Takumar 50 1.4, quality problem? considering its radioative

xinanbei · 12-06-2013, 12:44 PM

Hey folks,

I have a question here. I sold a super takumar 50 1.4 for $65 locally, which is in excellent ++ conditions.
And the buyer called me after about 4 days, and said he found it is radioactive from some reference online. And he thinks this is considered as quality problem and want to return.
I just need some opinion. Is it really quality problem? Is is necessary to notify the lens is radioactive when you are trying to sell this. I haven't seen any description of that from our forum market place.

Thanks guys for this annoying question.

johnyates · 12-06-2013, 12:47 PM

This is not a problem, but a well know characteristic of this lens.

If the yellowing is a problem, it can be cleared by exposure to UV radiation.

$65 for this lens in ex++ condition is a real steal, so it's not a problem for you to make a refund. Just sell it to someone else--for more.

Researching is generally done *prior* to the purchase.

scratchpaddy · 12-06-2013, 12:49 PM

The Super Tak 50 f/1.4 does have a thorium coating that is slightly radioactive, but it's not enough to worry about. It's not a secret, and it's not specific this one copy of the lens you sold. If the seller didn't want a slightly radioactive lens, he should have done his research beforehand. I say it's not your problem, and the buyer shouldn't be complaining after getting such a good deal!

vonBaloney · 12-06-2013, 12:51 PM

Some of them are radioactive, but it is way overblown. All sorts of things are slightly radioactive -- bananas for instance. Takumar lenses are no danger. But, if the buyer is paranoid, I'd just take it back.

scratchpaddy · 12-06-2013, 12:54 PM

Actually, on second thought, go ahead and take it back. If it's local, that shouldn't be hard. You could easily sell it for the same amount or more to someone who's not going to whine about trace amounts of radioactivity.

Also, tell this person to stay away from bananas and granite and a thousand other things if he's so worried.

vonBaloney · 12-06-2013, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by scratchpaddy

Actually, on second thought, go ahead and take it back. If it's local, that shouldn't be hard. You could easily sell it for the same amount or more to someone who's not going to whine about trace amounts of radioactivity.

Also, tell this person to stay away from bananas and granite and a thousand other things if he's so worried.

...and no air travel. Also radioactive.

johnyates · 12-06-2013, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by scratchpaddy

the buyer shouldn't be complaining after getting such a good deal!

"No good deed goes unpunished" ;-)

xinanbei · 12-06-2013, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by scratchpaddy

Actually, on second thought, go ahead and take it back. If it's local, that shouldn't be hard. You could easily sell it for the same amount or more to someone who's not going to whine about trace amounts of radioactivity.

Also, tell this person to stay away from bananas and granite and a thousand other things if he's so worried.

@scratchpaddy,
@johnyates
@vonBaloney
I am surprised by such a quick replying, and thanks for all of your kind and funny comments. I love it.

The reason I don't want to take it back, is because the lens itself have no problem at all and I spent about (actually above) 1 hour to show him what kind things should take a look at before buying a old lens, like checking focus and aperture rings and see the glasses though a light. Besides I helped him to get the lens work on a k200d (I only have owned kr and k5, so i spent some time). Also he want to have the cheap adapter i have for 5 bucks. I did the search and showed him it is $4.7 on ebay, but still sold it to him at 5 bucks because he insisted and doesn't want any trouble in buying from ebay. I also gave him a chance to practice mounting the adapter on my film cameras. I think I over spoiled him.

He called me (more than 15 calls) this afternoon when I was in my office, ask to return and blame me not telling him it is radioactive with knowing that. And yelled at me why I didn't answer his phone. Until I was pissed and yelled back. I was working in the lab and wish to finish my work before the winter storm at 1:00 p.m, when he was calling BTW.

Really a bad experience. But I wouldn't refund at any circumstance after all of these happened. It is sold via craigslist by the way.

elliott · 12-06-2013, 01:34 PM

If he is truly thinks it is dangerous he should get rid of it at any cost, I volunteer to take it off his hands, I won't even charge him.

I love mine and won't give it up for anything, the radioactivity is more of a interesting fact than anything else.

stevebrot · 12-06-2013, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by xinanbei

Is it really quality problem?

No, the radioactive glass (not the coating) is a well-documented design characteristic of the lens

Quote:

Is is necessary to notify the lens is radioactive when you are trying to sell this.

No...see above

Quote:

I haven't seen any description of that from our forum market place.

Not surprising...see above.

