[Alex645]

That is perculiar, i'm curious as to which mechanism made these lenses more susceptible to fungus, was it really a manufacturing issue or was it an environmental one?

I think both. Without environmental conditions, I doubt I would've seen fungus as quickly as I did. When I lived in San Diego, LA, and later in Switzerland, it was fairly dry and I rarely saw fungus. But in '96 I moved to tropical Hawaii. From '96-'08, the darkroom was in the 'basement' about 6 feet below ground and the made in Japan Nikkor lenses was slower to show fungus than the newer made in China Nikkors.

In '08, we moved to the third floor of a different building and I installed an ionizer/ozone generator that has helped a lot. I also store the lenses in a dry box with desiccants during the summer or any long periods when the darkroom is dormant. This has helped to retard the growth of fungus, but for whatever the cause in manufacture or materials, the 50, 75, or 80mm Rodenstock lenses still develop fungus faster than the Schneider.

For awhile, I was getting Czech-made Meopta Meogon S lenses....great value, but no more resistant to the jungle rot.

[stevebrot]

the made in Japan Nikkor lenses was slower to show fungus than the newer made in China Nikkors

Do you think the MIC lenses might have been "pre-innoculated" with spores?


Steve

[stevebrot]

There's pretty much no such thing as a lens that's not pre-innoculated with spores, since they are ubiquitous in the environment.

Sort of like the spores for athletes foot fungus, eh?

Seriously though, your theory about lubricant deposits providing nutrition is interesting. When you disassemble an infested lens, does the fungus extend to adjacent surfaces and the lubricant?

Steve

[Alex645]

Do you think the MIC lenses might have been "pre-innoculated" with spores?

Steve

Anything is possible, but dcshooterʻs post is the most likely explanation.

But then, if you believe in conspiracies and alien abductions, we could also imagine a Schneider spy that infiltrated the Nikon China factory and is coated with spores entering the clean room. We could then trace the fungus back to Bad Kreuznach in Germany (which originated in Munich).

[stevebrot]

Anything is possible, but dcshooterʻs post is the most likely explanation.

But then, if you believe in conspiracies and alien abductions, we could also imagine a Schneider spy that infiltrated the Nikon China factory and is coated with spores entering the clean room. We could then trace the fungus back to Bad Kreuznach in Germany (which originated in Munich).

I did not mean sabotage as much as a reference to the assembly location. Might the China factory simply have more nasty spores?


Steve

(...never used the Nikkor, but am a big fan of the Componon-S...)

[Digitalis]

dcshooter, Hypothetically: when dealing with severe cases of infestation and old lubricants would cleaning in a ultrasonic bath in hexane* followed by an extended cycle in an autoclave be sufficient?

*with appropriate safety measures.

[tuco]

...
Enlarger lenses tend to be more prone to fungus than camera lenses not due to design differences but rather because they are kept in dark, damp places...

When I purchased my first enlarging lens, it came with an oversized diffused clear plastic lens cover that didn't fit like a lens cap at all. I thought how cheap of them. But when I learned about fungus in lenses it made sense why it didn't come with a light tight cap.

[arnold]

I have several friends who regularly shoot with cameras from the 20s through the '50s and get great results. The oldest camera on my shelf dates from about 1955 and functions the same today as when it was new, which is pretty good. PF member @Nesster has a Sears Photography Catalog from 1958 posted to his Flickr account (LINK). Below is page 15...

1958 Sears Photo Catalog, page 15



Link to full-sized scan for easier reading...All sizes | 1958 Sears: Exakta, Exa, Zeiss Contaflex, Underwater Housings | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I shared this page because there is an Exakta VXIIa on its way to my house. Note the price of an Exakta VXIIa with CZJ Biotar 58/2...$374.50 ($3231.95 in 2017 dollars). Across the page and at half the price is the Tower 26 (aka Asahi Pentax AP) at $165 ($1423.95 now) with f/2.5 normal lens. The median non-farm family income then was $5300 and only $2700 down on the farm. The VXIIa was full-featured for the time, but very clunky. There are a few members here who have shot Exakta and I am pretty sure none would be willing to go hungry for a month for the privilege of ownership. Knowing that my new acquisition was a senseless luxury item when new provides me with sense of vain empowerment.

