Odd lens issue - schneideritis? Help me out here.

[dave_parry]

<p>This is a quick one for all the schneider heads.<br /> <br /> I've just got hold of a 90mm angulon, mid '60s vintage, obstensibly good condition, but theres something round the outer rim of the glass that I can't really establish what it is (see attached photo). Its around the edge of glass, inside, front and back, yet seems to be where the glass meats the inner metal. looks to be on a bit of the glass that isn't used for imaging, so I'm not really concerned about that, just that since i've bought this with a guarantee I want to know if its anything that could seriously effect the value upon resale etc, or if its perfectly normal.<br /> <br /> Anyone any ideas? Doesn't look like balsam seperation to me since it just looks different to balsam example i've seen in the past, plus its not at a glass-glass interface . Doesn't really look like fungus either, at least no fongus i've ever seen - there is no classic fungus brank-like filamenting and the rest of the glass in the light path is fine and clear, its entirely restricted to where the glass meets in interior front or back facing black metal. It did think this could be so-called Schniederitis, the white interior flocking dots you see mentioned, but it doesn't really look like what you'd expect this to look like, plus its silver coloured not white. But then again having never seen a lens in person with this problem I couldn't say. This is where I'm hoping the experience of those on this forum can help.</p><div></div>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>Just grasping at straws here but it looks like maybe a lens coating started to come off. But I have zero idea other than that as I've never seen that.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>If the lens is returnable you should return it. Schneideritis usually refers to bubbles that may form on the inside of the barrel over time, probably from extreme weather conditions. This may or may not be that problem, but it is not going to get better, maybe it will get worse.</p>

[sattler123]

<p>I agree with Bruce - this is pretty bad already and it can only get worse.</p>

[erie_patsellis]

<p>that is definately not Schneideritis. Schneideritis has zero effect on image quality, and virtually every Schneider lens from the late 70's/early 80's onward shows varying degrees of it.<br>

I have several examples that I or others I know have owned since new, never abused (and in my case, never taken out of climate controlled studio conditions as well) and they all show dgrees of it.<br>

At some point Schneider changed the paint that they use to blacken the edges of the cells, and it just plain doesn't adhere as well as the old tried and true lacquers (which likely have been illegal to use after the time they changed them, and probably the reason for the change).</p>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>I've got the same issue with the 300 mm symmar s convertible the paint fell off and even dance around between the elements. I sold off the thing to China. :-) It's defenetely not separation of the elements.</p>

[friedemann_pistorius]

<p>Simply put, return it and get a better one.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Looks like bad lens separation to me. I've had newer ones that quickly have lens separation, but not this bad. I would think it would have to affect the quality with light bouncing around the barrel. I'd try shooting into the sun with the elements shaded and see what it looks like.</p>

[dave_parry]

<p>Word - cheers for the appraisals fellas. I'll send it back - like one of you said, whatever it is it certinaly ain't going to get any better. I'm a bit peeved that the place selling it just described it as Exc+ condition, when they are usually very good as declaring issues - i've bought stuff from them dirt cheap before with declared optical "issues" that turned out to be 99.9% mint. I'll just keep my eyes open for a better example. I suppose this is a lesson on why its better to buy from a dealer than ebay, especially when you're talking about 40+ year old lenses.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Why not look for a lens that more then cover 4x5 rather then one that just, if it really does, cover 4x5?</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_parry]

<p>Because I don't need a lens that more than covers 4x5, I need a cheap sharp light wide angle thats readily available and covers 6x12 and 6x14 with no movements. Thanks.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>But compared to a Super Angulon or a Grandagon it is not a "sharp" lens. But it is cheap. So are SA and Grandagon older f8 (SA) and 6.8 (Grandagons) but they fully cover and are sharper.</p>

[sg_adams]

<p>Read this:<br>

<a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/AngSSXL.html">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/AngSSXL.html</a></p>