Many lenses made through much of the mid-20th century have elements made with thoriated glass. The rare earth element Thorium was added to fine-tune the refractive index of the glass. The radiation was a side-effect. The most notorious were lenses on various Kodak products though a comprehensive list includes lenses from most major manufacturers.

There are a number of Web articles that attempt to quantify the risk, but as noted above, the dosage from even regular use is pretty slight with intensity falling off by the square of the distance. To put it in terms that a photographer would understand...it is not enough to fog film.

As far as your purchaser is concerned, if you have additional conversation you might want to make the following points:

The price of the lens was very competitive and represents reasonable market value for similar items sold elsewhere
Retail outlets with similar product post no warning (use KEH as an example)
If the buyer is dissatisfied with the lens, he/she is welcome at any time to resell the lens with a warning to potential buyers regarding the radioactivity
There is no moral, ethical, or legal rational or precedent for you to be required to accept a return

Steve

(Has a couple of lenses on the shelf that are reputed to be radioactive...does not carry such in pants pocket...)

xinanbei · 12-06-2013, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by elliott

If he is truly thinks it is dangerous he should get rid of it at any cost, I volunteer to take it off his hands, I won't even charge him.

I love mine and won't give it up for anything, the radioactivity is more of a interesting fact than anything else.

I totally agree. The only reason I want to sell it is because I have a SMC, a 8-elemets version super Takumar and another same version of this super takumar 50 1.4.

Hehe, I have been hit by LBA for about 1 year. I have to get rid of some. Probably our marketplace is safer, at least there is no annoying, arrogant people who knows nothing.

xinanbei · 12-06-2013, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

No, the radioactive glass (not the coating) is a well-documented design characteristic of the lens

No...see above

Not surprising...see above.

Many lenses made through much of the mid-20th century have elements made with thoriated glass. The rare earth element Thorium was added to fine-tune the refractive index of the glass. The radiation was a side-effect. The most notorious were lenses on various Kodak products though a comprehensive list includes lenses from most major manufacturers.

There are a number of Web articles that attempt to quantify the risk, but as noted above, the dosage from even regular use is pretty slight with intensity falling off by the square of the distance. To put it in terms that a photographer would understand...it is not enough to fog film.

As far as your purchaser is concerned, if you have additional conversation you might want to make the following points:

The price of the lens was very competitive and represents reasonable market value for similar items sold elsewhere
Retail outlets with similar product post no warning (use KEH as an example)
If he/she is dissatisfied with the lens, they are welcome at any time to resell the lens with a warning to potential buyers regarding the radioactivity
There is no moral, ethical, or legal rational or precedent for you to be required to accept a return

Steve

Thanks Steve. I have been annoyed all this afternoon. I should NOT spoil him~~

elliott · 12-06-2013, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by xinanbei

Hehe, I have been hit by LBA for about 1 year. I have to get rid of some. Probably our marketplace is safer, at least there is no annoying, arrogant people who knows nothing.

I've learned if trying to downsize lenses, you shouldn't accept trades in the Marketplace, I somehow ended up with more than I started with. I guess you could say I've had a great experience with the Marketplace here.

VisualDarkness · 12-06-2013, 01:46 PM

People are way to paranoid for some things like slight radioactiveness. The lens is nothing to worry about unless he plans to tape the lens with the rear element to one of his eyes and walk around with it. If it truly was that dangerous it would be forbidden to take on flights etc but it isn't. If he's still paranoid show him this forum.

xinanbei · 12-06-2013, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by VisualDarkness

People are way to paranoid for some things like slight radioactiveness. The lens is nothing to worry about unless he plans to tape the lens with the rear element to one of his eyes and walk around with it. If it truly was that dangerous it would be forbidden to take on flights etc but it isn't. If he's still paranoid show him this forum.

I think I will do this.
To be kind, I would tell him not going to grocery store because there are scaring bananas.

12-06-2013, 12:44 PM	#1
xinanbei Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Delaware Posts: 314	Takumar 50 1.4, quality problem? considering its radioative Hey folks, I have a question here. I sold a super takumar 50 1.4 for $65 locally, which is in excellent ++ conditions. And the buyer called me after about 4 days, and said he found it is radioactive from some reference online. And he thinks this is considered as quality problem and want to return. I just need some opinion. Is it really quality problem? Is is necessary to notify the lens is radioactive when you are trying to sell this. I haven't seen any description of that from our forum market place. Thanks guys for this annoying question.