For Roger (and Frances) Hicks' opinion of the VX (Varex) IIa...Roger & Frances: Exakta Varex IIa


Steve

That Contaflex SLR is unlike the focal plane shutter models we are used to. (I gave my model to a friend). Like the Retina reflex, it has a leaf shutter between the lenses. This creates a problem trying to look through the lens before taking a picture. They solved this with an extra "shutter" panel that covers the film opening, allowing the leaf shutter to remain open. When you take a photo, the leaf shutter first of all closes so that the blanking panel can be opened. Taking a picture, the leaf shutter opens after the mirror and panel are out of the way.
Once the exposure is made, the viewfinder remains black - until the film is wound on. This puts down the mirror and blanking panel, then opens the leaf shutter.
The lens was the very common 50/2.8 Tessar also found on many other cameras of the time, such as Praktika.

[Digitalis]

Stubborn fungus sometimes will require peroxide followed by a wipe with acetone.

Just for anyone reading this i'm sure DCshooter is referring to common diluted commercial grade 5~7% solutions of H2O2, not the crater-bait 95% rocket grade stuff* - and allow it to thoroughly dry before cleaning with acetone. Even dilute mixtures of Hydrogen peroxide and Acetone will form profoundly unstable organic peroxides that react....explosively.

* Strangely H2O2 at 95% is more stable than 99% - I have personally handled 70% and I'm not going any higher than that.

[gaweidert]

i'm aware of that, but the fact that these lenses, which were made in the 1940s are still outputting a substantial amount of radiation to this day. I have a Kodak commercial Ektar 14cm f/6.3 which is a more normal-ish lens than my favourite Rodenstock 240mm f/5.6 APO- Sironar-S for my 8X10 camera the Kodak is better for portraiture, the APO Sironar is a diffraction limited lens, and is best suited for product/architectural photographic work.

They made even hotter lenses for special military purposes. They were about the best optics of their day. When I saw them in the 1980's they were samples only and completely yellowed. No longer usable. I have a friend who has a pair of radioactive hurricane lamps sitting on his fireplace mantle. Completely clouded now. Lens makers werren't the only companies using radioactive materials to manufacture crystal clear glass.

As far as camera prices are concerned. I went to a private college starting in 1969. Tuition was $1,650 a year. That is $11,090 in today's money. One has to question why tuition at that college today is $38,024. Private colleges today make the Robber Barons of the late 19th century look like rank amateurs.

[Alex645]

As far as camera prices are concerned. I went to a private college starting in 1969. Tuition was $1,650 a year. That is $11,090 in today's money. One has to question why tuition at that college today is $38,024. Private colleges today make the Robber Barons of the late 19th century look like rank amateurs.

The cause of prices in everything from education to cars to cameras IMO is politics and technology. Politics in terms of state funding and the cost of health care for employees. Technology in that where 1969 money was spent on books for libraries, overhead projectors, and telephone land lines, today it's servers, wifi, hardware, software, and a huge IT staff. Compare the technology and the number of parts needed to make a 1969 car or camera vs. an entry level car or camera today.

My sister went to a California State University (public) starting in 1969 and tuition was $180/year. I went to a University of California (public) starting in 1977 and when I graduated in '82, tuition was less than $900/year. I couldn't afford to send my own kids to a public university in my own country, so my own daughter graduated debt-free from a public university in Canada (as a non-resident; God bless Canadians) and after applying to about a dozen different public and private schools, my son got a perpetual scholarship for $21k/year at a $44k/year private university 5000 miles from home in Rochester, New York.

