rolleiflex fungus issue
I just got a Rolleiflex 2.8 F with lens fungus (from the internet, i'm stupid, i know)
The front element seams to be perfectly clean, but the rear element seams to be pretty badly "infected". Since I have little expirience with problems like that, I'd like to ask you how good my chances are this could be repaired, since I'm not too sure if the seller of this item will accept a return of the item. I hope he does since he stated that the lenses where in perfect condition.
Well, I think it can be cleaned off, though you never know until you actually do it whether it's somehow etched the glass. But see first whether he'll agree to take it back. In the meantime try a roll. You might be surprised at what good results you get, even with the fungus. And you might find folks here willing to take it off your hands for a fair price -- hopefully you didn't overspend.
What Nick said. If you got a good price keep it, as it does not seem too bad. One of my favorite Rolleiflexes (I've got more than a few) is a 2.8 Planar E with a decent amount of micro scratches and little if any coating left. The photos it takes are simply divine. In fact the slightly more moderate contrast I like better than my perfect 2.8 C Xenotar and perfect 3.5 E Planar especially for B&W portraits and plant/flower subjects.
850 € is what I paid. The camera needs an overhaul in any case, the mechanics don't work quite as smooth as on my 2.8E (which I wanted to replace with this 2.8F)
I believe that the camera still takes beautiful pictures but I think that 850€ is too much for the camera beeing in this condition.
That is too much. F's are over-priced vs working E's. Why so keen to replace it with an F?
I wanted actually to shrink down my camera equippment but sometimes a Prism finder is really handy and my 2.8E doesn't take them.
Ah, not an altogether bad reason. Watch for an E2 or E3 as they allow the prism to be used too. Hope you can return that one of get some discount for a good cleaning....
Originally Posted by vincentvega
If the external surface of the rear element is affected then try something like Kodak Lens Cleaner. If it is the internal surface then you would have to dissamble the lens. This is not a task for someone who doesn't know how to do it. If the surface has been etched then the only remedy is to have the element repolished. Not a cheap job.
I had some of that stuff on a Mamiya 645 finder and I used some spray-on glass cleaner and it came right off.
I have a Nikkor 50 f2 loaded to the gills with fungus and it takes sharper and better photos than my 50 1,4 Nikkor S in ex+
If you bought the camera on Ebay, and it was payed via Paypal, you have 99.99% chances to get the refund, if you claim (with photographic proof) that the item was not "as described".
If you decide to keep the camera, the fungal infection, as i see it from the picture, should be cleanable.
I haven't added te words "for sure", because with coated glasses there is a certain degree of uncertainity. With most fungi, the glass gets etched only after a good amount of time, while the coating gets stained more easily.
In general, the danger of fungi is grossly overstated. I have a large number of "user" lenses, plus a collection of large format vintage glasses (more than 100, i guess, i haven't counted them), and some of them had some sort of fungus: every single one came off perfectly cleaned!
I use ROR (residual oil remover) as optical cleaner. If a large quantity of fluid must be used, i spare some ROR, going first with white vinegar.
I even bought an anti-fungal powder (for medical use), to prepare a washing solution to clean the barrel of hugely infected lenses, still haven't found the need to use it, though.
I am no Rolleiflex expert, but i guess that a standard adjustable lens spanner is more than enough to remove the back cell of the lens. IIRC the 2.8F does not have a tessar, hence you could be unlucky, and have to dismantle the cell to get access to internal surfaces.
Of course any good repairman could take care of all that, for a reasonable price and quicly (if the fungus is not a "difficult" one).
Sent from my Android tablet