Faulty Rollei filters?

[jim_rais]

<p align="justify">

I bought two used Rollei filters bay 1 for Rolleiflex from a German store. They did not give a description about the

condition of these filters, but only a B+. The Rolleipol appears to have a dried moist circle stain that is not to be

wiped out. It seems that the spot is <i>in</i> the glass layer instead of on the surface. My question is: what do you

think this spot is? It cannot be from a wet bottom cup of coffee put on the filter glass, but why is it so round? Can I

clean it and how? Can I use the Rolleipol without negative consequences to the images taken? I have not tested it

yet. <br>

 

<br>The second problem is the other filter which is supposed to be a UV filter. Compared to the B+W bay 1 UV

(which to my taste has the correct UV glass colour) and the larger Hoya UV glass, the glass of this Rollei-UV is too

yellowish. I suspect that someone has put a yellow filter glass (not necessarily genuine Rollei glass) in the filter ring

marked Rollei-UV. There is also a play between the glass and the ring when I cleaned the glass surface. Also flake

of dried black paint fell off the inside of the ring.<br>

 

<br>I just want to know your opinions first before deciding what to do. Since these filters are absolutely overpriced for

such a condition (Eur. 25.00 for the UV + Eur. 45.00 for the Pol + Eur 17.00 for shipping) I already have written my

objection to the store, but they have not answered yet. Thanks for your opinions.<p><div></div>

[John Seaman]

I've got a Bay 1 polarising filter (not Rollei) which has a similar defect to yours. I think it is due to separation between layers of the filter which seems to have a laminar construction. It may not affect image quality.

 

The UV filter does look too yellow and it appears that someone has substituted a light yellow glass for the original.

[ronald_moravec1]

The pola has separation and is not useable. How someone could rate a filter with separation that high is beyond me. Must be the highschool drop out hired to run the camera store.

 

UV filters made 40 years ago had a distinct yellow cast. I used to use skylights instead.

[jan_b_ttcher]

The "early" Rollei UV-filters were intended for B&W film only (see the "-0,5" for exposure compensation? It's a feature, not a bug) - later on Rollei marketed clear "H1" filters for Tessar and Xenar cameras and claimed no UV filter is needed for Planar and Xenotar.

 

The polarizer shows separation, the seller should have declared that.

[jim_rais]

<p align="justify">

<TT>How someone could rate a filter with separation that high is beyond me.</TT><br>

That's "the problem" with brands such as Rollei, Hasselblad or Leica. Some will sell anything but quality, as long as

it <i>is</i> that brand. With this mentality they will always victimize others. There is always a return policy, but you

always lose twice the shipping cost for nothing as well, plus the insult that photographers are blockheads who will

take anything from <i>that</i> brand without questioning the quality aspects. Luckily, there is always photo dot net

to shed some light :-) <br>

 

<br>This is the first time I have seen a separation of the elements in my entire photographic life, so it is kind of

(expensive) lesson for me. Thanks John, Ronald and Jan for your clear explanation on the matter and your strong

statement about the seller. That's the way how I feel it, too.</p>

[EricBoehm]

Jim: Your Rollei UV looks exactly like mine, same color, etc. I think at least that filter is OK. As mentioned above, they were intended for B&W film.

 

As for the Rolleipol, you definitely received a defective filter there. You may want to try it out before you send it back though. It may just produce a decent image.

[jim_rais]

<p align="justify">

Eric, thanks for your response. Yes, I'm aware now that the earlier Rollei UV was yellowish and is meant for B&W film. I work a lot in colour. As for the defective Rolleipol, it may produce some decent pictures <i>for now</i>, but since separation is a irreversible process, sooner or later it will disappoint me regarding the image quality. It is just a matter of time. That is why I decided to send both filters back to the seller. Now we will wait if I get my money back, but that's another chapter.</p>

[simus]

I had one like yours. I put it in the microwave oven for a while. I set the oven at low power for two minutes. And then I

repeat again for several times. This seemed to work well and the circle became thinner and thinner.

 

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00R/00R6Zy-76979584.jpg

 

Until, in order to accelerate the process I wrongly gave little more power and the glass cooked. Now the circle appear

very thing but it has fading raimbow like cast. I think I might had succeed in fixing it If I had not increased the power.

Now I am going to replace it. I have already asked an optician to cut a larger filter in the new diameter, and It told me it

should be possible. The alternative might be a new glass to be inserted into the ring.

Best,

Antonio

[jimnorwood]

Also flake of dried black paint fell off the inside of the ring.

I also have a filter on which the black paint is peeling off the inside of the ring. Can this be ignored, paint removed ? Or should I true to glue it back (it's like a thin thread of black paint that's peeled off but still attached).

[Bill Bowes]

I have three Yashica Mats which are working cameras. If you do not have a need for some bit of "collector lore", my advice is to get some Bay 1 to 49mm converters and use "modern" filters on the camera. If you have a 35mm camera, or two, about, you most likely have filters for that machine. Use a filter adapter that uses your current filter sets. My working filters were left overs from my K1000 era. Aloha, Bill