horrible case of 'Schneideritis' element edge paint separation. The paint applied to the outer edges of lens elements will bubble and create small white dots, like in the photos from the OP.

Did you send photos to Focal Point in Colorado? http://www.focalpointlens.com/ These types of problems are their specialty.?

I had considered Schneideritis as well, based only on the fact that my lens didn't have the obvious rainbow effect that most examples on the internet displayed. Additionally, I didn't know that the Xenotar lens lacked "a cemented doublet" which could point to something other than element separation (learned something new today!).

I haven't reached out to any lens specialists, but I may do so out of curiosity. The camera has given me good results with the single test roll I put through it whether it was wide open or at f22, so fixing it will occur down the line if I ever have some walking around money/can justify the cost. Regardless, I will report back here if I find anything out from lens techs, and will continue to use my lens hood in the meantime.

From what I can remember, there wasn't anything unusual when I checked out the rear element of the taking lens. I did this by just opening the film back and shining a flashlight through the front and back. I didn't notice any rainbow effect, or even a similar ring around the rim of the camera as there is on the front. However, the camera is currently at Kurt's, so it will be awhile before I can double check this. Once it's back I will double check.

If it is in fact element separation, how exactly does that affect photographs? Is it just an increased risk of flaring/reduced resale value?

Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond and contribute to this discussion!

 

[Ian Grant]

The way the Xenotar's fit the barrel you won't ss Shneideritis that's separation, which has a different look anyway.

Ian

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Is everyone else certain that this is lens separation? I am not seeing it. I DO see a horrible case of 'Schneideritis' element edge paint separation. The paint applied to the outer edges of lens elements will bubble and create small white dots, like in the photos from the OP.

Did you send photos to Focal Point in Colorado? http://www.focalpointlens.com/ These types of problems are their specialty.

Aside- Paul Ebel is running 3 months or more for a repair??

No, that absolutely is lens separation - look at pic #2 on that page.

 

[HerSmokeySun]

Yes, you can share the experience with Kurt's, there is a dedicated sub forum that is hidden from search engines if you don't want it to be "public."

Thank you for letting me know. They just called yesterday regarding an estimate, it looks like it will be about $333 shipped for a CLA/overhaul, as well as fixing the self-timer, calibrating the meter, and replacing some small parts. This was about the same as the rough over-the-phone estimate Paul and Harry gave me with a shorter lead time. I'll report back as the repair process moves forward.

Aside- Paul Ebel is running 3 months or more for a repair??

Yes sir- I called the day I received this camera to ask about the lens and a CLA estimate, and had a great conversation with him. Near the end of the call he suggested that I look elsewhere to have this work done only because he's very backed up with repair work, and that I'd get the camera back by the end of September at the soonest. I'll summarize below the places I called and the prices/repair times they quoted me. Additionally, all of the shops I reached out to that had RUSH services are no longer offering this add-on (otherwise I would've gladly paid a little more to have my Rolleiflex sooner!).

Oceanside Camera Repair (Harry Fleenor): 5-7 months, rough est. $300+ship
Paul Ebel: Approx. 4 months, rough est. $285-325+ship
Nippon Camera Clinic: 2-4 weeks, no estimate given
Kurt's Camera Repair: Approx. 2 months (beginning of June was 1-1.5 months, currently is 2-2.5 months), est. $333 shipped

While I would have loved to have the honor of Harry or Paul working on my camera, and while I'm sure it would be worth the wait, I have several trips planned that I would like to have the camera around for and can't justify the wait.

I'll make sure to communicate my experience with Kurt's to everyone. So far it has been excellent.

 

[Brett Rogers]

No, that absolutely is lens separation - look at pic #2 on that page.

So to be clear, then, what you are saying is that you think the rear lens doublet has begun to separate?
Cheers
Brett

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

THAT is separation. THAT is NOT Schneideritis. IF there were Schneideritis, it would be WHITE dots on the periphery of the glass in the margin where you can see the ribbed band.

THIS is Schneideritis:

 

[Brett Rogers]

THAT is separation. THAT is NOT Schneideritis. IF there were Schneideritis, it would be WHITE dots on the periphery of the glass in the margin where you can see the ribbed band.

