PDA

View Full Version : is THIS fungus or something else?



Dustyman
15-Nov-2017, 08:46
Is this fungus or separation or stress or something else?

172025

xkaes
15-Nov-2017, 08:54
Tiny "spider webs" like that mean fungus. Since it looks like it is on the edge, it might not be a big deal, but it is likely to grow without some action. Depending on the lens, you might be able to "get at it". Others will have ideas on how to deal with it. Tell us more about the lens and its history, such as, how many years below the Mason Dixon line, etc.

Steven Tribe
15-Nov-2017, 09:10
I don't like the look of the very regular sharp semi-circle. Need a much closer image, but I doubt it is fungus. Is this a non coated Voigtlander Heliar?

Dustyman
15-Nov-2017, 09:49
Yes, non-coated 10.5cm Heliar. Closer picture to follow...



I don't like the look of the very regular sharp semi-circle. Need a much closer image, but I doubt it is fungus. Is this a non coated Voigtlander Heliar?

Dustyman
15-Nov-2017, 09:50
Closer picture. To me it looks like it might even be a tiny chip.

172035

xkaes
15-Nov-2017, 10:24
Yeah, the circles look like a chip. Pretty unimportant on a edge.

cowanw
15-Nov-2017, 11:11
With Balsam separation about.

Steven Tribe
15-Nov-2017, 13:31
Agreed!

EdSawyer
17-Nov-2017, 07:04
Agreed, separation at the very least, and possibly/probably chip on the edge.

Dan Fromm
17-Nov-2017, 09:04
A conchoidal chip at the edge of the front element can scatter an incredible amount of light. OP, if you're going to use the lens -- you should -- fill the chip with india ink. I have a lens with a chip like that, unusable without india ink.

Tracy Storer
17-Nov-2017, 21:18
Fill with india ink and use it. I like Heliars. 105 will be great on rollfilm, 3.25" x 4.25", and will have some utility on 4"x5". (I've used a 240mm on 8"x10" for figure work indoors with slight darkening in the corners.)

alex from holland
17-Nov-2017, 22:36
When it is a non coated kens it can't be fungus.
Fungus only grows on coated lenses.

Pfsor
18-Nov-2017, 04:22
When it is a non coated kens it can't be fungus.
Fungus only grows on coated lenses.

You affirmation is not true. Non coated lenses during WWII were known as suffering from severe fungus problems in tropical countries.

Steven Tribe
18-Nov-2017, 07:03
I would like to see a reference to WWII fungus problems - some WWII lenses were coated.

The chip is very unusual. The crack and the inner shear "waves" look to be a perfect curve. The "cracks" which spread beyond the crack are due to the balsam becoming solid and shrinking in this process.

xkaes
18-Nov-2017, 07:43
I would like to see a reference to WWII fungus problems - some WWII lenses were coated.

All I can add is that the first, coated, Japanese lenses -- at least for public use -- did not appear until Minolta produced them in 1947. This is according to the George Eastman Museum.

And, NO, I am NOT saying that the Japanese had the first coated lenses! Lens development improved tremendously during the War, for military purposes, but I'm sure someone else can provide info on when lens coating started.

Dan Fromm
18-Nov-2017, 08:03
Joe, practically speaking hard coated lenses for civilian customers came in in 1946 but the exact starting date varies by manufacturer. EKCo started sometime in 1946. I have an uncoated 1946 101/4.5 Ektar, have seen coated 101/4.5 Ektars from 1946 with higher serial numbers. The oldest coated lens I've ever had was an 1944 TTH Aviar.

Pfsor
18-Nov-2017, 08:12
I would like to see a reference to WWII fungus problems - some WWII lenses were coated.


Read to your heart's delight - http://www.europa.com/~telscope/fungus.txt

Steven Tribe
18-Nov-2017, 10:54
Nice read! A couple mentions of glass etching, but the main problem seemed to optical problems with the physical presence of the fungus. Later down the text there is quite useful information about lens storage ( no wood, leather or boxes!). It is noted that various glass have quite different resistance to etching fungus.

What Alex referred to was the absence of etching fungus attack on "old" glass types. Like him, I have never seen fungus etching on "old" glass. Plenty of "dust away" fungus, though. Even lenses which have been stored in attics or garden sheds ( brass covered with deep verdigris) have OK glass!

However, I have seen some irregular blooming patterns on a few lens surfaces which could have something to do with fungus influence.
,

Randy Moe
18-Nov-2017, 11:30
Very good read, tracing the battle right along.

Now some are calling mold, fungi 'Intelligent'.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-beautiful-intelligence-of-bacteria-and-other-microbes-20171113/

Not in one cell, but how the many act. Time-lapse microscopy photography captures their empire, not unlike cities...

Pfsor
18-Nov-2017, 12:34
Now some are calling mold, fungi 'Intelligent'.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-beautiful-intelligence-of-bacteria-and-other-microbes-20171113/


Interesting, indeed. Mold and fungi are highly mysterious creatures...

alex from holland
22-Nov-2017, 00:28
Show me one single picture of a non coated lens with fungus please.

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 03:27
Show me one single picture of a non coated lens with fungus please.

You like being spoon-fed, don't you? http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Goerz_Box_Tengor
http://www.thecamerasite.net/09_General/Pages/fungus.htm
Google is your friend.

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 05:53
Show me one single picture of a non coated lens with fungus please.

More yummy spoon feed - http://www.appcott.co.uk/VINTAGE6X6/KODAK/KodakNo.3/KODAK_no3.htm
Google is your friend for more yummy food.

