Lens storage - front up or down??

[tim_sewell]

I apologise in advance for asking such a very basic question but...

 

I have read several posts recommending that lenses should be stored

front element down, so as to avoid diaphragm blade oil ozzing to the

back. (A supplementary question - if the lens is not attached to the

camera, why would that be worse than oil oozing to the front?).

 

However, the introductory picture on Bjorn Rorslett's pages of lens

reviews gives much food for thought. (I hope, by the way, that in

posting a copy of that photo I am not offending anyone or breaking

forum rules). Bjorn does not seem to subscribe to any consistent

storage position, (unless each lens must be treated differently).

 

So please may I ask some of the more knowledgable members - how do

you store your lens collections?<div></div>

[tim_sewell]

A further brief apology for my "ozzing" typo. Is there any way I could have edited this after confirming the post?

[armando_roldan]

I always store my lengthwise and use an eggtimer and rotate them hourly.

 

Seriously..if I have a lens that I would store for such a long time where this could become an issue, then I woudl sell it. Cheaper to rent as needed. Some people just have too much equipment.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Maybe like wine; where the bottles are stored at an angle; so the corks are wet; and the bottles turned on intervals; to reduce sediment.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Heat is your biggest enemy; it accelerates the grease movement. Also moisture; if too high; will add a touch of fungus. Lenses should be used; their helixes rotated; to keep them in shape.

[will_perlis]

Using one of those motorized hotdog rollers from a movie theater snack counter would be easier. ;)

 

However for Leica lenses the best gadget would be something like those fancy watch storage + winder boxes. For about US$1200.00? I bet those would sell.

[david_h._hartman]

When lenses are stored face down the helical is below the

aperture and grease will migrate away not towards the aperture if

it does move. This is what I was told by a camera repairmen. Ive

been inside about a dozen AI, AIS Nikkors and one Series E Nikon

lens and I know this to be true.<br>

<br>

Warmer climates are likely to cause more problems. Long storage

without use is likely to increase problems. All the Nikkor lenses

Ive bought that came with lens cases are stored face down,

bayonet up, inside their case.<br>

<br>

For 20 years I never had a lens with lube contamination. Now I

moved to a slightly warmer climate and worse have computers

running 16 hours a day in one room were lenses are stored. These

lenses easily heat the room 10~12°F hotter than the rest of the

house. Ive had two lenses with lube contamination. One

stored face up, one on its side.<br>

<br>

I also bought a used lens that was mint in appearance but the

focusing was stiff. The rubber focus grip showed no sign of use.

This lens a 50/1.4 AIS has needed cleaning twice. Probably

because the first cleaning didnt get all the lube out of

the aperture. Im told that lens was probably cooked in a

car trunk or glove box.<br>

<br>

Remember that Bjørn Rørslett is a Norseman and those lenses are

in cold storage :)<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com</u></a><br>

<br>

I wish I got a nickel ever time I recommend his site. I could buy

the 300/2.8 Ive been wanting.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave.

[tim_sewell]

David,

 

That is just the sort of knowledgable help that I was hoping for - thankyou very much indeed.

 

In fact it was one of your recent responses that sent me to look again at Bjorn's site, and then prompted my query.

 

It might be debatable whether you live in a warmer climate than I (I am in Melbourne, Australia, where we expect temperatures in excess of 100 degrees F on about 4 to 10 days each summer), but I will now make sure that my few lenses are all stored correctly from now on.

 

Thanks again to all for your responses.

[ShunCheung]

If you store your lenes on a shelf as the way it is in that attached image, I would put them front side down because the front of most lenses is heavier and it is a lot more stable with the heavier side down.

 

But I store most of my lenses in camera bags with foam compartments separating them.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"It might be debatable whether you live in a warmer

climate than I (I am in Melbourne, Australia, where we expect

temperatures in excess of 100 degrees F on about 4 to 10 days

each summer)..." --Tim Sewell<br>

</em><br>

Temperatures sound pretty similar. I take note when its 105°F

or more. The air conditioning is rather ineffective and costly

to run so we under air condition. I sometimes under clock

computers to cut down on heat. I call this area chaparral

country, that sounds more dignified than scrub.<br>

<br>

BTW, Ive been wondering why your black widow spiders have

the red splotch on the wrong side. Is it because when they hang

upside-down they are really right side up?<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave.

[lee hamiel]

I have a 105 DC lens with the matched lens case & the interior of the case is configured to store the lens with the front element down & the mount at the top. There is a small circular foam piece in the lid with a recess to receive the rear lens cap and the lens fits like a glove inside.

 

Based on this I'm assuming that Nikon intends for lenses to be stored this way.

