Does anyone know what glues was used to cement the elements together for this model. I haven' seen the camera yet but have been told it's the rear elements of the taking and viewing lenses. It has the Schneider lens and from what I read the glue may be different from the Planar lens which appears to have used Canadian balsm. Also am I a fool to even try this?
Thinking of buying a Rolleiflex 2.8C with lens separation
-
A
- Thread starter campy51
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy JOBO ATL 1500/1000 or JOBO CPP2
- Started by balazsfff
-
For Sale Foto-100 bulk roll, 100'
- Started by MCB18
-
Under Offer Hasselblad ELM battery adapters x2
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale Leica 14510 leather case for R-E, R4, R5, R6.
- Started by Chrismat
-
For Sale FS: A Pair of NORMAN Flash Tube Covers
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,031
- Format
- Multi Format
Don't think the type of glue affects the optical performance. I understand that nowadays UV-cured glue is preferred. Unless historical accuracy matters. Tricky points: separating the elements; ensuring proper centering when re-gluing.
Unless the camera is crazy cheap, pass. There are plenty of good samples of these and they aren't some super rare camera worth spending the money/time to fix this. The chances of you doing it yourself and ending up with an optically good sample is pretty low.
I was of the understanding Canada Balsam was the standard fixative used for most compound lenses. I cannot think why a company such as Rollie should decide to use something different. It is repairable of course - at a price, it is only yourself who can decide if it is worth it.
If it is the viewing lens, I doubt that it will make much difference to the operation, with the taking lens then that will be a different matter. As someone who thinks on the cautious side I would not even attempt something like this myself. It is the setting up afterwards that will be the major problem - in fact anything to do with assembling a lens for which you don't have access to specialist equipment for the task, can be a major problem.
If it is the viewing lens, I doubt that it will make much difference to the operation, with the taking lens then that will be a different matter. As someone who thinks on the cautious side I would not even attempt something like this myself. It is the setting up afterwards that will be the major problem - in fact anything to do with assembling a lens for which you don't have access to specialist equipment for the task, can be a major problem.
It is likely Canadian balsam. UV cured optical cement was not available till 1966. You can still get Xylene balsam, which is Canadian Balsam dissolved in Xylene, ready for use to cement optical glass (or microscope slides).
I have successfully separated balsam cemented doublets using hot water (boiling temperature), and finished cleaning with solvents. re-assembly is not that difficult, you just need the Xylene balsam and lots of time. I have never separated or cemented UV cured optics. Yet.
I have successfully separated balsam cemented doublets using hot water (boiling temperature), and finished cleaning with solvents. re-assembly is not that difficult, you just need the Xylene balsam and lots of time. I have never separated or cemented UV cured optics. Yet.
one way to align elements is to use aluminum angles to hold them in alignment.
Using the following fine illustration: <O> unfortunately not to scale. I've used 3/4" when I do this using rubber bands to hold them in place.
Oddly, shutterfinger just put this link in the repair thread. Down the page a little bit shows the use of "V" blocks, smae principle.
http://skgrimes.com/library/old-news/old-lenses-can-be-restored-by-re-cementing
Using the following fine illustration: <O> unfortunately not to scale. I've used 3/4" when I do this using rubber bands to hold them in place.
Oddly, shutterfinger just put this link in the repair thread. Down the page a little bit shows the use of "V" blocks, smae principle.
http://skgrimes.com/library/old-news/old-lenses-can-be-restored-by-re-cementing
Last edited:
I have also used paper, taped into a tube, rolled snug around the lenses. These methods work fine if the doublet elements are the same size.
You can also re-assemble the doublet without cement, as long as you keep the surfaces clean, you should see a newton rings pattern reflected after assembly, which will tell you how symmetrical the elements were aligned. You will loose ~4% transmission at that interface, but the lens will otherwise optically behave correctly, even with the visible newtons ring pattern. However, if the original lens separation is clean (no fungus or stains), then you may just as well use the camera as is, as you only loose ~4% transmission where you see the separation. You really should re-cement them if you take them apart though.
You can also re-assemble the doublet without cement, as long as you keep the surfaces clean, you should see a newton rings pattern reflected after assembly, which will tell you how symmetrical the elements were aligned. You will loose ~4% transmission at that interface, but the lens will otherwise optically behave correctly, even with the visible newtons ring pattern. However, if the original lens separation is clean (no fungus or stains), then you may just as well use the camera as is, as you only loose ~4% transmission where you see the separation. You really should re-cement them if you take them apart though.
The price is $350 and looks to be in good condition from the pictures. My only hesitation is whenever something doesn't seem too difficult it always seems to run into some sort of snag halfway through it. Since the separation is on the rear lens is it possible to take the rear from a camera with a bad front element and mix and match them?
I have a set of taking lenses, Xenotar 2.8 from a C. The rear group is, well, unusual. There is one obvious retaining ring (two holes) on the interior side. The rear element is wider than the front element area, and projects outside of the mount upwards. I cannot see how the rear element will come out. Not like you can cut threads in glass for the retaining ring?
