PDA

View Full Version : Rodenstok - Separation/De-lamination



IanG
13-Jul-2008, 05:25
Early "Modern" Rodenstock lenses and separation was discussed in a thread about Shneider/Linhof marked lenses. I've started a new thread so as to be more on Topic.


Nonsense. All lenses can separate. Old Rodenstock lenses are no more prone to do so then old Schneider lenses.

We have been the USA distributor for Rodenstock lenses since 1988. Since 1988 we have extended a lifetime warranty on all Rodenstock lenses that we import. Since 1988 we have not received one lens for service covered by our warranty with any sign of separation.

Separation occurs because of handling and storage conditions. A lens that receives an impact may develop a small pinhole in the sealant around the edge of the elements. That small hole can let moisture into the lamination between two elements. That then starts separation in lenses.

Modern lenses are very immune to this effect. All old lenses can have this happen.


Specifically

I would have replied to Bob before but my lens was a continent away, here's two typical examples of Rodenstock separation/de-lamination:
http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/rodenstock004.jpg
http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/rodenstock003.jpg
This is a Linhof selected 150mm f5.6 Sironar, serial number as seen in the image.

While back in the UK I noticed one of my Rodagons an f5.6 210mm Serial no 8808435 had similar de-lamination.
http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/rodenstock002.jpg

Both these lenses have been kept in identical conditions to my similar Schneider lenses. However both were second-hand but the enlarger lens came with 5 others from the same commercial darkroom, all of which are OK although the only Rodenstock is probably newer.

I have numerous LF lenses dating back to the 1880's, although most are modern and the only lenses with any separation are these two Rodenstocks.

Ian

Dan Fromm
13-Jul-2008, 08:52
Ian, FWIW my 58/5.6 Grandagon s/n 5 664 858, ex-Graflex XL, has bad separations in both cells. Bob will reply, rightly, that since the lens is pre-1988 it isn't HP Marketing's problem. It is Rodenstock's problem or Graflex Inc.'s problem. Either way, cold comfort for me.

Cheers,

Dan

IanG
13-Jul-2008, 09:00
Dan, Bob says this never happens !!!!! There are no knocks or dings on my Sironar, and it is "Modern" production, no longer using balsam cement.

But are Rodenstock prepared to admit it occurs ?

Ian

Dan Fromm
13-Jul-2008, 11:17
Ian, to be fair to Bob, he said it hasn't happened since 1988. The VM's Rodenstock chronology dates your Symmar and Rodagon between 1971 and 1974. Not on Bob's watch.

I agree with you that it is shameful that Rodenstock released any lenses with bad cement -- most of the 58/5.6 Grandagons in existence seem to have separations -- and won't make them good. But I'm afraid that seeking redress from Linos is just wasted effort.

Did you ever read that minor classic Cold Comfort Farm? If so, do you remember the bull's name?

Sorry,

Dan

Arne Croell
13-Jul-2008, 11:58
I have a Sironar and an old Rodagon showing separation, too. It is however, not necessarily a sign of sloppy manufacturing. At that time (1960's, 1970's) they no longer used Canada Balsam, but not the UV-curing optical cements of today, either. The most likely cements were a one-component thermosetting cement or a 2 component cement using considerable amounts of solvent. Both versions involved heating of the cemented group to 70°C or similar, and the shrinkage of the cements was much worse compared to the UV-curing ones (after Hank H. Karow: Fabrication methods for precision optics, Wiley, New York 1993). Whether a group separates depends on several factors, including the types of glass (different thermal expansion), the curvature, etc. An example are Voigtländers Heliars and Apo-Lanthars - the post-war Heliars from the 1960's rarely show separation, but it is a common problem with the Apo-Lanthars. The lens type is the same and the radii are similar, too, so in this case the different glass types were probably the reason. It looks like Rodenstocks choice of glass combinations at the time was not optimal for the cements used, but they probably never realized that until years after production. Schneider might have just lucked out that their glass combinations were better for the optical cements of the time. And Rodenstock is in good company - it is common in the Voigtländer Apo-Lanthars, Apo-Skopars and Telomars and in the Zeiss Oberkochen Sonnars for LF (250 and 180mm), too.

