Graflex.org

RichS · Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2003 6:08 am Post subject:

I've just gotten a 'new' lens and it's got a problem. Before I get a hundred (or none) lousy answers on a news group, I thought I'd ask the folks here first...

This lens has a rear group of two lenses glued together. Looking at the lens at arms length, it looks like it's a bit hazy. Looking through a loupe, it's worse. Hundreds of tiny dots. Worse yet, dozens of the dots have branched into trees leaving tracks. The odd thing is that it's much worse in the center with almost nothing at the edges. I didn't think fungus attacked between glued elements? Is this fungus or seperation? Any clues?
Next question. Does anyone know if this would be repairable at a cost that would be worthwhile? The lens is an old Kodak Aerostigmat f/5.0 12 inch (305mm). Overall, it looks like a great lens and is huge. And it could probably be used as-is with maybe a 'softer' focus. But if the rear element could be fixed, it might be a great lens?
Thanks for any info. And if anyone remembers "my last LF purchase", well, we all knew better

Rich...

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

RichS · Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:11 pm Post subject:

I know "worthwhile" is objective at best. I was hoping someone would know approximatly how much such a repair would go for. And whether or not fungus can attack between cells like that? If the glass surface is damaged then a repair wouldn't help. If it's just seperation, then it's just a recementing job. Although either way it would probably get worse with time...

And, I plan on using it with it's shutter. An Alphax Synchromatic complete with X sync and shutter speeds that are right-on. The shutter is only about 4 1/2 inches in diameter with a 3 1/8 mount. The shame is that the rest of the glass is just about perfect. Although this is the oly lens I have with a few air bubbles in the glass.

I doubt it's rare, but I can honestly say that I've never seen one before. And it came with a system. Returning everything just for the lens wouldn't be good. I'm happy overall and this lens is useable as is, but if the cost isn't too high then getting it fixed would be nice. I just hate to see old things like this die... And I did read an article on doing the recementing. Some people say it's easy, some say "never attempt this at home"

vic valis · Joined: 21 Nov 2001 Posts: 247 Location: San Francisco

Go to the site of S.K. Grimes. I'm sure having someone clean and repair it for you will be expensive, but his site also has plenty of free advice on it; specifically, I recall a section on lens seperation, the cements used, this sort of thing. He might also have ideas on cleaning fungus. Small things you might be able to do at low cost to make the lens usable.

jeff

_________________
That money talks,
I'll not deny.
I heard it once;
It said "good-bye."

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

It does sound like fungus. I have yet to see separation start in the center, and in modern lenses it usually shows up first as large concentric rings.

While I encourage to look at Steve's website
[link]http://www.skgrimes.com/popsci/index.htm[/link] to get an idea of what's involved, Steve won't be doing any work for a while. You might want to find Ken Hough's website and talk to him.

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

RichS · Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 12:08 am Post subject:

And it looks like fungus too

I've just never heard of fungus inbetween cemented cells like this before, so I was hoping it might just be separation of some sort. If it truly is fungus, there's probably already etching of the glass and not worth fixing.

Last time I was at Steve's site looking around, I think I saw a mention of not doing recementing any more? I'll have to recheck. I did find Ken's web site about Deardorfs. I didn't see any mention of his lens repairing, but an e-mail would find that out. Unfortunately, during the search, I also found out that apparently many people have complained about bad and unethical sevice from him. How reliable those words are is just as questionable?

As to the size of the shutter. That's not a bad idea! There's a lot of things that could have been done with LF that never were. Why not one shutter with bayonet mount lenses for quick changes? Why not zooms too? Anyway...

And for Focalpoint. I have seen there site and read through quite a lot of their stuff. They pretty much say straight up that they offer a professional, and expensive service that most would probably not be willing to afford. By their own advertising, I would look to other sources first.

So maybe I'll try to get rough quotes from Ken and Focalpoint for the recementing (and anyone else I can find). And also look for those articles/info on doing it at home. The newer UV glues are easily obtainable and allow much easier aligning because it doesn't harden by itself. It couldn't cost (much) more to recement the lens after I mess it up

I would just have to find a solvent for the probable balsam that's holding it together now to clean it up. And find out how to tell if it's balsam or something newer in there now? Or maybe just use the lens until it fogs over completely? I really hate to see it die though... I also hate things I can't fix/do myself, so this may just turn into one of those projects...

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

Jonathan Bundick · Joined: 06 Apr 2002 Posts: 20 Location: Texas

Steve Grimes recemented the rear elements of my 162mm Raptar for a little less than $150 including shipping about 18 months ago. It came back looking like new, and is pin sharp. I don't know who to give the credit to, the lens or Steve.

Costs for different glass will vary, so ask. I got an estimate in a day, and the price didn't change one penny. Only you can determine if it is worth the cost.

RichS · Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 5:31 am Post subject:

Wow, now there's some interesting info. Combined with my net search for Aerostigmats (which oddly didn't bring up that link) shows that rear element "fog", "haze" and "seperation" is very common on this lens. Other things I've seen are that it's pretty well regarded and that mine is also coated with the blueish tints. And since there's no sign of cleaning marks on the front or rear surfaces, maybe a hard coating. Mine is an "EE" by the way. Deffinitely not one of those monster Aero lenses. More like a commercial ektar but heavier and bigger.
So Richard Knoppow seperated his in plain hot water? Course it doesn't say anything about getting them back together again

I may have to 'play' with this element after all. I would love to do at least one recementing myself...
Thanks!!!

And Jonathan, thanks for the info on the recementing cost. Gives me a ballpark figure anyway and something for my mind to work with. I'd have to say it's not worth that much now. But after I use the lens and see the results it may be worth it. From the looks of it, finding such a lens in prime condition would cost quite a bit more than the recementing...

Sorry to hear about Steve. I hope he recovers as he's such a resource to so many people...

More to ponder....

[ This Message was edited by: RichS on 2003-04-12 22:37 ]

Springback · Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 3:33 pm Post subject:

FWIW, I've got the same lens and it is a sweet piece of(heavy) glass! They aren't really that rare or bring very high prices, additionally many, if not most, were factory coated. Among aerial lenses, I think they are among the best of their vintage and have held up better than the aeroektars which are "hot"-radio-active-and most are yellowed, it is believed, from radio active damage. As for your Aerostigmat, I'd be worried that any work that might be needed would make recoating neccesary, which would be fiendishly expensive. IMHO, I'd shop around for a new aerostigmat if indeed you've got a use for one. I think I've seen them at surplus outfits for $150. I doubt if you could get it fixed(if posible) for that. For a garden variety camera, I'd also be afraid that this lens is way too heavy. You might want to take a look at a 12" f4.5 Ilex Paragon ("S" series, I think) a low cost, more practical alternative. Good luck!