What's this on the lens

[malum]

I was pointed over here from Fred Miranda
I have a Rodenstock Sironar 1:5,6 f=210mm lens and it has some strange happenings on.
Does anyone know what it is? (see pic)
It's been in storage for some time (15 years odd)

I should add that I know nothing of large format cameras (don't burn me at the stake please) I had to ask what the hell the lens was over there. I intend to sell it assuming that whatever is wrong with it isn't terminal



Thanks for your time

[Jim Galli]

Looks like it IS terminal. Your lens has glass elements that are cemented together. What is happening is that it is decementing. Cost to repair is typically more than the lens is worth. Don't despair completely though. The shutter still has some value even if the lens is junk (looks like it is). I will offer $125 for the lens as is if the shutter looks OK, and there may be others here that would offer more.

[Photomax]

That is "lens separation" and like Jim says, its "BER", beyond economical repair...
I had a lens do that but the positive thing is I now have a very sturdy paper weight...

Max

[GSX4]

I have never seen a lens seperation before, and it is rather unfortunate. It does look like some sort of an eye though in this picture.

[Gene McCluney]

While lens cement separation "is" fixable in many cases, as previous posters have commented, in a very common modern lens such as this, the value of the repaired lens is not as great as the cost to fix it. Usually the lenses that get fixed are the rare early brass lenses that many photographers like to use for matching the "look" of 19th century photography, and for which there is no modern equivalent. The shutter your lens is mounted to has value, but if you sell this lens, you should price it just for shutter value, as the lens itself is basically junk.

[Patrik Roseen]

This seems more common to Rodenstock lenses than eg Schneiderlenses in my experience. Anyone who knows the story?

[malum]

Thanks for the input all.
Shame about the lens.
I am interested in selling the shutter and if $125 is a fair price and nobody else has the irresistible urge to offer me more then I'm game.
I am in the UK BTW but I am coming to the States briefly on Saturday so I could bring it and post it from there. I may not have time to get organized with that though

I have some other bits that some of you LF folk might be interested in. I need to check out what they are exactly, I think it's the camera itself and it has another lens on it. I haven't looked at these for condition yet though.

[Jim Galli]

Contact me at jimgalli at lnett(LNETT) dot com. Maybe we can work something out. US Post Offices have "flat rate" shipping boxes for about $9 US to anywhere here. That might work out nicely.

[Richard Kelham]

This seems more common to Rodenstock lenses than eg Schneiderlenses in my experience. Anyone who knows the story?

I have a couple of lenses with balsam faults – though not as bad as this one as they are still useable. As it happens they are both Rodenstock. I had put it down to coincidence, but perhaps it isn't?



Richard

[SamReeves]

That image enough to scare me. Yea, a paperweight is in your future.