dave_s Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 <p>Just for interest-- check these listings (just finalized) on the hated auction site-- the numbers were 150492739374 and 150492735129. Some of you may have been watching them.</p> <p>Both these lenses appear to be in new condition, with the original blue/white boxes and hoods. The first of these is an early 55/1.2 chrome nose aspherical, the one with the blue 'AL' labelling, which is a pretty rare and sought-after trinket. It sold for US$2550. The other is a 24/1.4 aspherical SSC breechlock, which went for a mere $1275.</p> <p>I guess it shows the collectors haven't lost their interest in high-end FD stuff, anyway! Chances are that neither one of the darn things will ever make an exposure, which seems crazy, but I guess it's their money, their lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny_tsang Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 <p>Yea I was the one who got out bid last minute. I plumped down $2500 and it just went over my bid by a mere $50. I think the guy who won might have had a maximum bid of up to $3000. I'm sad ='[</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 <p>Sorry for your loss Johnny<g>. Those are two remarkable lenses. They also have an amazing Nikkor 85mm f/1.5 RF lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 <p>I was following the auction of the 55/1.2 AL out of curiosity. The oddest thing was that the lens does not appear to be a chrome nose, at least judging by the only picture of the lens without it's hood attached. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the protrusive ring at the front of the lens seems to have a black finish, not a chrome one.</p> <p>Unlike Johnny, I actually feel good about the auction. It means that the $600 I paid a few years ago for my 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical was a good deal. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_janes Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 <p>Mark, it looks like a chrome ring to me...<br> On that 55/1.2 AL, I wonder how much glass browning has occurred? A few years ago I got to examine an otherwise immaculate example with optics resembling rootbeer bottle glass, and light transmission far less than the original f/1.2 design. It was much worse than my somewhat yellowed pair of 35/2s, which are still very useful (and super contrasty!) for black & white work. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 <p>Rick, is glass browning of the FD 55/1.2 AL/Aspherical a common problem with that lens? Do you know the cause? The reason I'm asking is that the glass of my copy of the SSC Aspherical seems to have a slightly orangy yellow tinge. I know that the lens does not have a thoriated element like the 35/2 concave, so I'm wondering why its glass is a little discoloured.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 <p>Addendum to my last post: I checked my 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical last night, and I noticed that its glass also has a slight tinge. So I guess that it's just a characteristic of these early aspherical lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_janes Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 <p>Mark, here's a pertinent thread from a couple years back referring to FD 55/1.2 Asphericals having a mildly radioactive glass element (probably containing thorium):<br /> <a href="../canon-fd-camera-forum/00NufL">55mm F/1.2 aspherical radioactive - a big surprice - Photo.net Canon FD Forum</a><br /> On that thorium content (a very low percentage of the glass in any case), it would be comprised almost entirely of the Th-232 isotope which accounts for almost 100% of naturally-occurring thorium. Th-232's half-life is 14 billion years, in most cases alpha-decaying to radium-228; the alpha particle itself is quite energetic at over 4 MeV but its high mass and electric charge makes for extremely low penetrating power and short range! On rare occasions an atom of thorium-232 will let its hair down and undergo spontaneous fission (SF). Those events, and the secondary ionizations from alpha decays, will generate some small amounts of gamma / beta radiation as well. <br /> Radiological threat to a user is non-zero, but very close to nil if not ground up and snorted.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 <p>Thanks for the recollection, Rick. I actually participated in that thread. The upshot at the time was that while the earlier 55/1.2 AL may have a thoriated element, the later SSC Aspherical does not. Mine is a 1976 copy of the latter.</p> <p>Lindy mentions in that earlier thread that the later lens simply has amber coatings. Perhaps this explains why the glass my 1976 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical has a similar colour cast. In both cases, it's the outer surfaces of the elements that have the amber cast, which implies that it's the coatings.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now