A vast majority of private schools and colleges are non-profit, but the tuition reflects medical and liability insurance and the never ending expense of tech. In fact, most student tuition is subsidized by the institution's endowment portfolio, so the cost of education actually exceeds tuition.

[Digitalis]

i'm glad I paid off my university debt when i did - two years after graduating, I know a lot of people who are still paying it off. I have no debts hanging over my head.

[MarkJerling]

Only $109.50 [944.99 in 2017 dollars] for an Exa with 50/2.8 Tessar. Seems like a deal to me!

'58 low end car (new) price for a Ford was $2,100. Today, it's $22,000. Seems like we just need to add a zero to see how prices compare to today!

[monochrome]

The cause of prices in everything from education to cars to cameras IMO is politics and technology. Politics in terms of state funding and the cost of health care for employees. Technology in that where 1969 money was spent on books for libraries, overhead projectors, and telephone land lines, today it's servers, wifi, hardware, software, and a huge IT staff. Compare the technology and the number of parts needed to make a 1969 car or camera vs. an entry level car or camera today.

My sister went to a California State University (public) starting in 1969 and tuition was $180/year. I went to a University of California (public) starting in 1977 and when I graduated in '82, tuition was less than $900/year. I couldn't afford to send my own kids to a public university in my own country, so my own daughter graduated debt-free from a public university in Canada (as a non-resident; God bless Canadians) and after applying to about a dozen different public and private schools, my son got a perpetual scholarship for $21k/year at a $44k/year private university 5000 miles from home in Rochester, New York.

A vast majority of private schools and colleges are non-profit, but the tuition reflects medical and liability insurance and the never ending expense of tech. In fact, most student tuition is subsidized by the institution's endowment portfolio, so the cost of education actually exceeds tuition.

1. In the last twenty five years the Faculty:Administrator ratio has declined from 5:1 to 1:1. That is, the number of non-teaching managers has increased five fold. That’s the main source of increased tuition costs.
2. Undergraduate tuition subsidizes Graduate Student tuition waivers, which is a secondary driver of tuition increases.
3. The ‘Hoteling’ component (Room, Board, Activities) has risen faster than actual instruction cost.
4. Endowments fund raw research (and they own any ensuing patent revenue) and capital investments such as buildings and technology.
5. The claim that scholarships are funded by endowments is Hokum. An Undergraduate paying 1/2 tuition is considered incremental revenue, not cost.

For a tax-preference sector, Secondary Education is a ridiculously profitable business in the sense of excess of revenues over expenses

[Digitalis]

1. In the last twenty five years the Faculty:Administrator ratio has declined from 5:1 to 1:1. That is, the number of non-teaching managers has increased five fold. That’s the main source of increased tuition costs.

I have seen this happening here in Australian universities myself. There are several areas in Australian universities that are are in over-management hell, most of them technology related.

The ‘Hoteling’ component (Room, Board, Activities) has risen faster than actual instruction cost.

Student housing in Adelaide is pretty cheap - but Sydney, rent anywhere near the CBD is utterly extortionate.

Endowments fund raw research (and they own any ensuing patent revenue) and capital investments such as buildings and technology.

In my graduate years I have personally worked in I.T and Chemistry*, this has been de rigeur in tertiary education for decades but truth be told: drug development is expensive, cell line testing is really expensive and megabucks are required for any drug candidate to make it into early phase clinical trials....and even then things can go very wrong.

And in information technology, a lot of graduates run for the hills [and over-management] to make their own independent start-ups due to the fact that any technological improvement [even the ones of questionable utility] they make under the roof of a university will be snapped up and pretty much held to ransom Via Patents. I know people working in Nanotech who have been running the university hamster wheel ever since set foot on university grounds.


* I worked in toxicology and in process chemistry, and I have had to make judgement calls on the viability of promising compounds due to issues with scale-up, yield/cost ratio or flat out toxicity to the usual lines of defense in the human body...and sometimes because the drug actually has no effect on the target in vitro at all due to cell line contamination.