Rolleiflex SL66 fish-eye: questions about the condition of a used lens which I bought

[david_haardt1]

<p>

Hello,

</p>

 

<p>

I bought a Rolleiflex SL66 Oberkochen Opton F-Di 3.5/30 HFT from a

German dealer for about 1000 euros which is quite a good price I

think.

</p>

 

<p>

However, there are two problems with the lens:

</p>

 

<p>

1. There are fingerprints on the very back element (I couldn't see

fingerprints anywhere else). I suppose this problem should be OK to

deal with? Any ideas how I could get rid of them?

</p>

 

<p>

2. When looking into the lens from the front, one can see

two "rings", the outer one shiny (looks like the paint got off) and

the inner one brown/matte. See a photo which I took at <a

href="http://haardt.net/transfer/2005-12-20- 0001_small.jpg"

target="_blank">http://haardt.net/transfer/2005-12-20-

0001_small.jpg</a> Is this lens falling apart? What are these rings?

Are they harmful? Could problems develop in the future?

</p>

 

<p>

My overall question is whether the lens is worth it or whether I

should return it. I would be immensely grateful for any advice.

</p>

 

<p>

Best wishes,

</p>

 

<p>

David

</p>

[david_haardt1]

<p>

Sorry, the correct web address is <a href="http://haardt.net/transfer/2005-12-20-0001_small.jpg" target="_blank">http://haardt.net/transfer/2005-12-20-0001_small.jpg</a>

</p>

 

<p>

David

</p>

[jean-louis llech]

Hard to see with a so small image, but it looks like if there was some rust on metallic rings (Retaining rings of the glass elements ?)<br>

I am not a specialist of "lens diseases", but it looks like if the lens had remained during a very long time in a moistened or even wet atmosphere, like in a cellar.<br>

No fungus ?<br>

About fingerprints, they are sometimes a bit acid, and if they stay on the glass for a long time, they can damage the coating.<br>

If they have been on the lens for a long time, they will be difficult to remove.<br>

[john_stockdale2]

Fingerprints are not a good sign. It means a lack of respect by someone who should know better. Fingerprints that are recent can be cleaned with normal lens cleaning solution, after blowing off any dust, of course. If the fingerprints have been there for a long time, then there is often a reaction with the coating, so that even when the fingerprint is cleaned off, it is still visible as a change/removal of the coating (and maybe into the glass surface itself!). Damage to rear elements are very important: they can have a big effect on picture quality. I would communicate with the vendor fast, just in case you need to return it. Perhaps ask the vendor how to clean it.

 

Are those scratches on the front element, or just an artefact of the photo? Look with a magnifier and a strong directional light.

 

I'm not sure what you are describing about the interior rings. Is there any discoloration of the edge of the glass elements, which can be delamination of cemented elements? Or is it that the surfaces of the rings are of irregular appearance (suggesting perhaps corrosion etc)?

 

Have you taken some pictures in challenging light, that would reveal a high degree of flare or low contrast?

 

The rings are to hold the many elements in place. Have a look at the diagram for the elements in this lens at www.sl66.com. If there is not a diagram for this lens, there is one for the 40mm Distagon, which will give you an idea of what goes into these things (and why they are expensive!)

[david_haardt1]

Many thanks for your answers.

 

About the rings: the outer ring looks as if the black paint was scratched off. I am less sure about the inner ring: here, on can see many many very small brown dots (all over the ring, except on one segment). Looks a bit like I would imagine lens cement to look like but I don't have any experience in that area. The lenses themselves are not discoloured or anything.

 

Yes, there are some small scratches on the front lens but most of what can be seen on the photo is just dust. I received the lens only a short while ago and haven't cleaned or tested it yet.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

[dan_fromm2]

Schneideritis, flaking/bubbling of paint. I've had Biogons with it. Usually harmless, caused more by evil spirits (and the maker having used the wrong paint) than by humidity.

[david_haardt1]

Dan, thanks to you as well!

 

I will try to make better photos of the phenomenon -- not as easy as I thought but perhaps I'll try to use Polaroid films with a reverse-mounted 2.8/80 on the SL66 to get better macro shots than with my digital camera.

 

I've just spoken to the dealer and he said that a full refund would be no problem. So it's really just a matter of whether I should keep it like this or not... Difficult ;)

 

Best wishes,

 

David

[david_haardt1]

(Of course I'll also take some test shots with the fish-eye itself as soon as possible -- maybe that'll give some useful insights as well.)

[john_stockdale2]

"Looks a bit like I would imagine lens cement to look like but I don't have any experience in that area. The lenses themselves are not discoloured or anything."

 

The lens cement is normally invisible: it joins two elements into a single unit. It is only visible when it breaks down, usually starting at the edges, and is visible as an irregular area, or ring, of reduced transparency and some discoloration. So you don't seem to have this problem.

[david_haardt1]

<p>

Hello John and everybody else,

</p>

 

<p>

I've now made a much better and larger photo of the phenomenon:

</p>

 

<p>

<a href="http://haardt.net/transfer/corrosion_large.jpg" target="_blank">http://haardt.net/transfer/corrosion_large.jpg</a>

</p>

 

<p>

The flash of course emphasises the rings somewhat, especially the outer ring. In my opinion, the outer ring quite clearly seems to be corrosion. But take a look at the inner ring, at what I wrongly believed to be lens cement -- looks weird, doesn't it?

</p>

 

<p>

I'd be grateful to read your comments.

</p>

 

<p>

Many thanks to all of you,

</p>

 

<p>

David

</p>

[roland_haid]

I. It is hard to avoid fingerprints on the 30mm Distagon because of large front lens diameter and the backfocus filter attachment. Does it came with a full filter kit? At least the UV(neutral) filter should be there.

 

II. The lens does not contain internal steel parts other than the aperture blades, so that is not rust. Neither Aluminium nor Brass does have corrosion problems, so that is more a cosmetic problem. The 30mm Distagon is not prone to flare, so some shiny parts inside will not cause problems.

 

III. The lens itself is expensive and somewhat rare (for Rolleiflex SL66), so you might consider an inspection from the original manufacturer, Zeiss is offering to work on older lens. It might cost less than you think. Zeiss will bring it to new spec and check adjustemnt of the parts.

[david_haardt1]

Hello Roland,

 

Thank you for your insights.

 

The lens includes UV filter, front and back caps, but not the three colour filters.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

[david_haardt1]

Hello everybody,

 

Just to keep you updated: I've taken a first Polaroid with the lens and there is what I would call an unusual amount of flare in the area of the spotlights in the room of which I took the photo. Therefore I decided to return the lens to be on the safe side. Well, maybe I'll find a better one at some point in my life! ;)

 

Many thanks for all your help again and season's greetings,

 

David

[jean-louis llech]

David,<br>

you can send your large photo and the small ones by email to Paepke, in D�sseldorf (Germany).<br>

As they are one of the best - and probably the best - specialists of Reoleiflex in the World, they can say you what are exactly these rings.<br>

<a href="http://www.paepke-fototechnik.de/index1.htm">Paepke web site</a> and email address : paepke-fototechnik[at]gmx.de (Just replace [at] by @)<br>