12-06-2013, 01:20 PM	#8
xinanbei Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Delaware Posts: 314 Original Poster	Originally posted by scratchpaddy Actually, on second thought, go ahead and take it back. If it's local, that shouldn't be hard. You could easily sell it for the same amount or more to someone who's not going to whine about trace amounts of radioactivity. Also, tell this person to stay away from bananas and granite and a thousand other things if he's so worried. @scratchpaddy, @johnyates @vonBaloney I am surprised by such a quick replying, and thanks for all of your kind and funny comments. I love it. The reason I don't want to take it back, is because the lens itself have no problem at all and I spent about (actually above) 1 hour to show him what kind things should take a look at before buying a old lens, like checking focus and aperture rings and see the glasses though a light. Besides I helped him to get the lens work on a k200d (I only have owned kr and k5, so i spent some time). Also he want to have the cheap adapter i have for 5 bucks. I did the search and showed him it is $4.7 on ebay, but still sold it to him at 5 bucks because he insisted and doesn't want any trouble in buying from ebay. I also gave him a chance to practice mounting the adapter on my film cameras. I think I over spoiled him. He called me (more than 15 calls) this afternoon when I was in my office, ask to return and blame me not telling him it is radioactive with knowing that. And yelled at me why I didn't answer his phone. Until I was pissed and yelled back. I was working in the lab and wish to finish my work before the winter storm at 1:00 p.m, when he was calling BTW. Really a bad experience. But I wouldn't refund at any circumstance after all of these happened. It is sold via craigslist by the way. Last edited by xinanbei; 12-06-2013 at 01:28 PM.

12-06-2013, 01:40 PM	#10
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by xinanbei Is it really quality problem? No, the radioactive glass (not the coating) is a well-documented design characteristic of the lens Quote: Is is necessary to notify the lens is radioactive when you are trying to sell this. No...see above Quote: I haven't seen any description of that from our forum market place. Not surprising...see above. Many lenses made through much of the mid-20th century have elements made with thoriated glass. The rare earth element Thorium was added to fine-tune the refractive index of the glass. The radiation was a side-effect. The most notorious were lenses on various Kodak products though a comprehensive list includes lenses from most major manufacturers. There are a number of Web articles that attempt to quantify the risk, but as noted above, the dosage from even regular use is pretty slight with intensity falling off by the square of the distance. To put it in terms that a photographer would understand...it is not enough to fog film. As far as your purchaser is concerned, if you have additional conversation you might want to make the following points: The price of the lens was very competitive and represents reasonable market value for similar items sold elsewhere Retail outlets with similar product post no warning (use KEH as an example) If the buyer is dissatisfied with the lens, he/she is welcome at any time to resell the lens with a warning to potential buyers regarding the radioactivity There is no moral, ethical, or legal rational or precedent for you to be required to accept a return Steve (Has a couple of lenses on the shelf that are reputed to be radioactive...does not carry such in pants pocket...) Last edited by stevebrot; 12-06-2013 at 01:46 PM.

12-06-2013, 01:43 PM	#12
xinanbei Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Delaware Posts: 314 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevebrot No, the radioactive glass (not the coating) is a well-documented design characteristic of the lens No...see above Not surprising...see above. Many lenses made through much of the mid-20th century have elements made with thoriated glass. The rare earth element Thorium was added to fine-tune the refractive index of the glass. The radiation was a side-effect. The most notorious were lenses on various Kodak products though a comprehensive list includes lenses from most major manufacturers. There are a number of Web articles that attempt to quantify the risk, but as noted above, the dosage from even regular use is pretty slight with intensity falling off by the square of the distance. To put it in terms that a photographer would understand...it is not enough to fog film. As far as your purchaser is concerned, if you have additional conversation you might want to make the following points: The price of the lens was very competitive and represents reasonable market value for similar items sold elsewhere Retail outlets with similar product post no warning (use KEH as an example) If he/she is dissatisfied with the lens, they are welcome at any time to resell the lens with a warning to potential buyers regarding the radioactivity There is no moral, ethical, or legal rational or precedent for you to be required to accept a return Steve Thanks Steve. I have been annoyed all this afternoon. I should NOT spoil him~~

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1:1.4/50 (50MM 1.4), No Yellowing $78	grahame	Sold Items	2	05-29-2013 08:08 AM
SMC Takumar 1:1.4/50 PROBLEM: Help :(	susfu	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	01-06-2013 10:43 PM
For Sale - Sold: Fast 50mm primes: S-M-C takumar 50/1.4 (UV treated, no yellowing), Ricoh 50/1.4 PK	grahame	Sold Items	13	12-30-2012 07:34 AM
For Sale - Sold: Super Takumar 50/1.4 SMC Pentax-M 50/1.4	ddhytz	Sold Items	2	10-01-2012 03:18 AM

12-06-2013, 12:47 PM	#2
johnyates Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Saskatoon, SK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,345	This is not a problem, but a well know characteristic of this lens. If the yellowing is a problem, it can be cleared by exposure to UV radiation. $65 for this lens in ex++ condition is a real steal, so it's not a problem for you to make a refund. Just sell it to someone else--for more. Researching is generally done prior to the purchase.

