Lens storage and care.

[za33photo]

Every 2 months or so , I expose my unused lenses to direct sunlight for about 2 hours at a time to try and PREVENT fungus growth.

These lenses are stored in a zip-up light tight bag because I have nowhere else to store them.

Am I wasting my time , or is there perhaps a better procedure that I should use.

Thank you.

 

[SCL]

I wouldn't put them in a zip up bag, because it might hold moisture, the key ingredient to foster fungal growth. As far as putting them in sunlight, just make sure they don't get too hot, as increasing the viscosity of the helicoid grease could cause it to migrate to the diaphragm blades or vapors to actually deposit on the lens elements themselves. Better to just keep the lenses in a spot which allows free air circulation and modest light. Emtirely different situation if you are trying to bleach the browning caused by thorium in some older lenses, which benefit from several days exposure to sun, but you have to protect the housings themselves from overheating.

[Niels - NHSN]

Keep them in an environment with moderate to low humidity and dust free air circulation (not a ventilator, just naturally slow moving air).

or if humidity is a problem, consider a dry cabinet or dry box made for photo storage.

I have a dry cabinet I bought when I lived in Japan. I still use it and it is very convenient.

Given the value of my lenses, I don't think it is an outrageous expense - even if one don't live in very humid place like Japan.

Don't put your lenses in closed ziplocks unless you include fresh silica gel pouches. 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[gordon_yee]

As SCL noted, a potential problem with using sunlight is heat which could cause the grease in the focusing threads to break down, resulting in oil migrating to the lens surfaces and the blades of the diaphragm. One option would be to use ultraviolet light which kills fungus. Just make sure you get a UV lamp or bulb that puts out the proper light:

Does Uv Light Kill Fungus - Quick Answer 2021 (uvlighthub.com)

As others have mentioned, store your lenses in a cool, dry storage area with decent ventilation. If you use dessicant packs, make sure it's silica gel:

 

[Niels - NHSN]

2 hours ago, gordon_yee said:

 If you use dessicant packs, make sure it's silica gel:

 

That particular linked warning is based on stupidity of the third degree from someone who should know better.
I wish moderators would change his title as he is obviously NOT using Silica Gel that damaged his camera.

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[chuck_foreman1]

Just to reiterate some of the above. I had a Conaflex Super B. While I wasn't concerned about fungus per-se, I wanted the selenium cell to react to light ..thinking it would benefit. The meter was /is inconsistent.. I was trying makle it consistent. Placed it on the windowsill with the shutter cocked,,,and well forgot about it.. .. Some 3hrs later in direct afternoon sunlight. I found the procedure didn't really help! Later I realized the lens wasn't shutting down to the set aperture. Some oils I assume had now hit the shutter blades. I took it apart and tried to clean the shutter with ronsol (Q-tips) and constant firing. I spent at least three hours (ad nauseum)  and then put it away for a month or so in the disassembled state... I had to get on with my life. A month or two later I came back to it as Roger ? (forum contributor) encouraged me stick with it...confident that it would come around and eventually work... after another hour or so with Q-tips and Ronsol.. Finallly the aperture worked.  The initial problem still exist.s. the meter intermittently works.. as before. I bought a replacement... suffers from the same problem. The Super (no B)  has the same meter and it works consistently...wrong ie a few stops off!!  I now have three of these none of which a releable. 
I live in a very low humidy areas, I tend to keep my cameras/lenses in their respective never-ready cases to avoid dust. My extra lenss are in a cabinet with good circulation with rear caps and or make-shift lens caps to keep dust off the rear element. 

 

[James G. Dainis]

19 hours ago, Niels - NHSN said:

That particular linked warning is based on stupidity of the third degree from someone who should know better.
I wish moderators would change his title as he is obviously NOT using Silica Gel that damaged his camera.

 

Niels, It looks to me that the silica gel in contact with the lens caused damage. Or are you saying that is not a silica gel pack?

[Niels - NHSN]

1 hour ago, James G. Dainis said:

Niels, It looks to me that the silica gel in contact with the lens caused damage. Or are you saying that is not a silica gel pack?

It is not. If you read through the thread you'll get a hint of the culprit.

Silica Gel has be used for ages in close contact with electronics and optics without issues.

Here's some sewn fabric pouches from Nikon in the early 60's:

On the package put on the lens in the above mentioned thread; there is no mention of Silica Gel.

If you follow the link to wikipedia further down the thread, you'll see that "desiccants" covers all kinds of chemical substances.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[James G. Dainis]

It is good to know that all desiccants are not the same.  Make sure it is silica gel.

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2023 by James G. Dainis

[Niels - NHSN]

When one is concerned with storage, preservation and longevity, it is advisable to consult some of the many excellent sources offered by museums and universities on the internet. Or use materials that has proven non-destructive over time.

The history of camera manufacture also reflects some of the learnings. Organic derived materials used for lubrication, gluing optical components and lens assembly have proven to be problematic due to yellowing, hardening, evaporation and have been replaced with synthetic alternatives with improved properties.

The use of shock protective foam around pentaprisms turned out to corrode the mirror surfaces with time, and lacking alternative foam materials the manufactures placed plastic buffers to protect the silvered surface from the ill effect of the foam.

In later years products are not really produced with a long life in mind it seems.
The manufactures don't seem to care much, unless the ill effects could happen within their responsibility of the warranty period.

One example that is beyond me:

The rubber material Nikon used on their AI/AIS lenses produced between since 1974 and 2020 has lasted up to 50 years without issues, yet the rubber material Nikon uses to improve the grip on their cameras since the 90's goes sticky and gross after 5-10 years - and seemingly still does. How hard is it to learn from this?

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[AJG]

Not all synthetics were created equal--when Zeiss switched to epoxy lens cement in the 1950's it proved to be a problem later with many lenses from that period for Contax and Contaflex now unusable while older ones continue to be OK. 

[c_watson1]

The "sticky back" issue common to the F90x/N90s was a mess but could be remedied easily. Nikon Canada for a time quietly offered a replacement film door minus the the non-skid surface.