Severe mold damaged lens - what would you do ?

[kl122002]

Found an old Super-Takumar 55/2 with rear lens severely damaged by old molds. After cleaning there are mold marks there but the others looks nice . So far I have no plants on this lens .
The lens is not yellowing and so I guess it is not a radioactive one ?

What would you do ? Try to re-polish it, look for another element to replace, or just use it as usual?

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Found an old Super-Takumar 55/2 with rear lens severely damaged by old molds. After cleaning there are mold marks there but the others looks nice . So far I have no plants on this lens .
The lens is not yellowing and so I guess it is not a radioactive one ?

What would you do ? Try to re-polish it, look for another element to replace, or just use it as usual?

Damage to the rear lens is more visible in the picture than to the front. I would therefore test it.

If it is a valuable lens (to me), I would have the lens repaired.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Found an old Super-Takumar 55/2 with rear lens severely damaged by old molds. After cleaning there are mold marks there but the others looks nice . So far I have no plants on this lens .
The lens is not yellowing and so I guess it is not a radioactive one ?

What would you do ? Try to re-polish it, look for another element to replace, or just use it as usual?

toss it quickly before other lenses get infected!

 

[Andreas Thaler]

toss it quickly before other lenses get infected!

There are no fungus infections in the lens cabinet.

This has been discussed so many times.

 

[BrianShaw]

There are no fungus infections in the lens cabinet.

This has been discussed so many times.

Rather than simply dismissing Ralph’s comment, would you please briefly summarize what has been discussed so many times. I seem to have missed those discussions also.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Rather than simply dismissing Ralph’s comment, would you please briefly summarize what has been discussed so many times. I seem to have missed those discussions also.

Please look on the web, the topic has been discussed endlessly there for years. It comes up periodically in every photography forum and it's so tiring.

The assumption that fungus behaves like a virus is untenable because it is not.

Fungal spores are everywhere and need suitable conditions to develop into fungus: warmth, moisture, and probably also a lack of oxygen.

That's why things might get moldy where these conditions exist. But the fungus doesn't jump from one lens to the other.

If it were like that, I wouldn't have any usable lenses anymore, because as you might know, I also clean moldy lenses in our home. For sure there will be some lenses in my lens closet with one or two small, completely insignificant fungus stars sitting on a lens.

Please don't continue this endless discussion. People become insecure, others react to the topic with fatigue and threads literally go moldy

 

[BrianShaw]

Hmmm.. I guess we’ve been out in our place.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Hmmm.. I guess we’ve been out in our place.

Maybe you're more sensible than me and don't spend your time on the web like I do

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Hmmm.. I guess we’ve been out in our place.

This is a prominent site that is often mentioned in discussions with fungus information:

Fungus on Lenses | ZEISS Service Information

Fungus means an Infestation of optical instruments with fungus spores which germinate and produce more spores. In general, ZEISS does not accept instruments infested by fungus.

www.zeiss.com

This quote there is very often cited as evidence that fungus is infectious. But that's not what it says there:

Note:
In general, ZEISS does not accept instruments infested by fungus.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

I follow what Zeiss says about fungus and make sure I store my stuff accordingly.

By the way, fungus can be easily removed as long as it is fresh and its excretory products have not yet etched the glass.

 

[BrianShaw]

I follow what Zeiss says about fungus and make sure I store my stuff accordingly.

Me, as well. But that only means that you and I are heeding the warnings. So blanket statements, like you’ve made, might not apply to everyone. If mold/fungus mitigation controls are not in place, and the mold/fungus growth environmental conditions exist, and multiple lenses are exposed such that spores to travel… aren’t those the conditions where an infectious environment might exist?

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Me, as well. But that only means that you and I are heeding the warnings. So blanket statements, like you’ve made, might not apply to everyone.

Maybe @RalphLambrecht would like to make the counter argument? His statement was even shorter than mine.

If mold/fungus mitigation controls are not in place, and the mold/fungus growth environmental conditions exist, and multiple lenses are exposed such that spores to travel… aren’t those the conditions where an infectious environment might exist?

If I store my lenses and other devices in the unfavorable circumstances described, the development of fungus is possible. But the fungal spores are already there and are only then activated into fungus. The spores are not just on objectives and lenses, but everywhere, they are part of our everyday life.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

This is my Minolta X-700 that I recently restored. And the first camera on which I detected fungus.

