How sick is this 90 Angulon?

[David Home]

Hi all.
I got a SK 90/6.8 Angulon in a grab bag of various camera parts I bought.
From the front I can see light bangs of a foggy nature, covering one half of the element.
They seem to be just below the surface of the front element. Deeper 'in' at the corners and quite close to the 'surface' at the center.
They are visible as soft dark bands when I look through the lens from the rear with back lighting. Kind of like parallel curves. On the ground glass, the image looks OK but I haven't exposed any film with it yet.
Is this the dreaded element separation that I have read these lens can suffer from?
Having never seen the problem, I don't know what to look for.
Anyone seen this kind of problem and can describe it for me?
Thanks and regards, David

[David Home]

Ok so the lens has Newton rings.
I'll expose some film and see how it looks.
David

[Ole Tjugen]

That does sound like element separation, yes...

The problem with element separation in Angulons is not that it affects them more than other lenses, or that it affects the image more than on other lenses, but that the end result is the entire inner element(s) dropping off! Only the outer element in each cell is mounted in the barrel, the two inner elements are only held in place by the cement.

[anchored]

David, if you haven't already thought about testing to see how a lens performs, might I suggest shooting as a target either a gridded piece of paper (like a quadrill pad) or a newspaper page in even light? The grids will show lens softness, loss of contrast and barreling far better than any "normal" life-scene will do.

[pandachromatic]

From the thread title, I'd think you were praising this lens.

[David Home]

Thanks for the suggestions I will try photographing a newspaper.
Can this be fixed or is it not worth the trouble?
I only paid $100US for it. Maybe I should just move on.
Regards, dissappointed David

[Toyon]

Not worth an attempted repair, not a very good lens anyway (except, reportedly in very late issue). Use it to add some Sally Mann strangeness to your pictures (unless the result is just boring haziness).

[Ole Tjugen]

Not worth an attempted repair,
Agreed. Use it until it falls apart.

not a very good lens anyway (except, reportedly in very late issue).
I disagree. Most reports of poor performance may stem from lenses that have decentered through faulty storage in hot climates. A well-treated Angulon is a very capable little lens!

Use it to add some Sally Mann strangeness to your pictures (unless the result is just boring haziness).
Or maybe "boring sharpness"?

[erie patsellis]

One idea (that I have used successfully in the past), Rick Oleson posted a fix for Sonnar seperation issues on his website, essentially allowing light oil to wick in from the edge. There's more involved, but can make a nearly junk lens workable.

erie

[Ole Tjugen]

I can't recommend trying the "oil-wicking" trick with an Angulon.

In most other cases it "can make a nearly junk lens workable", but in the special case of Angulon it can hasten the balsam failure making a workable lens total junk.

[Mike1234]

Plenty of information available about out to separate and re-cement... if you're so inclined.

[erie patsellis]

I can't recommend trying the "oil-wicking" trick with an Angulon.

In most other cases it "can make a nearly junk lens workable", but in the special case of Angulon it can hasten the balsam failure making a workable lens total junk.

Forgot that the Angulons have Balsam, you are quite correct Ole. I've used this with some early Sironar's that had seperated as a stop gap measure quite successfully, though they had (early) uv type adhesives.

[Glenn Thoreson]

It is very expensive to have a lens recemented. I do my own, so it only costs for the UV cement and some lacquer thinner. Not something I'd recommend for the faint of heart, the impatient or the easily upset. I have one lens that is severely damaged due to an impact. It looks like an oil slick that covers most of the front. It still performs flawlessly. Schneider had a period when quality control was a big problem. You can find the range of serial numbers that were stinko on the lens test data web site. Can't remember what the site is called. The ones that didn't stink up the place show very good test data. I would strongly recommend running some film past it before doing anything else. It is not worth spending 300 to 400 bucks to have it fixed. If it stinks, look at at this way, you wound up with a nice shutter, and move on. It might surprise you. :D