[Fenwoodian]

Yesterday I received 2 old 16mm lenses in the mail - including this one. One had lots of oil on the blades, and the other serious haze. So, both are going back.

I guess we'll all have to wait a bit more until I can get my hands on another copy.

[boriscleto]

It's not an easy lens to find and typically runs in the 200-300 dollar range. It exists in m42, K, and KA versions.

Cambridge used to sell the Cambron for $169.50 (1990). So adjusted for inflation it sells for about the same used as new...

There's one on eBay for $155, but it's FD mount

[Giklab]

Still a good excuse to return lol

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Most of the old cine do have oil on the blades, and some claim they were built that way.

I've always heard people selling lenses state that there is "no oil on the aperture blades", but I've never really thought about it. What is the big deal if there is oil on the aperture blades?

[Giklab]

I've always heard people selling lenses state that there is "no oil on the aperture blades", but I've never really thought about it. What is the big deal if there is oil on the aperture blades?

It means it's leaking from somewhere it shouldn't be.

Also, after a while the oil becomes sticky and the aperture won't be able to move anymore.

[Not a Number]

Oil on the blades is probably from the grease somewhere in the lens. This is usually rather viscous and will slow or jam the iris opening and closing.

[cyberjunkie]

Oil (not gum!) on the blades has never been a problem with no-auto lenses.
Preset lenses can be often seen with oily blades, i guess that the diaphragm assembly was lubricated. With time most of the oil migrates on the blades.
In old lenses, if the oil/grease hasn't polymerized already, very likely it won't happen tomorrow
Auto-diaphragm lenses are different. A little spring, weakened by time/use, is often too weak to win the surface resistance of the oil deposit on the blades.

I have plenty of suggestions in mind re: great/crazy bokeh.
I mention just one, probably the cheapest.
Fujinon 2.2/55mm M42
It has an uncommon Unar-type optical layout, and does great bubbles

cheers

Paolo

[Fenwoodian]

Received my Taylor Hobson Cooke Kinic 1" F1.5 lens. Today I took a few quick test shots in my basement, snow storm kept me inside.

Here's 3 of the test photos that I took with it mounted on my Fuji XE1 (have not yet tried it on my Pentax Q yet). All photos hand held with the aperture wide open and focused at its' closest.

What I've learned so far about this lens is:

1. It's only sharp in the center of the frame. Even then, I would at best consider the center to be "barely sharp enough".
2. Significant vignetting on the Fuji crop frame sensor. I actually like that because I've read that the really funky distortions happen out near the edges of the frame. By shooting on a crop frame I'm not going to loose any of it's funky goodness. Because I'm capturing just about the entire image circle this lens produces on my mirrorless Fuji crop frame, there is no need to even consider trying it on a K1.
3. While none of the test photos that I shot demonstrate the swirly bokeh that this lens is known for, if you look at the right side of the photo with my K1 in the center, you will see a hint of the funk starting to happen. Also, on the upper left of the photo of the body cap you see a bit of funk going on.

On Sunday the sun should come out. I hope to shoot some outdoors photos with sparkly bit in the background to see if I can invoke some serious swirly funk with this lens. I'll keep you posted on how it goes on Sunday...

[luftfluss]

For my money, the Pentax-native FF lens with the closest properties to the Cooke's bokeh insanity would be the Soligor/Cambron/Spiratone/ 20mm f/2.8:

(shots shamelessly pilfered from various Pentax forums around the world)

It's not an easy lens to find and typically runs in the 200-300 dollar range. It exists in m42, K, and KA versions.

Those pics remind me a little bit of this:

[Jonathan Mac]

It's certainly a remarkable photo, like looking at a flower with a swirling tunnel of bokeh behind it.

Good luck with the lens, it doesn't look like it's in very good condition.