If you look at the condition of the camera, this is not surprising; it was obviously stored in a damp place:

The fungus is on the mirror and was quickly removed.

Minolta X-700: A renovation project

As announced, the first project in the new year will be the renovation of an X-700 with obvious moisture damage. Today the cheaply purchased and well used X-700 arrived and I did an initial inspection. The goal is not to get the camera back to full function at all costs, but to see what damage...

www.photrio.com

 

[BrianShaw]

I now understand why you suggest not discussing any further.

Bye.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

I now understand why you suggest not discussing any further.

Bye.

Yes, I have written about this the most, but I also wanted to argue my opinion.

Of course, everyone can see it differently and counterarguments are interesting.

But the discussion has been the same for years.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

So blanket statements, like you’ve made, might not apply to everyone.

Sure, I thought the topic was common knowledge. My apologies

 

[BrianShaw]

Found an old Super-Takumar 55/2 with rear lens severely damaged by old molds. After cleaning there are mold marks there but the others looks nice . So far I have no plants on this lens .
The lens is not yellowing and so I guess it is not a radioactive one ?

What would you do ? Try to re-polish it, look for another element to replace, or just use it as usual?

Addressing the original question… if everything that appeared to have been potentially active fungus seems to have been mitigated, using the lens seems a good choice. If the pics are acceptable then all is well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The mold growth on lenses can be stopped by placing the lens in bright sunlight for a number of days. Perhaps that could work for the camera bodies. Since I live in a dry climate, I have not had to clean mold from lenses or bodies myself so I am reluctant to recommend cleaning method which I do not have hands on experience.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Found an old Super-Takumar 55/2 with rear lens severely damaged by old molds. After cleaning there are mold marks there but the others looks nice . So far I have no plants on this lens .
The lens is not yellowing and so I guess it is not a radioactive one ?

What would you do ? Try to re-polish it, look for another element to replace, or just use it as usual?

I have used lenses with etching caused by former mold. I can't quantify if the damage was serious on mine or if I ever saw any effects. If your lens is clean now, I suggest you leave it alone and use it. Always add a hood to reduce flare and internal reflections.

 

[kl122002]

Addressing the original question… if everything that appeared to have been potentially active fungus seems to have been mitigated, using the lens seems a good choice. If the pics are acceptable then all is well.

My place is rather humid here, especially in spring. Actually I still have a lot mold damaged lenses from other people who said" dump it or fix it and be yours" . I still not sure what to do.

As for this one I have taken out all glasses and cleaned the barrels with alcohol. So I guess it should be ok then?

The lens isn't expensive thing but I just don't want to spend dollars to get another one and wasted this one.

 

[BrianShaw]

It sounds like you might focus on a storage solution that will control the humidity. Such as sealed boxes with moisture absorption media, like silica gel.

 

[kl122002]

It sounds like you might focus on a storage solution that will control the humidity. Such as sealed boxes with moisture absorption media, like silica gel.

My collection with better condition are all in the sealed boxes . Just only those "I am not sure where to go" are still out there.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well, you seem to have everything under control. Time to use that lens and decide if the residual damage negatively affects your images or not. If you don’t like the results it seems reasonable to just get rid of it. And if the results are acceptable, then store safely as you do your other lenses. Thanks for inspiring an interesting discussion thread!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Maybe @RalphLambrecht would like to make the counter argument? His statement was even shorter than mine.



If I store my lenses and other devices in the unfavorable circumstances described, the development of fungus is possible. But the fungal spores are already there and are only then activated into fungus. The spores are not just on objectives and lenses, but everywhere, they are part of our everyday life.

I store my equipment below 40%RH and luckily never had any lens fungus; so, the argument"spores are everywhere not jumping from one piece of equipment to another but just waiting for conditions to be right." might be correct and now makes sense to me.

 

[Don_ih]

But the fungus doesn't jump from one lens to the other.

There is a difference between keeping a lens with fungus on a shelf next to some other lenses and keeping it in a camera bag with other lenses. In an more enclosed space, particularly one that already encourages the growth of fungus, the spores which are produced by the infected lens will be of a higher concentration and so it will be more likely the other lenses become infected.

Just like you are more likely to contract a cold when you spend all day sitting next to a guy who has a cold in a crowded classroom, as opposed to sitting next to the same guy on a park bench with the wind blowing.