Need help solving lens mystery (Olympus SP)

[Aeden]

Hi Everyone,

I need some help figuring out exactly what the heck is up with this Olympus SP I just picked up. The lens looks clean (maybe a little haze on the edges but hard to tell) BUT, almost every photo is so soft you’d swear someone put gauze over the negative. At first, I thought the rangefinder maybe off, so I tested at f1.7 on a series of chess pieces. But even the most in focus area is still mushy.

So what’s going on? Is there an element out of alignment, is there fungus or something I’m having trouble seeing? Is it ghosts?

Any help would be welcome.
f1.7 - focused on 3rd piece from the left

f1.7- focused on 2nd to last knight

Probably 1.7 - focused on dog's eyes

f11 - focused on dog, sharpest of the whole roll

 

[shutterfinger]

Set the camera up on a tripod, lock the shutter open on B with a locking cable release, set the lens to infinity, aperture to f1.7, point the camera at a infinity target at least 5000 feet away. Check the rangefinder, the target should be in sharp focus. Place a ground glass at the film plane, the target should be in sharp focus. A piece of clear plastic sheet with transparent tape strips placed next to each other makes a good substitute ground glass. Place the tape side toward the lens. A clear CD/DVD case cut to fit with the tape works well.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/35-sp.htm has a lens diagram.

 

[nosmok]

I used to shoot a Konica S3 that would expose half the frame (the right side of the neg) soft. A close inspection revealed that the lens had taken a hit, and was not quite parallel to the film plane. Wouldn't have known to look for it if I hadn't seen the negs, but you could make it out on the camera if you squinted. Look for something like that, maybe. ETA: looking at the pics again, not sure there's a lot to be alarmed about. At f/1.7 there's dang little depth of field to be had, and if you're handholding it's very easy to miss your mark.

 

[reddesert]

IMO, the lens is misaligned, as opposed to a focus error. I think an element spacing is off forward/back or perhaps an element is inverted. I've never had this camera but I'm sure it didn't leave the factory that way. If the softness pattern were different from one side to the other, I would support the idea that it got knocked out of parallel, which is not uncommon on these fast-lens rangefinders.

Looking at the last two pictures of the dog, in the corners there is a transition to being extremely blurry with clear elongation of the blur pattern, suggesting off-axis aberrations (like astigmatism, coma, etc), which could come from a mis-assembled lens. It seems relatively symmetric about the center, but maybe more images would be needed to know. It certainly shouldn't look like that at f/11.

 

[Jim Jones]

In addition to what appears to be a problem in the lens, there is uneven exposure or development on the area of the film outside of the image. This could be light leaking in the camera or more likely, in film handling outside of the camera or in development.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I agree with reddesert, it looks to me like a lens element might be inverted.
Of course, you could sell it on Ebay as a " bokeh monster" ...

 

[StepheKoontz]

Yeah, looks like someone flipped a lens element when servicing it at some point. Or one is missing.

 

[Aeden]

Thanks for the responses everyone!

Shutter: I checked the rangefinder against the markings on the barrel and they seems to line up perfectly. I taped some velum over the film gate, but it seemed like the window (about 7 feet away) didn't come into focus until I hit infinity, or at the very least it was more in focus at infinity then it was at the correct range (both on the barrel and in the viewfinder.)

Nosmok: One of my other cameras is an S3 that is so damn fun to use, only problem is the meter is a bit dodgy which is what inspired me to pick up this one when it came through the local shop. Normally I'd be hesitant to rule out operator error, but I took a picture of everyone of those pieces down the line with the camera set on the table and they all exhibit the same behavior. Did you manage to rehab the S3?

Red: This seems to be the most likely suspect, is there a good way to check that and is it fixable?

Jim: I put another roll and a half through the camera and the edges of the frames seem to be smudgy on those as well.

 

[shutterfinger]

s there a good way to check that and is it fixable?

The lens can be disassembled.
Open the back and look at the back of the lens, is it flat or curved outward?

 

[nosmok]

I think I may still have the bonked S3, I kept it for a long time (haven't shot 35mm in a bit). It was a very curious effect that certainly had its uses, and I had a hard time thinking about getting it any other way. I think the f/1.7 dog portrait is a very nice photograph, and the lens aberrations are definitely a part of that. Fixing a camera is almost always more expensive than buying another one, but then you're paying for a specific outcome that another buy might not produce.

 

[Aeden]

SOLVED!

Who ever last worked on this had the rear element in backwards! Fortunately the local shop had some tools and patience.

Here is the camera at f1.7 and f16:

Looks like there is still a bit of light leaking, I'll see if I can replace the seals.

Thanks for the help everyone!

 

[reddesert]

Great!

I do not know how people manage to get lens elements in backwards. One would think it would be harder than fitting them in correctly. But, there was also someone a few months ago who had a problem with a Bronica lens with a backwards element, so I guess it happens somehow.