Canon FL 200mm f/3.5 Aperture Gone?

[fixcinater]

<p>Just picked up a fairly mint lens as described in the subject, but I'm having a heck of a time getting it to stop down. I've got a TX and I know that the little button near the mount should stop it down, and I can see the linkage in the back of the lens moving when I push the button or use the TX's stop-down mechanism. It just doesn't stop down. In fact, I don't know where the aperture diaphragm is on the darn thing to know if it's even there or not.</p>

<p>I'd really like to be able to use this thing at something other than f/3.5 as the glass is mint and the body is super clean, but I'm at a loss for what else I can try. Can't find any exploded diagrams on the net, ditto for photos or even descriptions. Any help here, fellas? It's the later, II version with built-in sliding hood.</p>

[gordon_yee]

<p>Because of their age and the type of lubrication Canon used, it's not uncommon to find non-working diaphragms in FL lenses. The most likely cause is lubricant migrating to the diaphragm leaves. The only cure is to disassemble and clean the lens.</p>

[baris_john]

<p>Try to manually stop down the lens and see what happens.</p>

[fixcinater]

It doesn't respond to the aperture ring at all.

[bob_miller4]

<p>Can you get a refund from the seller?</p>

[fixcinater]

<p>It was $5, and no.<br>

Anyone seen a diagram of the darned thing online somewhere? If I could see an exploded diagram, I could tell whether the aperture is still there or if it was pulled out for some reason.<br>

<br /> Otherwise, I'll disassemble and try to clean it up.</p>

[alan_swartz]

<p>Anthony,</p>

<p>The diaphragm is just ahead of the rear element. Describing its position is a little difficult. Looking into the back of the lens, you'll see four "rings" progressing from back to front, then a stretch with machined grooves for flare control. Looking closely at the third "ring," you'll see a very narrow slot in it. That's where the diaphragm blades live. They are invisible when fully open.</p>

<p>They are undoubtedly oily. All it takes is the slightest oil film to make them stick.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Canon made two versions of this lens. The first had a separate hood and the second a built-in hood. I think I paid $5 for one of them myself. If the glass is not scratched and the lens does not have obviously bad fungus then I would have it overhaued. It would have been made some time between 1964 and 1970 so it's at least 39 years old. Most lenses that old would need some service even if they looked good on the outside. If you plan to do a lot of shooting toward the sun then this is probably not the right lens for you. Even the first 200/4 FD had that problem. The 200/4 FD SSC is much better coated.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Canon made two versions of this lens. The first had a separate hood and the second a built-in hood. I think I paid $5 for one of them myself. If the glass is not scratched and the lens does not have obviously bad fungus then I would have it overhaued. It would have been made some time between 1964 and 1970 so it's at least 39 years old. Most lenses that old would need some service even if they looked good on the outside. If you plan to do a lot of shooting toward the sun then this is probably not the right lens for you. Even the first 200/4 FD had that problem. The 200/4 FD SSC is much better coated.</p>

[fixcinater]

<p>Thanks Jeff and Alan. I'm happy with the pictures I've made thus far just shooting with it held up to my digital SLR, aside from the lack of infinity focus, so I'm going to make this thing work as the glass is extremely clean and I'm not going to find a telephoto for much cheaper. I like the older glass "look" for a lot of my work, so the single coating doesn't bother me.<br>

<br /> I'll shop around for some repair prices and see what I can do about rounding up some appropriate tools to get the elements out. I've disassembled a Takumar 135mm f/3.5, Takumar 55mm f/2.2 and a Takumar 50mm f/1.4 to do various small tasks, so I can't believe this one would be much more difficult to bust into.</p>