THIS is Schneideritis:

So to be clear, then, what you are saying is that you think the rear lens doublet has begun to separate?
Cheers
Brett

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, now that I look close, it is rear separation. It looks like Schneider still used a Canadian style balsam. In later Zeiss lenses separation is harder to see and has a more "rainbow" look. I believe Zeiss went to a newer bonding agent for their lenses and so the difference.

 

[HerSmokeySun]

For what it's worth, I reached out to John from Focal Point Lens as suggested to me earlier in this thread. I just received a reply from him, in which he says "That is Schneideritis and cement separation between #2/#3 doublet".

For future reference if anyone is dealing with a similar situation and is looking for a repair, he said it would cost roughly $250-275 (as of 6/13/17) based on whether the lens was held in using a retainer screw or whether it was machined into place.

I have definitely learned a thing or two from this thread; thanks again to those who contributed to this discussion.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Interesting look. I've had separation on a Tele-Rolleiflex that was from around the same time as this lens under discussion. Both Schneider lenses [EDIT: I was wrong, the tele was the Zeiss Sonnar]. And the tele had the 'standard' rainbow shimmer look. Which also was nowhere near as even as the one under discussion here. Then again, the rings on the one here does remind me of, say, pulling something away from a syrup-like fluid between two planes. To get what appears to be physical rings does confuse me; I'd expect the whole lens to be separated in order to form such a large gap (large relative to light waves and optics)

I've had four different 2.8 Xenotars; the one I still have (thanks again, Brett, still my main camera) shows nothing like this, and I never noticed it on other ones. I'll keep my eyes open.

Edit: Thanks for the update from Focal Point.

 

[Brett Rogers]

Yes, now that I look close, it is rear separation. It looks like Schneider still used a Canadian style balsam. In later Zeiss lenses separation is harder to see and has a more "rainbow" look. I believe Zeiss went to a newer bonding agent for their lenses and so the difference.

Thank you for answering my question. As the 80mm version of the Xenotar used in the Rollei TLRs has a front piece that is not cemented, it therefore follows that the front piece could not split and logically, then, if any separation is occurring, it would have to be in the doublet behind that piece.

Yes, I agree it's likely to be Canada Balsam because of its colour. As you've suggested, it's quite different to the way separation usually manifests itself in Zeiss lenses which is often a white/blue rainbow type patch or circle.

You're correct about Zeiss, they were moving to synthetic cement in the early 1950s. I don't know an exact date (and I don't know if anyone does, for that matter, but if they do, I'd love to know it). Certainly, the Oberkochen-made Contaflex lenses were being cemented with synthetic by about 1955, (notoriously so, given the Pro Tessars propensity to fail). At the same time I have a fairly early original type Contaflex on hand, (1954 I would say from it's particular early feature set), and, its prism has degraded in such a way that it could only have been joined with Canada Balsam. So, I am fairly certain that at least into the beginning of the 1950s, Zeiss were still using CB for at least some camera optical bonding applications. On the other hand, I have no idea about when Schneider's changeover to synthetics would have taken place. You could argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that Schneider's use of what does seem to be CB is a plus, today, for the owners of Rolleis with their Xenotar optic, since separation problems with Rolleis using it are much less common than certain Zeiss lenses, (most notably, the 135mm Sonnar in the Tele but, also the front doublet in the 80mm Planar, in which separation, whilst nowhere near as endemic as the Teles, is still far from unknown).

As far as I can recall, this is the first time I've heard about a separation issue with a 80mm Xenotar (I have however seen one or two Rolleicord Xenars with rear pairs that have begin to fail). It would be most informative to be able to directly inspect the rear doublet of this particular lens, for a better view of its problem. I wonder if the owner might be persuaded to unscrew the front lens grouping for a better look?
Thanks again for the follow up
Brett

 

[Brett Rogers]

For what it's worth, I reached out to John from Focal Point Lens as suggested to me earlier in this thread. I just received a reply from him, in which he says "That is Schneideritis and cement separation between #2/#3 doublet".

For future reference if anyone is dealing with a similar situation and is looking for a repair, he said it would cost roughly $250-275 (as of 6/13/17) based on whether the lens was held in using a retainer screw or whether it was machined into place.

I have definitely learned a thing or two from this thread; thanks again to those who contributed to this discussion.

