F 110mm aperture blades

<p>Hi,<br>

I've got an old F series 110mm lens lined up, but it has what might be some and dirt and what might be some slithers in the center of the lens.<br>

Google lead me to the service info pdfs, but I have a few questions that would be useful to know before I ask to have the lens serviced:</p>

<p>1.. It's an old F lens that I'm looking at - are these notes relevant<br>

Is TCC used generically for F series here or specifically for post F lenses > 1990 now known as FE ?.<br>

Only later F lenses can be upgraded to TCC/FE - was this a fault introduced at the same time ?</p>

<p>2.. Anyone had this done to their lens or had an aperture fail and be repaired ?</p>

<p>3.. How much do you think the parts would cost</p>

<p><img src="http://www.donaldingram.com/ForumImages/Info_H110blades.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://www.DonaldIngram.com/ForumImages/H110blades.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Lenses for 2000 series bodies were called "F" lenses.<br>

With the introduction of the first Hasselblad camera with a light measuring system the lenses received data bus and electronic parts.<br>

These were called TCC lenses after the first 200 series camera, the 205TCC.<br>

Later TCC was changed for FE desination and finally only twin blue stripes on F lenses showed it concerned lenses with data bus.</p>

<p>Lenses that have screwed on metal bands containing the distance scale and the aperture information can not be upgraded to data bus spec.<br>

Upgrades are no longer possible because the parts kits for these jobs are no longer available.<br>

The same goes for most other parts of these lenses.<br>

An aperture problem can be solved in most cases simply by cleaning the blades.<br>

New parts are seldom necessary for those jobs.</p>

<p>This particular aperture problem (damaged, not dirty blades) can only be repaired using undamaged blades, of course.<br>

It can be prevented by doing what the service info says: replace (preferably all) aperture blades.</p>

<p>But i wouldn't worry about it too much. It is something that might happen, but not not something that must happen with any pre-1994 110 mm lens. Check the blades the way the Service Info describes, and if they are fine, they are fine. ;-)</p>

<p>The diaphram mechanism of the 110 mm lens in particular (the 150 mm too) is rather complicated, and is more likely to fail than that in other Zeiss lenses. This is due mostly to the large size of the opening, i.e. the little room left for the mechanism in the lens.<br>

The 110 mm has a 'double' diaphragm, with more blades than usual. And that too doesn't help to make it more robust.<br>

And yes, i have had troubles with the apertures in both f/2 110 and f/2.8 150 mm lenses. Both needing repairs (the 110 mm more than once).<br>

Repair wasn't cheap... :(</p>

<p>Yet, i would not want to do without these lenses!</p>

<p>I had problems with my 110/2 shortly after I bought it. It happened once immediately after I bought it, and then again a few weeks after it had been fixed. It was fixed a second time (I believe it was just cleaned and readjusted), and it has operated flawlessly for the last few years. I did not realize that they had fixed this problem with an aperture blade replacement though. I wish I had known that! By the way, my lens is an FE, but appears to be an earlier one. </p>

<p>The clean was finished by the shop before I had called them : so I will go up and see if the mark is on the aperture as described. </p>

<p>I had waited for ages for a 110 F to appear secondhand, so put a deposit down on this one before the clean up.<br>

Now last night I came across an as new 110 FE + 203FE + E12 (all for less than the cost of a new 80 CFE ) which had just arrived in another shop.<br>

Now I have first options on two, so can now be a bit more picky :-) </p>

<p>Do yourself a favor and buy the 203FE/E12 and 110/2 -- they are probably the best combination in medium format. The 203FE is hasselblad's best camera (in my opinion), and the 110/2 is the best lens in medium format. Anyway, that's just my opinion, but it does seem to be shared by most people who have shot with that combination! </p>

<p>Stuart,<br /> The 203FE and 110 FE arrived today - it's stunningly nice :-) a SS body that looks like it's never had the back taken off; lens removed; lens hood or filter fitted in it's life.</p>

<p>However the manual shutter speed ring misbehaves above 1/500s - sometimes jumping to 1/8s or 1/750s instead of 1/1500s or 1/2000s.</p>