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 06:03
Show me one single picture of a non coated lens with fungus please.

More yummy stuff - scroll down for special treats. Bon appétit!
https://randcollins.wordpress.com/category/restoration/

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 06:33
Show me one single picture of a non coated lens with fungus please.

Because you thought all that WWII battle against fungus in optical instruments was just invented?

alex from holland
22-Nov-2017, 07:43
No, i just said I have never ever seen a non coated lens with fungus.
So i really would like to see a picture of it.

alex from holland
22-Nov-2017, 07:45
And tbe coating was invented in 1935. So maybe these lenses were already coated

Steven Tribe
22-Nov-2017, 07:56
Not convinced by your examples!

The tengor has a common balsam "growing snowflake" problem.
The Kodak has "whispy" fungus, which has no attachment to the lens surface.
The long restoration says "the fungus was cleaned off with alcohol" - which is my experience too!

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 07:57
And tbe coating was invented in 1935. So maybe these lenses were already coated

Did you see what age the camera and its lens have? Photographic lenses coated in 1935? Continue dreaming. How about just saying you were wrong? Costs too much?

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 07:58
Not convinced by your examples!

The tengor has a common balsam "growing snowflake" problem.
The Kodak has "whispy" fungus, which has no attachment to the lens surface.
The long restoration says "the fungus was cleaned off with alcohol" - which is my experience too!

Again - and the WWII battle against fungus in optical instruments was all invented? What a case!

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 08:06
And tbe coating was invented in 1935. So maybe these lenses were already coated

"The Model 3A Folding Ansco was produced from 1914 to 1932."
According to you maybe the lens was coated already from 1935, right?
You don't believe in Moon landings, do you?

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 08:15
And tbe coating was invented in 1935. So maybe these lenses were already coated

Can you show me a single photo of a coated photographic lens from 1935, please?

Dan Fromm
22-Nov-2017, 08:21
Pfsor, Alexander Smakula of Zeiss patented lens coating in 1935. See https://books.google.com/books?id=AO9288d5rckC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=smakula+zeiss+coating&source=bl&ots=xXnnVHV4-2&sig=LCWgA7z1k1_quIswh2Mj0JilbMw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD2c2lvdLXAhXqiVQKHUdiCZsQ6AEISDAI#v=onepage&q=smakula%20zeiss%20coating&f=false

That said, coated lenses for civilian use came in after WW II.

With respect, you should learn to recognize invincible ignorance and ignore it.

alex from holland
22-Nov-2017, 08:34
Coated lenses were already used during wwII. Not only after.
I wasn’t refering to the ansco camera. I was speaking in general.
It was invented in 1935, the Germans started using it already at tbe beginning of ww2..
So what’s the problem with my question?
I only said that i have never ever seen a non coated lens with fungus.

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 08:36
Pfsor, Alexander Smakula of Zeiss patented lens coating in 1935. See https://books.google.com/books?id=AO9288d5rckC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=smakula+zeiss+coating&source=bl&ots=xXnnVHV4-2&sig=LCWgA7z1k1_quIswh2Mj0JilbMw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD2c2lvdLXAhXqiVQKHUdiCZsQ6AEISDAI#v=onepage&q=smakula%20zeiss%20coating&f=false

That said, coated lenses for civilian use came in after WW II.

With respect, you should learn to recognize invincible ignorance and ignore it.

Lens coating was recognised as such already in 1886... and led to lens coating later. In between fungus changed its appetite but not so much that it would not create problems during WWII. Ignorance is bliss. So are drogues - for a moment. It devastates you after. Never mind.

alex from holland
22-Nov-2017, 08:47
You like being spoon-fed, don't you? http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Goerz_Box_Tengor
http://www.thecamerasite.net/09_General/Pages/fungus.htm
Google is your friend.


If you know the difference between fungus and separation of the balsem you wouldn’t post these links.
Both lenses shown in these links have a separation problem and that’s a totally different thing.
Fungus has a much finer pattern.

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 08:55
If you know the difference between fungus and separation of the balsem you wouldn’t post these links.
Both lenses shown in these links have a separation problem and that’s a totally different thing.
Fungus has a much finer pattern.

I have seen fungus growing on an old pharmaceutical bottle from late 19th century. It had the same appearance. It was not coated. It was not balsamed either.
But then, different people see different things. Only physics is everlasting. Have you seen water from Mars?

alex from holland
22-Nov-2017, 09:04
You win. Good luck!
Next time check what was being used in the pharmaceitical bottle...��

Louis Pacilla
22-Nov-2017, 10:01
With respect, you should learn to recognize invincible ignorance and ignore it.

Hey Brother Dan! Agreed & Just added one more to the Ignore list. :rolleyes:

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 11:12
Not convinced by your examples!
The long restoration says "the fungus was cleaned off with alcohol" - which is my experience too!

Time to restore your reading comprehension skills, Steven if you want to have an honest intellectual debate. The fungus was cleaned in this way - "Fortunately, much of this material was removed by a determined cleaning with Windex on a Q-tip."
Windex is not just alcohol. 5% of it is ammonia, not to speak about the other potent stuff in it. A determined cleaning with Windex for something "not attached to the lens surface"? Where was the fungus, right over the surface in elevation?
Perhaps Rand Collins MD - Author of Through A Vintage Lens - knows how to recognize fungus better than you can from a picture?

Pfsor
22-Nov-2017, 11:15
You win. Good luck!
Next time check what was being used in the pharmaceitical bottle...��

Why? The bottle was empty for tens of years, open to the outdoor weather and the fungus was on its outer surface. It had nothing to do with the inside of the bottle.