Schneider Super Angulon F8 90mm, Is There An Issue?

<p>Hi, I'm trying to sell this lens for a professional photographer, I know the shutter speeds are inconsistant, but I also noticed something else, there seems to be what appear to be like, droplets of murcury in between two of the elements, it could be the way the lens is designed, but it doesn't look right... I'm still a relitave rookie when it comes to photography, so I have no idea whats going on here.<br>

Help would be greatly appriciated, a picture of the lens in question is below:</p>

<p><img src="http://i33.tinypic.com/c0oaq.jpg" alt="" width="454" height="341" /></p>

 

<p>This is sometimes called "Schneideritis", it is deterioration of the cement between lens elements which seems to start at the extreme periphery and can stay this way without spreading for a long time. The lens is therefore likely to remain serviceable for some time and you can sell it, as long as you mention this condition and the fact that the shutter needs a CLA (cleaning, lubrication and adjustment).</p>

<p>Thank you, upon further research, it seems that this issue does not effect image quality (right)?</p>

<p>Actually, I think what the poster above is describing is called "separation" between elements, and can happen to any multi-element lens.</p>

<p>Schneideritis, as I've seen it described before, has to do with a deterioration of the black coating on the outside edge of the lens elements where the element assembly fits into the metal barrel, and seems to happen to Schneider lenses much more often than to others. Most of the Schneider lenses that I have exhibit this to some degree. That has a look similar to what your lens has, but I've never seen it happen at that spot in the lens.</p>

<p>However, the phenomenon in your picture also does not look at all like any separation that I've seen before.</p>

<p>I hope some others with experience observing both phenomena will chime in here!</p>

<p>It doesn't look like separation to me, it looks like Schneideritis, and it does not affect the image quality. It happens on all Schneider lenses I've ever owned. I have only a 210mm Apo Symmar that is around 10 years old, that it has not happened with... yet. It looks bad, but doesn't hurt the image quality.</p>

<p>Schneideritis appears as flat white spots upon the inner barrel surfaces. Looking carefully at your photo...the "spots" appear more like small bubbles - formed within the margins of what appears to be edge separation. Basically, someone needs to unscrew the lens cells to take a closer look. </p>

<p>I'm 99% positive that this is the early stages of "schneideritis"! This is the bubbling of the coating on the internal surfaces - metal and not glass. It can affect resale value but so many people now know that it is little more than cosmetic that prices of afflicted lenses still hold up - especially the more unusual focal lengths. 90mm is a fairly common lens so there may be some room for negotiation!!</p>

<p>Here I never have heard much about "schneideritis" until getting on Photo.net where many worry about looks over function.! :)<br>

<br /> In LF my old 210mm F3.5 Xenar in barrel from early 1950's doesnt have this issue; nor does a mid 1930's 12cm F6.8 Angulon; or 1950's 90mm F6.8 Angulon ; or 300mm F3.5 Xenar from 1970's; nor my TLR's 75mm F3.5 Xenar; nor 80mm F2.8 Xenota; or 1930's Kodak Retina 5cm F3.5 Xenars.<br>

<br /> I have seen others 90mm F6.8 Angulons that have separation; and some Zeiss Planars and Kodak Ektars too.<br>

<br /> Resale value drops whether the concern is absurd or real; the mindset on photo.net seems to be mostly on cosmetics; where what is really needed is an actual image created with the target lens.<br>

The same thing happens on shovel.net; folks worry about a scratch on a shovel; and thus worry about shovelitis.<br>

Even with some separation or scratches many lenses and shovels work ok. The looks over function worry creates a great value for a buyer; it is a good poker gambit if one wants to snowball a dumb seller; but abit dishonest. Visual flaws my or not make any difference at all; a better looking lens can shoot worse than one that folks crave taht visually looks great.<br>

The sad thing is that many older lenses ; engines; cameras are far better not fixed/repaired/cleaned to fix cosmetic worries; old Kilroy often will leave out things in the fix; or assemble it back together wrong.<br>

In camera repairs I have seen where folks have flipped around elements and gotten the shims in the wrong place and the resultant lens has a far worse performance.<br>

Shooting some actual images is what matters; ie what tool is going to be used for. A flakey shutter is going to depress a lenses worth to me more versus some cosmetic flaws; taht may or not be an issue. With time old grease has its oil boil off; ie outgass and one gets a gummy shutter; and sometimes CRUD that covers the lenses surface. This wiff of old oil can be too what others see as a flaw; a misty layer of oil from the diaphram and shutter. Sometimes Kilroy or Goober squirts lighter fluid in a lens to make a quick sale at a camera swap meet; thent eh lens later gets more cloudy and shutter gummy.</p>

<p>For what its worth - my 120 Super Angulon has a zone of element separation...which shows up as a concentric "silvery" ring on one of the smaller, inner elements. And yes, I do notice that this can cause (depending on light) noticable flare wide open (f/8) - but all is well by f/11. This 120 and my 305 G-Claron also exhibit the white "schneideritis" patches - which don't seem to have an effect on image quality...and yet, I'm guessing that under very specific lighting conditions, there may be an effect.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong...I'm basically on the same page with the above poster who reminds us to "just get over it." But I cannot help wondering why, whether or not this anomaly makes any difference, Schneider hasn't been able to figure this one out. </p>

<p>Schneideritis can look a lot like little bubbles around the barrel, which is what this image appears as to me, on my monitor.</p>

<p>Just for the record, as an ex-pro photographer and picture-taker for over 55 years, I disagree totaly with Kelly Flanagan. It is extremely important to have haze or mold cleaned from a lens as soon as you notice it - even if you find lens performance acceptable at that time, it is highly likely that mold if present will spread rapidly and attack internal glass surfaces to the point where they are pitted beyond repair and the lens is junk. Of course an incompetent repairer can makes mistakes - best to use a professional who knows what they're doing!<br>

Naturally if a lens has a fault which is essentially cosmetic, which is not likely to get worse quickly and whose effect can be counteracted by stopping down (which is the case with many examples of separation), it can safely be left. Very few repairmen will de-cement, clean, repolish, re-coat and re-assemble lens groups and the cost is likely to be prohibitive. Furthermore Schneideritis is not separation, it seems to affect the cement used to fix lens groups into barrels, and the general opinion is that it can be left, subject to a visual check every now and again to make sure it's not getting worse. In comparison, leaf shutter problems are relatively minor - no matter whether a shutter is sticking or not, if it's been lying around unused for any length of time, assume the speeds will be slow and that a CLA will be required and pay accordingly!</p>