I was typing my previous reply as this was posted: thanks for the additional information!
Cheers
Brett

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

So to be clear, then, what you are saying is that you think the rear lens doublet has begun to separate?
Cheers
Brett

I cannot tell from this photo if it is front or rear separation. But it is definitely Canada Balsam failure. I've seen this exact same look on some large format lenses I've owned.

 

[HerSmokeySun]

Thank you for answering my question. As the 80mm version of the Xenotar used in the Rollei TLRs has a front piece that is not cemented, it therefore follows that the front piece could not split and logically, then, if any separation is occurring, it would have to be in the doublet behind that piece.

Yes, I agree it's likely to be Canada Balsam because of its colour. As you've suggested, it's quite different to the way separation usually manifests itself in Zeiss lenses which is often a white/blue rainbow type patch or circle.

You're correct about Zeiss, they were moving to synthetic cement in the early 1950s. I don't know an exact date (and I don't know if anyone does, for that matter, but if they do, I'd love to know it). Certainly, the Oberkochen-made Contaflex lenses were being cemented with synthetic by about 1955, (notoriously so, given the Pro Tessars propensity to fail). At the same time I have a fairly early original type Contaflex on hand, (1954 I would say from it's particular early feature set), and, its prism has degraded in such a way that it could only have been joined with Canada Balsam. So, I am fairly certain that at least into the beginning of the 1950s, Zeiss were still using CB for at least some camera optical bonding applications. On the other hand, I have no idea about when Schneider's changeover to synthetics would have taken place. You could argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that Schneider's use of what does seem to be CB is a plus, today, for the owners of Rolleis with their Xenotar optic, since separation problems with Rolleis using it are much less common than certain Zeiss lenses, (most notably, the 135mm Sonnar in the Tele but, also the front doublet in the 80mm Planar, in which separation, whilst nowhere near as endemic as the Teles, is still far from unknown).

As far as I can recall, this is the first time I've heard about a separation issue with a 80mm Xenotar (I have however seen one or two Rolleicord Xenars with rear pairs that have begin to fail). It would be most informative to be able to directly inspect the rear doublet of this particular lens, for a better view of its problem. I wonder if the owner might be persuaded to unscrew the front lens grouping for a better look?
Thanks again for the follow up
Brett

Once I get the camera back from its CLA I'd consider investigating this more closely. Is there anything special to consider with this process (removing the front element)?

Also, are there any books or resources recommended for learning more about these lenses? This thread has sparked an interest in me to learn more.

 

[Brett Rogers]

Once I get the camera back from its CLA I'd consider investigating this more closely. Is there anything special to consider with this process (removing the front element)?

Also, are there any books or resources recommended for learning more about these lenses? This thread has sparked an interest in me to learn more.

Hi Samuel,
The front lens group is set within the black mount visible inside the circumference of the bayonet mount (the front of it has the makers name and lens details on it). It contains (in the case of the 80mm Xenotar) the single front piece of glass and at the rear the cemented pair of pieces that would seem to be the problem in your lens. Of course there are two more elements that, with the front group, comprise the complete array of your Xenotar but these are fitted to their own mount that inserts into the rear of the shutter housing. In each case they are threaded into the centre of the shutter via a conventional right hand thread (unscrews anti-clockwise).

You'd normally need a lens spanner to take out the rear group (but I'm not advocating this and it's not necessary, I merely mention it to try to provide a clearer understanding of your Rolleis lens installation). The front group on the other hand, being larger and more easily accessible. whilst it will have notches for a spanner, may often be simply unscrewed and extracted simply with gentle thumb and finger pressure on the mount.

Not directly relevant to your present problem but it may be handy to know, for future reference, that although once a lens is cleaned one should not, normally need to access the interior surfaces of the lens, but, if for whatever reason any dust or other matter is seen on the inside surfaces, you can clean the back of the front group by unscrewing the lens and taking it out. I should add at this point that if you set the shutter to Bulb and the aperture wide open (using the shutter lock or a locking cable release is a wise precaution) then, with care, you can also access the front surface of the rear group through the shutter, without having to remove the rear group.

But back to the front mount. It's simply a case of gently twisting the black mount anti-clockwise with thumbs and fingers to unscrew the lens mount itself from the shutter complete with all its glass that are fitted within it. The mount is not (well, it should not be) fastened very tightly, it's seated on its thread and gently secured not wrenched into place. But if the camera has not been worked on for many years, it is possible that the mount may require a little extra force to unscrew via a rubber tool or spanner. (I prefer rubber, whenever possible, because even a spanner used with the greatest care will usually rub a little paint off the sides of the notches whereas the extra friction of a suitable rubber cup will often persuade a tight lens mount to yield without leaving any evidence whatsoever).