[jiayao_zhao]

Rotate them often to break the sagging process

[Carl Stone]

'Maybe like wine; where the bottles are stored at an angle; so the corks are wet; and

the bottles turned on intervals; to reduce sediment."

 

Actually finished wine is not rotated. That would only allow the sediment to

redistribute itself into the wine, which it's going to do anyway if you disturb the bottle

much. Careful handling can reduce the amount of sediment that one gets when

pouring, but decanting is a better method of sediment reduction. Nowadays it's hard

to find a wine that has any measureable amount of sediment due to the industry's

more effective filtering methods, such as diatomaceous earth filters.

 

Rotating of the bottles, an act known as riddling, is done to sparkling wines

(champagnes, made in the "methode champenoise" manner) that are fermented in the

bottle that it is made and sold in, as opposed to the bulk or charmat method. This

allows the sediment to be collected at the neck of the bottle, and discharged, prior to

corking the finished wine.

 

Keeping the wine against the cork prevents the cork from drying out and allowing

atmosphere to contaminate and ruin the wine.

[Carl Stone]

"Warmer climates are likely to cause more problems."

 

You can say that again!

 

One of the drawbacks to living in the desert is that much of

the year I don't take my equipment out in the elements because I can't keep it cool

enough to suit me. A vehicle in this climate gets hot enough to ruin a lot of things.

Even my monopod advises against that treatment. Inside vehicle temperatures here

can run well over 160 degrees, and death is only a matter of minutes away for

anyone, or anything left locked inside. Even carrying things around in a camera bag

doesn't protect them enough for me. Consequently, much of the year my stuff is in

my home, instead of out shooting. I do some shooting, where I can move the

equipment out of my air conditioned vehicle, shoot, and return it to safe

temperaturers ASAP. But I don't leave anything inside without the A/C running.

 

 

Am I over protective? Perhaps, but I'm the one that has to pay for the equipment. I

also try to store my lenses facing down. Equipment is just too hard to come by not to

take every precaution to protect it.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Carl caught the wine goof!

[Carl Stone]

Carl makes goofs too, please feel free to point them out. :o)

[neil_parker]

Its best to rotate the lens every so often. Glass is actually a very slow liquid. It flows towards gravity, so if you leave your lens face down for too long a time it will start to grow thicker in the middle, and this will increase the barrel distortion of your lens, and actually made it see a slightly wider angle of view! Conversely if you store it face up for too long, this will increase pincusion distorion and give you a slightly longer focal length!;)

[spencer_hahn]

Neil--that issue is debatable. Many consider glass an "amorphous solid" instead of a liquid. Many cite old church/cathedral windows as proof of amorphous solids' penchant to flow, but others counter that glass is often simply installed heavy-side-down. At any rate, I think having more barrel/pincushion distortion overall is a better alternative to having uneven focus/focal length/distortion going from left to right or up and down. That hotdog roller is sounding better and better by the minute...

[tim_sewell]

<i> BTW, I�ve been wondering why your black widow spiders have the red splotch on the wrong side. Is it because when they hang upside-down they are really right side up? </i><br><br>

 

David,<br>

 

 

Arachnology has never been one of my strong points, so I can only speculate. The little research that I have done tells me that, although 'our' redback spider is closely related to 'your' black widows, the red marking on the back is not the only difference. <br>

 

The redback is only about 80% the size of the black widow (females 10mm long, males 6mm). Perhaps the red stripe on the back is merely to make up for that lack of size? As for how they 'hang' - Any that I see tend to die from being crushed underfoot, not by hanging.

 

<br><br>

 

Although the redbacks are really quite common, fatal bites are very rare, and only 20% of bites require anti-venom treatment.

 

<br><br>

My narrowest escape from 'spider attack' was not from a redback at all but a black house spider, which had made its home in a cavity at the top of our garage wall, about 8 feet above ground level. The black house spider is much bigger than the redback, with 'beautiful' (if you like that sort of thing) glossy black legs and cephalothorax. I though it would make a good subject for a close up photo, and took my old Nikon F, plus K extension tubes and (if I remember correctly) my Big Bertha 80-250 zoom up a ladder and waited for the spider to appear. At the critical moment, as I was adjusting the focus, with the spider just about filling the viewfinder, it made a threatening movement. Never mind that it was really over a foot away - visually it appeared within an inch or so, and it gave me one hell of a fright. Since both of my hands were occupied with camera and lens, I had no means of stabilizing myself on the ladder, and fell backwards. As it turned out I only damaged my personal dignity, but I have never been too keen on spider macro photography since.

<br><br>

I now owe a further apology to the purists among us, who may have been offended by the off-topic developments from my original (entirely serious) query.

 

<br><br>

Best regards,

Tim S.