Separation in early FD lenses?

[astral]

<p>I'm on the final leg of buying a classic FD setup. Two key lenses remain on the wish list: 50mm f1.4 SSC and <em>especially </em> a 24mm f2.8 SSC. My intention is to stick to breechlock lenses and not to be seduced by the later bayonet mount ones.</p>

<p>I understand that the 24/2.8 B/L, in particular, is prone to separation in the rear cemented lens group: I have seen several in this condition. Hence, it is tempting to consider the 24/f2 instead. Two questions arise:</p>

<ul>

<li>is the 24/2 B/L also liable to balsam separation? (At 2.5 times the price of a 24/2.8 I'm not prepared to gamble).</li>

<li>are there other FD lenses that are susceptible to separation, or other chronic deterioration, like oily iris, etc?</li>

</ul>

<p>Many thanks, AC</p>

<p> </p>

[astral]

<p>Actually ..... was the 24mm f2 made in breechmount? Digging around the net I'm not so sure .... ? D'oh!</p>

[jtk]

<p>I got one inexpensively thirty years ago and, depending on mood, it remains my #1 or #2 or #3 lens (with 50 1.4 and 100/2.8) ...I discovered slight evidence of separation around the periphery shortly after I got it...has not changed...it's a great lens at all apertures larger than f/16....ie 2.8 is excellent, f/16 is distinctly soft in corners. If I only had one FD lens, this would be it.<br>

I agree about breech lock. Who wants a plastic lens, after all?<br>

Other than my 24, I've never seen any issue with any other Canon breech lock lens... junque like Vivitar is another story.<br>

I'm about to part cheaply with a pair of F1s and several lenses...can't cope with both SLR and DSLR though will continue with rangefinders (Canon Ps) and DSLR....my DSLR replacement for F1 is Pentax K20D and replacement for the 24/2.8 is 21/3.2 (a pancake, really more like 30mm). I'm looking forward to the promised Pentax 15/4 (the 14/2.8 is too bulky). There's no question that Astia with F1, 4000ppi Nikon-scanned beats 15mp SOMETIMES, or that 15mp beats everything else Nikon-scanned...with the exception of Rodinal-processed B&W :-)</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I have a chrome front 24/2.8 FS SSC lens. There was separation in the rear element group when I bought it. I sent it to Ken Ruth at Photography On Bald Mountain in Davenport, CA. He knew how to separate the elements, re-cement them and overhaul the lens. Even though the lens must date back to about 1972 it is still a very good performer. This was one of Canon's early floating element designs. The fact that my lens has the chrome front and the SSC marking just adds to its novelty factor.<br>

As far as I know there never was a 24/2 breech lock lens. Mark and others have said often that their favorite 24 is the 24/2 New FD. I have never used this lens so I haven't seen ow it compares to the older 24/2.8 or the 24/2.8 New FD. If you need the extra speed or if that makes focusing easier for you then you should consider the 24/2. In any case I think that a properly overhauled 24/2.8 FD SSC is still capable of very nice results. I don't agree with the comment about Vivitar lenses being "junque." There are certain lenses which get oil on their aperture blades but Vivitar is not the only company to make them. The 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor AIS has this problem as do the Konica 28/1.8 UC Hexanon, the Minolta 35/2.8 MC Rokkor and many others. From my experience the two Vivitars which suffer most often from this problem are the 28/2 and the 24/2 made by Kino (22XXX...). The 24/2 is a floating element design and is quite sharp, as is the 28. These should also be sent to Ken Ruth if service is needed. Vivitar also had later 28/2 and 24/2 lenses made by Komine (28XXX...). These are sledom seen with oil on the blades and are also good performers. Kino made 28/2.8, 28/2 and 24/2 lenses under the Kiron name. I have both 28s. The 28/2 is especially good. I would like to get a 24/2 Kiron.<br>

I prefer the 50/1.4 FD SSC to the later 50/1.4 New FD but that's just based on looks. They are both good performers. I have two of the SSC lenses. One has the Bell & Howell marking and may have originally been sold with the Bell & Howell FD 35 camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[awahlster]