Note that I'm not suggesting you should be doing any of this yourself--I can't speak for any of the other members who have commented but some of us such as Dan and myself have done quite a lot of camera repair work on various Rolleis, and in your last post you expressed an interest in knowing more about these matters, hence, I'm simply outlining the process that would be used to remove a tighter mount, if it was needed.

I did mention it earlier because this particular issue with the 80mm Xenotar is one I have not previously encountered, personally, and, if the front mount happened to be typically fastened within your shutter it would simply unscrew. Making it a ten second task for me to unscrew and remove it for a look. It goes without saying that if you're uncomfortable doing this, please, don't: it's your camera after all.

There are really only three things that could go wrong if you unscrew the mount for a closer look at the back glass. One, you could drop it, never a good idea, but not hard to avoid. Two, you could put the loose mount front side down on a surface (best to gently rest it on its rear, on a soft, lint-free cloth, to avoid damaging the protruding centre of the Xenotar front glass). Three, you could, I suppose. cross thread the mount when you're re-fitting it. But the threads tapped into the Synchro Compur shutter are high quality and it's good brass. You'd have to be pretty ham fisted to do that. In fact when you gently lower the group back into the shutter (often easiest to do with the shutter inverted, initially), gently rotating the group anti-clockwise will normally see it find the thread start with a quiet but definite click, and it may then be gently screwed clockwise back to its seat, and locked with a thumb and fingertip twist.

Hopefully the above informs a little more about the way your camera goes together. It really doesn't matter if you don't remove the mount, but, at least you now know a bit more about its installation.

The 80mm Xenotar is a wonderful lens. For various reasons (it was generally just a little more expensive when the cameras were new) a lot of purchasers seem to place a premium on the Zeiss Planar lenses when shopping for a later Rolleiflex. I use Zeiss glass in too many lens mounts to mention here so I appreciate their virtues as much as anyone. But I've never seen any indication whatsoever that would suggest the Xenotar is in any way inferior, actually, there are some people who believe it's just a little sharper than the Planar. I won't buy into any of that, these lenses are all decades old, now and even Zeiss and Schneider had a little variation from lens to lens, so these types of comparisons, I believe, are so slight that any conclusions could be skewed by the particular cameras one might test (if one was inclined to do so). The point is that either lens option was and, is, nothing less than first class, and capable of image quality that, even by comparison with much newer lenses, bears up very well indeed.

If you'd like to learn more about the Rollei TLRs please feel free to message me and I'll pass on some reference details.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[HerSmokeySun]

Hi Samuel,
The front lens group is set within the black mount visible inside the circumference of the bayonet mount (the front of it has the makers name and lens details on it). It contains (in the case of the 80mm Xenotar) the single front piece of glass and at the rear the cemented pair of pieces that would seem to be the problem in your lens. Of course there are two more elements that, with the front group, comprise the complete array of your Xenotar but these are fitted to their own mount that inserts into the rear of the shutter housing. In each case they are threaded into the centre of the shutter via a conventional right hand thread (unscrews anti-clockwise).

You'd normally need a lens spanner to take out the rear group (but I'm not advocating this and it's not necessary, I merely mention it to try to provide a clearer understanding of your Rolleis lens installation). The front group on the other hand, being larger and more easily accessible. whilst it will have notches for a spanner, may often be simply unscrewed and extracted simply with gentle thumb and finger pressure on the mount.

Not directly relevant to your present problem but it may be handy to know, for future reference, that although once a lens is cleaned one should not, normally need to access the interior surfaces of the lens, but, if for whatever reason any dust or other matter is seen on the inside surfaces, you can clean the back of the front group by unscrewing the lens and taking it out. I should add at this point that if you set the shutter to Bulb and the aperture wide open (using the shutter lock or a locking cable release is a wise precaution) then, with care, you can also access the front surface of the rear group through the shutter, without having to remove the rear group.