Frank Petronio
13-Jul-2008, 13:17
I don't want to pick a fight, but that's a 30-plus year old lens, and while it may have a design similar to the current Sironar, it is still many generations behind anything current. You can't reasonably expect a company to warranty a product multiple times past their stated warranty, especially since it is very likely that you are not even the original owner.

Schneideritis hits that era's Schneiders, de-lamination hits that era's Rodenstocks. Both issues have been widely discussed on the internet. Whether you see the delamination or Schneideritis on other brands or types of vintage lenses probably depends more on their design (older lenses are simpler) and the point of view from which you view the elements.

IanG
13-Jul-2008, 22:33
Frank, I certainly don't expect a warranty on a 30+ year old lens. However you shouldn't see this happening on a lens of any age, kept in reasonable conditions. It's not remotely similar to Schneideritis.

I posted because Bob Salomom asked me for specific information after he said that "Modern lenses are very immune to this effect." I appreciate his involvement with Rodenstock started in 1988, my lens originates from Europe, and has probably never been to North America.

By the 70's most lenses can be deemed "Modern" so it's unfortunate that Rodenstock and from what Arne says some Voightlander and Zeiss lenses suffered this cement problem.

It would be useful to know which of these Rodenstock lenses are susceptible, for instance there's a similar Caltar (Sironar)150mm for sale here in the classifieds at the moment.

My particular Sironar still has some life in it until the separation gets significantly worse, the photograph happens to catch the light at the best angle to highlight the problem, but 99% of the time is very unobtrusive and anyway has no effect on image quality at the moment. The lens has no re-sale value other than for it's shutter.

Ian

E. von Hoegh
15-Jul-2008, 09:00
Well, I think if Rodenstock screwed up, they (not Linos) should offer at least some joy to the owner of the lens.
I have lenses over 100 years of age that show no sign of separation, but then again they are Goerz. I had a $cheiss protar that was nothing but crispy balsam - perfect glass, but unuseable.

Schneideritus is relatively easy to cure - I've done it myself.

Separation is quite a job to rectify, re-cementing a lens is no simple job.

Capocheny
15-Jul-2008, 09:57
Well, I think if Rodenstock screwed up, they (not Linos) should offer at least some joy to the owner of the lens.

I fully agree with E. on this... Rodenstock should be the company that takes responsibility for the problem.

When I first started off in LF, I purchased a used Master Technika and a couple of lenses, one of which was a 90 f4.5. It was de-laminating ever so slightly at one edge. Although I don't know how long he's owned the equipment, the package was in mint condition and the previous owner was absolutely meticulous with regards to caring for his gear. All of his camera equipment was stored in Haliburton cases.

Anyway, the long and short of it was that I contacted Rodenstock in Germany (the Canadian distributors were as helpful as....) and the reply was that they wouldn't repair the lens even after I offered to pay for the service.

Consequently, the elements went out the door and the shutter is still being used.

Cheers

E. von Hoegh
17-Jul-2008, 12:50
Well, I think if Rodenstock screwed up, they (not Linos) should offer at least some joy to the owner of the lens.
I have lenses over 100 years of age that show no sign of separation, but then again they are Goerz. I had a $cheiss protar that was nothing but crispy balsam - perfect glass, but unuseable.

Schneideritus is relatively easy to cure - I've done it myself.

Separation is quite a job to rectify, re-cementing a lens is no simple job.

Oren Grad
17-Jul-2008, 13:08
I fully agree with E. on this... Rodenstock should be the company that takes responsibility for the problem.

The Rodenstock photographic and precision optics business was purchased by Linos in 2000. So for our purposes (i.e., relating to camera lenses rather than eyeglasses) Rodenstock is Linos now.

