[QUOTE= df cardwell---Thirty years later, if used much at all, it will be worn out. If it wasn't used, the lubricants will be dried up and will wear out when you begin using it. The lubricants are critical in these designs. Guess why they were less expensive than Nikon ? Not because Nikon was out to overcharge you, but because they built lenses to a higher mechanical standard. Kino, and all, relied on lower expectations of service life and lots of grease instead of brass, steel, and ball bearings.
Hi DF. Nail on the head time I think. Both my 135 and 24-48 needed a strip as the aperture blades seized due to one hell of a sticky mess! Common fault? My 85/f2 AI must be late sixty's early seventy's and it's a gem. Still crystal clear and running smoooooooooooth. Wonder how it compares to the ASI version?
Hi Mark. Question. Do you find that the mount on the 24-48 is a tight fit as in, over tight? All my other lenses (Nikon 18/3.5 35/f2 85/f2 mount with ease but the 24-48 needs a real twist which puts me off using it on my FM3a. Don't have another body yet to try it on at the moment (Mick I sympathize! Lost my 2x F2's and FM2 the same way) as I traded in my well worn FA.
Thanks for the interesting info Wayne; really enjoyed the read and the pic is real nice. What's he looking at, a $20 bill? Got that--I wish look in his eyes. Nice.
Thanks to all those that recommended Old timers: Funny: I live around the corner from them but just never seem to remember them. Advertising at its best; obviously!
Dave. An English eye. That is one stunning picture. A pleasure to view your gallery . Thanks.
elekm. Very kind of you. Email on way over.
Thanks one and all.