Anyway, just to make you look into the actual mount and what might be involved. Sometimes lens elements need brass broken away and then reformed to mount again.
I can put photos up tomorrow if anyone is interested. And no, the lens set nor rear group only are not for sale. I would hesitate to mix and match groups on Schneider lenses from the early '50s. The Xenars on Rolleiflexes from this period are great lenses. Someone wrote somewhere (yep, internet 'someone somewhere'!) that Schneider was determined to get a foothold in Rollei after Zeiss was knocked out and trying to rebuild after the war. So they were running high quality control on the Xenars, making precise matched pairs. I would expect that they were doing something similar with their shot at getting their lenses in Rollei's updated models (remember, the 2.8 Tessars from Zeiss after the war were pulled from the market because of quality problems).
Anyway, just to make you look into the actual mount and what might be involved. Sometimes lens elements need brass broken away and then reformed to mount again.
I can put photos up tomorrow if anyone is interested. And no, the lens set nor rear group only are not for sale. I would hesitate to mix and match groups on Schneider lenses from the early '50s. The Xenars on Rolleiflexes from this period are great lenses. Someone wrote somewhere (yep, internet 'someone somewhere'!) that Schneider was determined to get a foothold in Rollei after Zeiss was knocked out and trying to rebuild after the war. So they were running high quality control on the Xenars, making precise matched pairs. I would expect that they were doing something similar with their shot at getting their lenses in Rollei's updated models (remember, the 2.8 Tessars from Zeiss after the war were pulled from the market because of quality problems).
Last edited:
A lens Collectors Vade Mecum shows the Xenotar 2.8 as typically sold in diagram Sc034 and Sc084 as the actual 80mm f2.8 lens. There is no Sc084 diagram, there is a Sc048 diagram.
A repair manual I have shows the 2.8 C being from 1953. I would not pay more than $200 for it. Lens cells are matched and I do not recommend swapping cells unless you can optically measure them to verify they are identical.
A repair manual I have shows the 2.8 C being from 1953. I would not pay more than $200 for it. Lens cells are matched and I do not recommend swapping cells unless you can optically measure them to verify they are identical.
Is Sc034 the Rolleiflex C design? Look as if the back group is not cemented. So on my part, the interior element is held in place by a retaining ring. Most likely the back element is rolled into the overall mount.
Another possibility is 084 is a typo for 064
which closely matches the Sc034 diagram. Note the rear edge of the second element of the 064 is flattened where the 034 is not.
Last edited:
Rear lens: the f/2.8 Xenotars did not have a cemented doublet in the rear group. The 6-element f/3.5's did. I'd verify this first.
Mix & Match: generally not a good idea, but I know some repair shops that said the Zeiss and SK tolerances were pretty tight, that you could do this with minimal effect. Typically the front and rear groups are matched, and the spacing adjusted when mounting to the shutter.
I bought the camera today and should have it in about 4-5 days. I talked to another sales rep and he thought it was just the rear lens of the taking lens and thought it might not even show up. They have a 30 day return policy and apparently the rest of the camera is in excellent condition and it looks like it's spent all it's time in the case that comes with it. I will shoot a roll when I get it and see how everything looks.
I received the camera yesterday and the lenses look foggy with a lot of whitish dots. The viewing lens is worse than the taking. Here is a picture of the viewing lens.
There is an element in the viewing lens that appears to be very symmetrical but isn't. Be sure to keep orientation when you disassemble.
That's fungus, and should clear out with hydrogen peroxide in a qtip.
Did you buy the camera that was for sale at national camera exchange? If so, I would contact them to let them know about the unreported fungus. They are usually extremely honest and good at describing things.
I did buy it from them and they said it was lens separation but either way the elements would need to come apart to clean the fungus. I have a 30 day return and I have a roll in it now to test but I think the prints will be washed out. It's the removing the elements from the housing that I don't know how to do yet. If anybody has done this before I would appreciate some instructions.
Does the taking lens also have fungus? If so I think you should either return or get a partial refund. If you only had separation in the taking lens I would counsel ignoring it and not taking the camera apart. All it causes is a tiny bit less contrast from an extra air/glass interface and perhaps a strange flare if wide open. TLRs are more likely to be un-sharp from misaligned lenses than any kind of flaw in the glass of the taking lens. If you are dead set on fixing it I'd say send it to someone who can calibrate focus after putting it back together.
You paid $350 for THAT??? Geez. Get your money back and look elsewhere for a Rollei. I bought one last spring for $75 that is very clean and has no lens problems whatsoever. You were ripped off, my friend.
Did you buy a 2.8 xenotar for $75? If it was only the separation then $350 was a fair price. Without lens issues but needing a shutter CLA they go for over $500.
You got lucky, just like I got lucky with a Mamiya 7 for $120.
I am developing the test roll now and we will see how they look.
How did you swing that one!?
| 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:  |