Don Dudenbostel
17-Jul-2008, 17:06
My brother had a 150 and 210 sironar separate. Both were purchased new in the mid 70's and had very little use. The separation happened in a 5 year period and to the best of my memory Rodenstock replaced them. That was around 1980. This is one of the reasons I never bought Rodenstock. I have Schneider and Nikkor mainly.

Capocheny
17-Jul-2008, 20:23
The Rodenstock photographic and precision optics business was purchased by Linos in 2000. So for our purposes (i.e., relating to camera lenses rather than eyeglasses) Rodenstock is Linos now.

Hi Oren,

Okay... Linos it is. :)

Cheers

Bob Salomon
17-Jul-2008, 20:32
Hi Oren,

Okay... Linos it is. :)

Cheers

Linos was merged last year:

"Monday 18th June 2007, Qioptiq Group from its stand at Laser 2007 (Munich
18-21 June 2007) announced it had completed the necessary legal and
administrative processes for the merger with Linos and that the two companies
will now act as one organisation."

Oren Grad
17-Jul-2008, 20:40
Linos was merged last year:

"Monday 18th June 2007, Qioptiq Group from its stand at Laser 2007 (Munich
18-21 June 2007) announced it had completed the necessary legal and
administrative processes for the merger with Linos and that the two companies
will now act as one organisation."

Yikes, it's getting to be like my bank... :eek:

Bob, how does one pronounce "Qioptiq"?

Kirk Fry
17-Jul-2008, 22:49
Come on folks, I have have had 3 1970's ish Rodenstocks separate. The glue they used was defective. But you really don't expect a company to fix/replace a lens after 30-40 years. The solution is the same one I have chosen to use with Ford when they would not fix my Taurus that blew a head gasket at 78,000 miles. Don't buy another one!

K

E. von Hoegh
17-Jul-2008, 22:55
I was warned in the mid 80s to stay away from Rodenstock.

Now I know why.

But I must say, the Apo Ronars I have used were excellent! (Yes I know they are not a cemented design).

IanG
17-Jul-2008, 23:14
This is only the 18th post on this thread and already we've heard of 11 Rodenstock lenses with separation.

What would be helpful would be an acknowledgement from Linos, or one of the distributors, that these problem occurs and in particular what lenses are likely to be affected. That could easily be done by lens number.

Rodenstock changed their manufacturing techniques sometime in the mid 1970's and as a consequence lenses made since then don't appear to suffer from de-lamination.

Ian

Bob Salomon
18-Jul-2008, 05:55
Yikes, it's getting to be like my bank... :eek:

Bob, how does one pronounce "Qioptiq"?

Very carefully.

Capocheny
18-Jul-2008, 07:40
Linos was merged last year:

"Monday 18th June 2007, Qioptiq Group from its stand at Laser 2007 (Munich
18-21 June 2007) announced it had completed the necessary legal and
administrative processes for the merger with Linos and that the two companies
will now act as one organisation."

Hi Bob, Oren,

Thank you both for the information. :)

Cheers

Dan Fromm
18-Jul-2008, 11:59
QIOPTIQ (ki-optik) The Qioptiq Group is a leading international organisation of world-leading optics companies with locations throughout Europe, ...
www.qioptiq.com/

erie patsellis
20-Jul-2008, 15:42
This is only the 18th post on this thread and already we've heard of 11 Rodenstock lenses with separation.

What would be helpful would be an acknowledgement from Linos, or one of the distributors, that these problem occurs and in particular what lenses are likely to be affected. That could easily be done by lens number.

Rodenstock changed their manufacturing techniques sometime in the mid 1970's and as a consequence lenses made since then don't appear to suffer from de-lamination.

