Sick of buying lenses that need work

[hoffy]

Nope, never needed to take one apart yet. I have had a couple of blank frames recently though, really need to work out whether they were a lens or body problem. There seems little pattern to them - had one on the second frame of a film (the rest were fine) and the other on the penultimate frame (the rest were fine, even the final one). I suspect it's a case of gear that needs more exercise.

The Bronica lenses have the shutter mechanism built in, so I wouldn't fancy opening one up.

That's what i am thinking as well - I did give it a try (even with the right screwdrivers) and I met some resistance - they put some reasonably decent loctite on those screws!

[lxdude]

The Bronica lenses have the shutter mechanism built in, so I wouldn't fancy opening one up.

Not too bad, but I have my doubts that the shutters, electronically controlled except 1/500th, are easily serviceable; especially for something like flash sync. I suspect that the Seiko shutter mechanisms, with flat flexible cable and all, are probably made all of a piece, and are designed to be simply replaced. I don't know that conclusively, though.

Hoffy, the standard procedure of cleaning the contacts on the back of the lens is worth trying. They are gold plated, so use alcohol or similar on a swab or fine cloth, nothing abrasive. I doubt it's worth repair if repair is what it needs, but maybe. Contact Koh's Camera and see what they think.



EDIT: here's a nice tutorial on disassembly of a 150/3.5 S lens. A PS will be similar.

www.buonaluce.com/Slens.pdf

It shows which is the flash contact on the back of the lens. You could try to trace and look for a bad solder joint inside the lens; if the fault is in the shutter module itself that would be a delicate job if you were motivated to tackle it, but you might succeed. I would only do it for fun. If it came to that it makes more sense to buy another lens and sell for cheap the one you have, to someone who doesn't care about flash sync.

[hoffy]

Not too bad, but I have my doubts that the shutters, electronically controlled except 1/500th, are easily serviceable; especially for something like flash sync. I suspect that the Seiko shutter mechanisms, with flat flexible cable and all, are probably made all of a piece, and are designed to be simply replaced. I don't know that conclusively, though.

Hoffy, the standard procedure of cleaning the contacts on the back of the lens is worth trying. They are gold plated, so use alcohol or similar on a swab or fine cloth, nothing abrasive. I doubt it's worth repair if repair is what it needs, but maybe. Contact Koh's Camera and see what they think.



EDIT: here's a nice tutorial on disassembly of a 150/3.5 S lens. A PS will be similar.

www.buonaluce.com/Slens.pdf

It shows which is the flash contact on the back of the lens. You could try to trace and look for a bad solder joint inside the lens; if the fault is in the shutter module itself that would be a delicate job if you were motivated to tackle it, but you might succeed. I would only do it for fun. If it came to that it makes more sense to buy another lens and sell for cheap the one you have, to someone who doesn't care about flash sync.

Yeah, I attacked the pins on the back of the lens with a polishing pad and a dremel - it made no difference.

Actually selling the lens for a bargain basement price is probably not a bad idea. I had thought of keeping it and getting another focal length for flash work (keep uming and erring between a 110 macro or the 180).

Cheers

[lxdude]

Actually selling the lens for a bargain basement price is probably not a bad idea. I had thought of keeping it and getting another focal length for flash work (keep uming and erring between a 110 macro or the 180).

It's a nice portrait length of about 85mm in 135 format equivalent. The 180 is nice, in that it's still a good portrait length at 100mm equivalent, but also focuses closer, to 1 meter compared to 1.5 meters for the 150. The combination of longer focal length and closer focusing means you can get significantly tighter shots with it.
I see KEH has 150/4 PS lenses in EX condition for $115-$139. If you got say 50 bucks for the one you have now, you wouldn't be spending much at all to get a fully functional one, almost for sure less than cost of repair.

[dehk]

I can probably fix them for you. PM if needed.

[destroya]

I have a lens I've been looking at, on ebay and used via amazon. but this scares me for some reason. the lens is in good/great shape but the dreaded "there is dust inside the lens but it wont affect image quality."

thoughts on that comment? experiences?

[ambaker]

I have a lens I've been looking at, on ebay and used via amazon. but this scares me for some reason. the lens is in good/great shape but the dreaded "there is dust inside the lens but it wont affect image quality."

thoughts on that comment? experiences?

Zooms especially tend to collect dust inside. All the zooming in and out, is like a big piston sucking in air and dust. Small amounts should not be a problem. If there are piles of silt in there, well then... See post # 21 in this thread for how bad a lens can get, and still give a decent image.

I have a zoom that was dropped and the front lens is chipped. There is light dust inside. There is no way I would ever be able to get someone to buy it. The images look like they came out of a pristine lens.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[PentaxBronica]

You can sometimes blast the dust out of a zoom too. I have a '90s 100-300mm which arrived with "slight dust" and after strategic blasting with a can of compressed air it's nearly perfect. Just stick the nozzle into the same hole the dust got in through and give a few short blasts, the dust has presumably either been blown back out or just moved to a less obvious part of the lens.

[Poisson Du Jour]

I have a lens I've been looking at, on ebay and used via amazon. but this scares me for some reason. the lens is in good/great shape but the dreaded "there is dust inside the lens but it wont affect image quality."

thoughts on that comment? experiences?

Iin the 1980s, I used mostly Tamron lenses and can clearly recall my irritation and very visible dust right through the lens. Later, Nikon lenses also showed prolific amounts of dust, and only one Canon lens had it to memory. Personally I will not, and never have, now buy a lens with any trace of dust inside it. All equipment is bought in excellent to mint, and condition verified with seller/dealer with detail photographs and then again in person. A large amount of dust close to the rear element will have an effect on imaging quality (softening, flare).