<p>So it looks like I will need to keep, the old well worn but cheap, 201F, that I bought last week before this 203FE came up, as a backup once it's back from it's mirror repair. Then I can send the 203FE away for it's warranty repair.</p>

<p>Getting to a 110F lens has not been cheap ... hope it was worth it ... now I will go and develop this lunchtime's film ... and see.</p>

<p>The depth of field is nice and narrow, but the bokeh is not as nice as I would have hoped for.</p>

<p>But my B&W development process has a serious flaw, that I noticed a few films ago but it now beyond a joke. I scrubbed the paterson reels thinking it was contamination, but the marks on the RHS look worse than ever :-(<br>

Any clues ? ( I will also post this in the darkroom forum - to see if anyone else has seen such marks )<br>

<img src="http://www.donaldingram.com/ForumImages/negmarks800.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Yes, the 110 mm tends to produce double contour lines at certain distances.<br>

Still a lovely lens though!</p>

<p>Looks like bubbles of air (too much wetting agent still in the tank, or something else foaming) attached to the film. Was the RHS up in the tank?</p>

<p>I had thought it might be wetting agent - was there a RFF thread recently ?, but I scrubbed the reels and the ball bearings then washed the tank, lid and everything before I did these film. </p>

<p>It's happening on both reels in the tank in the same manner. Both films have the marks on the opposite side from the pips but I will have to check what the up-side on the film is before I take them off the reels next time.<br>

Maybe it's just time to try new reels - I don't want to ruin any more films.</p>

<p>It looks like bromide drag to me. I had the exact same results when I tried low agitation with FX-39. Oddly, it does not happen when I use minimal agitation with Rodinal. Anyway, I don't think you are agitating enough. If you are not doing so already, try agitating the kodak way -- 5 seconds every 30 seconds, rather than the 10 seconds every minute. <br>

As for the 110/2 bokeh...well, I have not really ever had it any other than fantastic, but it does look a little weird in that shot. </p>

<p>Here you can see a similar bromide drag effect:<br>

<img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/baula-bromide-drag.jpg" alt="" /><br>

But here is an example of the 110/2 and the bokeh from it that I like so much:<br>

<img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/malte-hvalfjordur1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>The thread in the B&W forum http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-printing-finishing-forum/00UAIe pointed towards bubbles from over agitation.<br>

So I will first try a more gentle approach to tank inversion and see how it goes.</p>

<p>Your jacket shot shows better bokeh - is that down to having nothing in the middle distance ? </p>

<p>Somewhere I read that the older lenses, without the rear baffles of the newer FEs, might have cleaner bokeh.<br>

My FE lens has the square baffles near the lens mount.<br>

As the F lens I looked at is at a good price, I might still buy it to compare. If there is no different, I can always sell it on.</p>

<p>Thanks for the bubble tip Donald. But I think the agitation probably plays a roll as well. Yes, as you agitate, it creates bubbles, but it also dislodges them. So I think the key should be to do gentle inversions, but then give it a very sharp smack to dislodge any clinging bubbles. <br>

As for your shot's bokeh, I think you just found a difficult background. Background always plays a large role in dictating bokeh. My 110/2 is the older version without the square baffle, BUT, I also have the newer version with a square baffle for the Rollei 6000 system, and I have noticed no difference in performance whatsoever. <br>

Here are some more shots with the 110/2:<br>

<img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/woodpile6.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/hvalfjordur-february-color7.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/selma_fish_17.jpg" alt="" /> <br>

<img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/monkfish-heads.jpg" alt="" /> </p>

<p>I don't really see any problems with bokeh in any of these, and there is detail at middle distances. </p>

<p>Stuart,</p>

<p>Good samples of the special qualities of the 110 lens.<br>

You are right bokeh is not disturbing at all, it is great.<br>

A good reason to use the 110 more often. </p>

<p>Thanks Paul.</p>

<p>Stuart - great pictures ( models and dried fish : can only be Iceland )<br>

And for anyone else who has not looked, a visit to Stuart's website is a must : http://www.stuartrichardson.com/</p>

 

<p>Thanks Donald, glad you like the images. And yes, it is Iceland...I like to hang out with models and dried fish. They are both beautiful to me in their own way. The models smell better though. </p>