Ian

Add two more, I had an original 150 and 180 Sironar, both seperated, both at least made usable by Rick Oleson's "oil fix". Later ones obviously didnt' have this problem, and it seems odd that a manufacturer in an exceedingly small market (and getting smaller) wouldn't at least acknowledge that "some" of the older lenses did this and as a change was implemented in our production, it won't occur again.

John Kasaian
20-Jul-2008, 16:34
FWIW I haven't seen any manufacturer's lens seperate as badly or as consistently as the Turner Reich Triple Convertable. Put your old Rodenstock next to one and it'll look like a high school sweetheart next to rode hard and put away wet cocktail lounge mare! :D

Jim Galli
21-Jul-2008, 07:43
2 for me. A 210 and a 240. They all are the first generation Sironar convertible that had a very non symmetrical design. For instance a 150mm with the front cell off would be like 420mm or so. Late 1960's to mid 1970's?

E. von Hoegh
21-Jul-2008, 10:09
FWIW I haven't seen any manufacturer's lens seperate as badly or as consistently as the Turner Reich Triple Convertable. Put your old Rodenstock next to one and it'll look like a high school sweetheart next to rode hard and put away wet cocktail lounge mare! :D

I've been told that thr TR TC also had centering issues. Recementing it and getting the centering correct can make a huge difference.

Math
22-Dec-2010, 02:25
I own quite a bit of lenses, and none have this problem, with the exception of two Rodenstock lenses: A 210mm f5.6 Rodagon, and a 180mm f5.6 Sironar. Both around the edges. A 240mm f5.6 Rodagon I previously owned also had this problem. If it wasn't more prone to Rodenstock then to any other brand, then I find it surprising that I've never had a problem with older lenses, even in awful state, but the Rodenstock's do. Granted, serial dates all three before 1988, at 1966.

John Koehrer
22-Dec-2010, 17:24
+1 58mm Grandagon

Dan Fromm
22-Dec-2010, 17:57
My early '60s 58 Grandagon, the late Charlie Barringer's 58 Grandagon, a mid- or late-60s Rodagon I used to have also had bad separations.

So do two of my three Apo-Skopars (serial numbers here http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=58263&page=2&highlight=apo-skopar), so Rodenstock wasn't the only German lens-maker who used the wrong cement in the '60s.

Jim Galli
22-Dec-2010, 18:09
My early '60s 58 Grandagon, the late Charlie Barringer's 58 Grandagon, a mid- or late-60s Rodagon I used to have also had bad separations.

So do two of my three Apo-Skopars (serial numbers here http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=58263&page=2&highlight=apo-skopar), so Rodenstock wasn't the only German lens-maker who used the wrong cement in the '60s.

I concur that the Skopar's from the same era are candidates. My 60cm Skopar is seperated but still usable. My 45,30 and 21cm Skopar's are fine <fingers crossed>

Shen45
22-Dec-2010, 20:02
I had two Rodagon's from the early 70's and both had the separation issues described. However, stopping down past the problem still yielded a wonderful print. I have a mid 60's 150 Symmar that has separation in the front group but doesn't appear to cause any drama despite being quite visible when viewed from the front.

Dan Fromm
23-Dec-2010, 07:06
Re Steve's comment, my badly separated 58 Grandagon actually shoots quite well.

From my narrow parochial perspective, the worst thing about it isn't the separations, it is the #00 shutter.

Sevo
23-Dec-2010, 08:44
Dan, Bob says this never happens !!!!! There are no knocks or dings on my Sironar, and it is "Modern" production, no longer using balsam cement.


Is there any Sironar using balsam cement? I am not aware of the West German optical industry having used Canada balsam on any new design introduced after 1945.

My guess is that the guilty culprit might be early cyanoacrylates - separation mostly occurs in lenses from the sixties (Kodak began to market the first cyanoacrylate in 1958), and cyanoacrylates are inferior glues compared to the epoxy cements used earlier (on the other hand, epoxy can yellow severely and it took half an hour to cure, while cyanoacrylate cures within seconds, eliminating the risk of lenses decentering while set aside to cure).