12-06-2013, 12:49 PM	#3
scratchpaddy Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Phoenix Posts: 3,361	The Super Tak 50 f/1.4 does have a thorium coating that is slightly radioactive, but it's not enough to worry about. It's not a secret, and it's not specific this one copy of the lens you sold. If the seller didn't want a slightly radioactive lens, he should have done his research beforehand. I say it's not your problem, and the buyer shouldn't be complaining after getting such a good deal!

12-06-2013, 12:51 PM	#4
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Some of them are radioactive, but it is way overblown. All sorts of things are slightly radioactive -- bananas for instance. Takumar lenses are no danger. But, if the buyer is paranoid, I'd just take it back.

12-06-2013, 12:54 PM	#5
scratchpaddy Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Phoenix Posts: 3,361	Actually, on second thought, go ahead and take it back. If it's local, that shouldn't be hard. You could easily sell it for the same amount or more to someone who's not going to whine about trace amounts of radioactivity. Also, tell this person to stay away from bananas and granite and a thousand other things if he's so worried.

12-06-2013, 01:05 PM	#6
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by scratchpaddy Actually, on second thought, go ahead and take it back. If it's local, that shouldn't be hard. You could easily sell it for the same amount or more to someone who's not going to whine about trace amounts of radioactivity. Also, tell this person to stay away from bananas and granite and a thousand other things if he's so worried. ...and no air travel. Also radioactive.

12-06-2013, 01:09 PM	#7
johnyates Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Saskatoon, SK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,345	Originally posted by scratchpaddy the buyer shouldn't be complaining after getting such a good deal! "No good deed goes unpunished" ;-)

12-06-2013, 01:34 PM	#9
elliott Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: North Carolina Photos: Albums Posts: 1,720	If he is truly thinks it is dangerous he should get rid of it at any cost, I volunteer to take it off his hands, I won't even charge him. I love mine and won't give it up for anything, the radioactivity is more of a interesting fact than anything else.

12-06-2013, 01:41 PM	#11
xinanbei Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Delaware Posts: 314 Original Poster	Originally posted by elliott If he is truly thinks it is dangerous he should get rid of it at any cost, I volunteer to take it off his hands, I won't even charge him. I love mine and won't give it up for anything, the radioactivity is more of a interesting fact than anything else. I totally agree. The only reason I want to sell it is because I have a SMC, a 8-elemets version super Takumar and another same version of this super takumar 50 1.4. Hehe, I have been hit by LBA for about 1 year. I have to get rid of some. Probably our marketplace is safer, at least there is no annoying, arrogant people who knows nothing.

12-06-2013, 01:46 PM	#13
elliott Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: North Carolina Photos: Albums Posts: 1,720	Originally posted by xinanbei Hehe, I have been hit by LBA for about 1 year. I have to get rid of some. Probably our marketplace is safer, at least there is no annoying, arrogant people who knows nothing. I've learned if trying to downsize lenses, you shouldn't accept trades in the Marketplace, I somehow ended up with more than I started with. I guess you could say I've had a great experience with the Marketplace here.

12-06-2013, 01:46 PM	#14
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	People are way to paranoid for some things like slight radioactiveness. The lens is nothing to worry about unless he plans to tape the lens with the rear element to one of his eyes and walk around with it. If it truly was that dangerous it would be forbidden to take on flights etc but it isn't. If he's still paranoid show him this forum.

12-06-2013, 01:54 PM	#15
xinanbei Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Delaware Posts: 314 Original Poster	Originally posted by VisualDarkness People are way to paranoid for some things like slight radioactiveness. The lens is nothing to worry about unless he plans to tape the lens with the rear element to one of his eyes and walk around with it. If it truly was that dangerous it would be forbidden to take on flights etc but it isn't. If he's still paranoid show him this forum. I think I will do this. To be kind, I would tell him not going to grocery store because there are scaring bananas.