<p>Some of these old 6.8 Angulons are quite good. The one I hang onto is really good and glass is perfectm. There area lot of them out there, but they dofall into the vintage lens catagory, which means they are not all equal, and there's no telling how they have been stored or handled, and what condition the shutter maybe in. But I've found with the Angulons, like the Xenar tessars, Schneider was pretty consistently putting out high quality glass. Can't say that about a few of their other lenses I've tried. I recently did some buying and selling of 65mm wides for my 2x3 backpacking rig and the two best lenses I received and tested against a Nikkor 65mm SW were the tiny little 6.8 65mm version of the Angulon. Both out performed the big Nikkor F4 lens for sharpness and image quality for the style of landscapes I use a 65 for. Wide open and coverage the Nikkor is in that modern fast MC wide angle catagory, but it wasn't worth a dollar at f~8 or smaller apertures. On top of that, the Angulons are compact, lightweight, and inexpensive. They are easy to focus with sharp images at 6.8 on the view screen (try composing a predawn shot in the dark with a f~8 SA lens, not imposible but not fun either), and perform best when stopped down to f~11, and probably best at 16. Like Bob suggests, the 90 Angulon is coverage challenged, I always try and leave a little room to crop in just little form the edges anyways. </p>

[dave_parry]

<p>"But compared to a Super Angulon or a Grandagon it is not a "sharp" lens. But it is cheap. So are SA and Grandagon older f8 (SA) and 6.8 (Grandagons) but they fully cover and are sharper."</p>

<p>They all cost around 2-5 times what a plain angulon costs, are many times the weight, and much larger. As I said above, not notion of "full coverage" assumes I'm shooting 4x5 and need movements which as I've said I'm not. I'm sure a sharp copy of the angulon is easily sharp enough stopped down (see various lens test results online), as many users have testified. I'm sure there are even more expensive lenses that under certain circumstances would render your lens suggestions as relatively not sharp, or relatively limited coverage too. So thanks for the advice, but I don't really want a discussion on lens choices, I know what I need and I know what lenses meet that need. Thanks.</p>

 

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p><!-- @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --><br /> Okay, I went thought of my arsenal of lenses and find two typical separations of the elements but, I don't know how to photograph the ting for you to see it. Any attempt failed but I would try again and if I got a pick which demonstrate it well I will put it up for you to see.<br /> And I agree with SG the old angulons in many cases outperform modern lenses. I have a lot of them in use and have no issues except that one lens which I mentioned earlier with the paint. But I brought another one which is the same lens. :-) That much I thrust the the earlier Schneiders. I don't see the meaning of changing those to a newer lens. It's the same with some of my Goerz too.<br /> But of course its my opinion and my personal taste. If I remember than somebody mentioned here some time ago (I think it were Ole but I'm not 100%) that un or single coated lenses still best for B/W work.<br /> I have told you onces here that the friend of mine tested an old Goerz and some new coated lenses on color (on Fuji film) and we could hardly see any difference.</p>

 

[razzledog]

<p>It looks to me like some kind of fungus or corrosion caused by humidity or dampness. Have you unscrewed the front cells and had a look around the perimeter? It almost resembles the lichen found on a tiled roof..but I'm fairly sure it's not separation or Schneideritis. Cheers.</p>

[dave_parry]

<p>When looked at under a loupe it did look kinda-metallic in nature, and only where the glass is in contact with the metal, so I suppose it could well be corrision of some form - you'd think corrosion would be impossible unless the glass had also seperated from the metal (can metal corrode with no air contact?) so it could well be indicative of some other underlying problem. Its irrelevant now anyway since its gone back to the shop. Thanks for the replies.</p>

[sg_adams]

<p>Just try a couple more, and I bet one of them is exactly the thing you need. That's what I did with the wide 65's I tried, examined and cherry picked. Ended up with a beautiful 6.8 65 and a 8 SA 65, and mademoney selling off the rest, so it can be fun too. <br>

Good luck with the project ! </p>

[brian berry]

<p>I had an old Ross once that looked like this. The culprit in that case was salt spray, and I was the villain. I used it in a storm at the shore and two weeks later, when I thought to clean it, it looked like this. That was an uncoated lens, but it did have a bloom, and when I polished it down (I used the plastic polish that scanner operators used) I could see the pitting with a magnifier in raking light. The lens was no worse afterward...that is, it never was much of a performer, and that's why I took it out in a storm in the first place.</p>