<p>The problem of seperation has never been a common topic on any of the boards I have followed for the last 8 years. So while there maybe some cases of it. I don't think we can assign a certain FD lens with this as a problem. For instance I can say I remember a comment about the 24mm f2.8 S.S.C. or Chrome nose having this problem before this.</p>

<p>I would suggest using due care when buying any lens. If from ebay ask for detailed photo's and detailed physical discriptions. If the seller is not forth comming move on. None of these lenses are rare or hard to find. Anohter option is of course to buy from a place that has a return policy like KEH.</p>

<p>Good luck let us know how you make out.</p>

<p> </p>

[astral]

<p>Jeff, Mark, thanks for the insights and reassurances. I was aware of the <em>possibility </em> of the 24/2.8 having problems from earlier posts. Then, at a camera fair a month ago, I saw two with separation, and IIRC a Canon zoom with similar problems.</p>

<p>This may just have been coincidental, but two dubious 24/2.8 lenses at the same fair did ring alarm bells. The trouble with camera fairs nowadays (speaking only of the UK) is that the sellers are not turning over gear like a few years ago, and they seem to have an increasing proportion of dubious lenses remaining. Hence the "iffy" lenses are much more evident nowadays, while the good ones sell very quickly.</p>

<p>In the UK & EU there are strong consumer protection laws applying to mail-order purchases, so buying here is a lot less risky than elsewhere .... I'll put an order in for a 24/2.8 SSC tomorrow.</p>

<p>Regards, AC</p>

 

[canonfduser]

<p>Alan, after reading the posts about seperation I had to dig my 24/2.8 SSC out and it's clean, super clean internally. I bought it from a forum member who used his equipment but took very good care of it. Sometime ago when I had a 50/1.8 with seperation in it I found out that the previous owner stored his lens and AE-1 in the trunk of his car and I wonder if the heat/cold had an affect on the seperation? What causes seperation?</p>

[astral]

<p>Mark, I'm glad to hear your 24/2.8 is in good shape. I ordered one today - hopefully it will arrive <em>'post-haste.'</em> <br /> <br /> At first glance there's not a great deal of technical info on the web regarding separation (also called delamination) in modern camera lenses. It's certainly a significant problem with old lenses (possibly up to the early 1950s) that used Canada balsam cement. More modern lenses (presumably) use synthetic 'glue' which is UV hardened to give a much more stable bond. Separation seems to be very unusual with major manufacturers' lenses of the 1960's onwards; but it does happen, and is not a cheap (or guaranteed) fix by all accounts.<br /> <br /> I don't know just what causes the problem in modern lenses. Maybe there are a several possible causes: possibly temperature and moisture could play a part, and maybe even rough handling in some cases. I imagine there will be exceptions, in that pristine lenses can very occasionally just "go bad". Another factor may be that 25 years ago, or more, designers/engineers may not have been able to predict the long-term performance of some materials - several plastics, for example - and maybe even some 'economies' were knowingly made which would only have an impact a <em>quarter of a century</em> on.<br /> <br /> Incidentally, recall that there were concerns about delamination in Tamron lenses around 1981 when they started producing much cheaper, lighter lenses with polycarbonate optics (and barrels too), including cemented pairs, though most of those Tamrons appear to have survived fairly well.<br /> <br /> My 'library' is packed away at present (due to having Christmas guests) otherwise I'd <em>possibly </em> be much better informed ........ Ha! wishful thinking ;-) AC</p>

[sexgun]

<p>I've got a 24mm F2.8 breechlock lens with separation of the rear elements. I'm definitely replacing it with one of the new FD 24's.</p>

[astral]

<p>My 24/2.8 SSC arrived today in pristine condition. Checking for early signs of separation using two polarisers yielded no (undesirable) result. In theory it could do, but I don't have a lens with known problems as a reference. Anyway, it's in first class condition. Heavy beast though!</p>