 |
Schokker [deleted] says:
It worked for me! Also used a uv (skinbrowner ? is that how you call them..) lightsource for a while..with succes
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A UV sunlamp? That's a great idea.
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
interesting!
i´m new in this group and i own a pentax honeywell spotmatic. I have a 50mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/2.5 super-takumar screwmount lens.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hey Rodrigo, I'm loving your pinhole camera photography - really beautiful stuff! I've never seen an SP used like that before. How do you calculate your exposures?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
pure guessing!
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ha ha, well it clearly works :D
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Matt Needham [deleted] says:
I keep my 50mm f/1.4 Takumar carefully hidden away from the sun when I'm not using it. ;) I only shoot BW with my Spotmatics, so the yellowing isn't such a bad thing. I get a kick out of telling people that I'll be taking their portrait with the radioactive lens.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hey Matt, just think - if you keep it in the dark long enough you'll be able to take X-Rays with it :p
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Matt Needham [deleted] says:
Sweet!
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
my auto-mayimia 55mm 1.4 is a little on the yellow side, same trick you think?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Worth a try for sure. If it doesn't work, you've wasted nothing but a little time.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Should someone tell this guy that he probably destroyed many superb lenses? ;)
www.hermes.net.au/bayling/repair.html
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh, seeing that just makes me weep *sobs* :(
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
so much stupidity
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
oh my god, i could really use that lens. ass.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
there's a reason i joined this group. thanks. what color is the 1.4 meant to be? slightly yellow?
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ideally, it should be totally clear when looking through, but the coating always gives the lens a slightly yellow/amber reflection when viewed from an angle.
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
ok. i get it. i'm just a bit unwilling to leave my baby on the windowsill for three weeks, but it's there now set on f1.4 and complete with tin foil. it's all for the best... thanks again.
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have this problem with a 50 f1.4 Super Takumar, to date it has only been used with black and white photography. I will have to give the tin foil sollution a shot.
Bill
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The tin foil is a good idea if you don't want little molten arcs on the inside of your lens cap as the sun passes over. I mainly shoot bw so the irony of fixing one of these lenses only to slap a yellow filter on it is not lost on me...
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Orkspace [deleted] says:
The fix worked for me, but it took about two months in a north-facing sunny office window. Love this lens!
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
That was the most ironic we page I have ever seen. NOt only did he destroy a lens, he took pictures of the destruction with the same type of lens.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I just got one of these. It's a 1:1.4 50mm Super Takumar. The lens is *obviously* yellow and when you look through the viewfinder, white walls turn yellow and everything gets a warm tone to it. I'm not sure if it's worth getting rid of the hue. Has anybody shot portraits with it? It should work as a very slight yellow filter, which could give some advantage, and I'm curious to see it in colour work.
Btw, the lens has a really lush feel to it :o)
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Check out this picture from Noah Stone if you want to see a yellowed Super-Tak in action:
The 50/1.4 Super Takumar is one of my all time favourite lenses - if it had the word Leica on it it wouldn't be at all out of place (although the price would be ten times higher).
If you only want to use it for black and white then the yellowing could be ok, but personally I'd try to clear it before shooting colour.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Oh thank fuck there's a cure! and an easy if time-consuming one to boot, I brought a beautiful excellent condition 50mm F/1.4 that have the smoothest focusing ever, I mean I just want to spend all day focusing it.
trouble is, it got those yellow tint, bugger.
search for spotmatic group, then '50mm f/1.4' and bingo, ta very much, you save me £50 from ebay.
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
hi, how is it "radioactive"? is it harmful to your health?
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
^^ Not harmful at all. This comes up all the time in threads where this is discussed. I had the same problem with my Minolta MC W.Rokkor-SI 28mm f/2.5. Exposing it to direct sunlight for an extended period reduced the yellowing substantially.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
how is it not harmful at all though?
I read that it might not be safe because of the distance to your eye or putting it into your pocket. is that true?
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The window sill trick worked for me too. It kept the tomatoes company.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have the same problem with my Kodak Aero Ektar aerial photography lens. It lives on the window sill with my Takumar f1.4, they are the best of friends :)
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Tin foil? Why not sit the lens on a MIRROR?
Posted 29 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Anyone know if it's the UVA or the UVB that cures the yellow?
Posted 9 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My response to a seller on Ebay. I just wanted you to know that the lens I purchased from you is a hot lens. Not stolen, but hot as in radioactive (source). It is giving off gamma radiation that can be very harmful when in close contact to you body or others. When used as a lens in a camera it is very close to your body and the gamma radiation can penetrate skin and damage organs etc. Gamma radiation can go through 10cm plus of lead, concrete and steel. It can travel several hundred feet/yards. Very dangerous!! Especially when used by photographers. I am a safety engineer and came across this by blind luck. I was getting training material together for a radiation class I was conducting and just happened to place my new Ebay Takumar 50 lens next to my gamma radiation detector. Holy cow!! I am not asking for a refund! I will use this lens for radiation detection class training. It works great and makes for a very interesting story for my students. I am just contacting you to let you know of this potential hazard so that you don't get exposed. The back side of the lens that connects to the camera is where the readings are the highest. (200 plus counts per second or around 200-300 micro rems per hour). That puts it about two- three inches from your face, eyes etc. No worries, right? Remember, radiation is cumulative over your lift time and even though it is two-three inches away and the levels are less than 200-300 cps, more like 30-60 cps, I still would not use it. 50 cps is where most responders set their detectors alarms to. This level can represent not normal, natural occurring amounts (earth) and responders need to start asking questions and taking action. Radiation is all about time, distance and shielding. Gamma can't be shielded effectively. Be careful.
Originally posted 7 months ago.
(permalink)
Zachoff1 edited this topic 7 months ago.
|
|
Wow! my Takumar not only lens with radioactive materials. The Leica 50mm Summicron collapsible has it also,though it has not changed color.
Posted 7 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Great lenses! But not worth the health risks to me. I have the detector and know the levels. Now ,just so I am clear, it is only a select few Takumars.Most if not all 200's, 150's, 135's and some 105's are not hot. All of mine at least are not and I use them on my Sony a300. The 50's seem to be the one's. I see a 105mm on Ebay right now that looks like it has red R or diamond that I believe is the indicator. I am not a Takumar expert. I don't know if the hot ones have this red R or diamond. Nobody is bidding on it. I suspect the reason could be that it is.
Posted 7 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Zachoff, have you read this?
www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1356.html
Author claims he has "never had any qualms about using the camera" (and lens).
Posted 6 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Zachoff1 - are the count values that you mention only from gamma radiation ? It would be important to know, as my belief was that most of what comes from these thorium enriched lenses were alpha and beta radiation.
I was looking one day at a Takumar f/2 50mm lens with a radiation counter that only sees alpha and beta and I could only detect radioactivity coming from the back of the lens. Camera body or lens elements block those particles (accelerated electrons/positrons and helium nuclei).
Of course, gamma rays are not stopped by a few sheets of metal or glass and are not detected by most counters, unless they were specifically built for gamma detection.
A dental X-ray radiography is equivalent with about 3 mrem - 3000 microrem exposure. If the Takumar gives one 200 microrem/hour, keeping the lens at eye level for 15 hours should be thus approximately equivalent.
As a side note, the red diamond shape on some lenses distance scale indicates the change in focusing distance required when taking images with infrared sensitive film.
Originally posted 6 months ago.
(permalink)
csaveanu edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
The Super-Takumar 35mm 2.0 also yellows with age, and the UV cure works for this lens as well.
Posted 6 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Spotmatic for the People /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Spotmatic for the People discussion threads