But back to the front mount. It's simply a case of gently twisting the black mount anti-clockwise with thumbs and fingers to unscrew the lens mount itself from the shutter complete with all its glass that are fitted within it. The mount is not (well, it should not be) fastened very tightly, it's seated on its thread and gently secured not wrenched into place. But if the camera has not been worked on for many years, it is possible that the mount may require a little extra force to unscrew via a rubber tool or spanner. (I prefer rubber, whenever possible, because even a spanner used with the greatest care will usually rub a little paint off the sides of the notches whereas the extra friction of a suitable rubber cup will often persuade a tight lens mount to yield without leaving any evidence whatsoever).

Note that I'm not suggesting you should be doing any of this yourself--I can't speak for any of the other members who have commented but some of us such as Dan and myself have done quite a lot of camera repair work on various Rolleis, and in your last post you expressed an interest in knowing more about these matters, hence, I'm simply outlining the process that would be used to remove a tighter mount, if it was needed.

I did mention it earlier because this particular issue with the 80mm Xenotar is one I have not previously encountered, personally, and, if the front mount happened to be typically fastened within your shutter it would simply unscrew. Making it a ten second task for me to unscrew and remove it for a look. It goes without saying that if you're uncomfortable doing this, please, don't: it's your camera after all.

There are really only three things that could go wrong if you unscrew the mount for a closer look at the back glass. One, you could drop it, never a good idea, but not hard to avoid. Two, you could put the loose mount front side down on a surface (best to gently rest it on its rear, on a soft, lint-free cloth, to avoid damaging the protruding centre of the Xenotar front glass). Three, you could, I suppose. cross thread the mount when you're re-fitting it. But the threads tapped into the Synchro Compur shutter are high quality and it's good brass. You'd have to be pretty ham fisted to do that. In fact when you gently lower the group back into the shutter (often easiest to do with the shutter inverted, initially), gently rotating the group anti-clockwise will normally see it find the thread start with a quiet but definite click, and it may then be gently screwed clockwise back to its seat, and locked with a thumb and fingertip twist.

Hopefully the above informs a little more about the way your camera goes together. It really doesn't matter if you don't remove the mount, but, at least you now know a bit more about its installation.

The 80mm Xenotar is a wonderful lens. For various reasons (it was generally just a little more expensive when the cameras were new) a lot of purchasers seem to place a premium on the Zeiss Planar lenses when shopping for a later Rolleiflex. I use Zeiss glass in too many lens mounts to mention here so I appreciate their virtues as much as anyone. But I've never seen any indication whatsoever that would suggest the Xenotar is in any way inferior, actually, there are some people who believe it's just a little sharper than the Planar. I won't buy into any of that, these lenses are all decades old, now and even Zeiss and Schneider had a little variation from lens to lens, so these types of comparisons, I believe, are so slight that any conclusions could be skewed by the particular cameras one might test (if one was inclined to do so). The point is that either lens option was and, is, nothing less than first class, and capable of image quality that, even by comparison with much newer lenses, bears up very well indeed.

If you'd like to learn more about the Rollei TLRs please feel free to message me and I'll pass on some reference details.
Cheers,
Brett

This made my day Brett- thank you for the write-up! I actively enjoy tinkering with things and considered attempting a layman's CLA on my Rollei when I found it needed one. However, "layman's CLA" and "Rolleiflex" sounded a little too much like a recipe for disaster, so sending it out felt justified. Once I have the camera back I will look into giving this a try.

You can expect a PM from me very soon!

EDIT: I am still new to these forums so my noviceness may be showing, but it appears that I cannot message you directly sir. Maybe you need to initiate the conversation?

 

[MattKing]

EDIT: I am still new to these forums so my noviceness may be showing, but it appears that I cannot message you directly sir. Maybe you need to initiate the conversation?

Click on his username beside his post. One of the the options is "Start a Conversation"
Click on that and put in what you want to say.
Don't forget to hit the "Start a Conversation" link on the bottom to send it.

 

[campy51]

I know I am late to the party but am wondering how the lens separation has held up after 3 years? I have a 2.8E Planar with about 1/8 of an inch on the very outside and 3/4 the way around with separation and haven't noticed anything in my photos. From what I have read is that if you can get the lens cells out and heat it in warm to hot water you can separate and re-cement as long as you use V clamps to center the cells to set the cement. I bought it for a good price and figure if it ever shows up I would try to fix it myself.