Thanks, Gilbert. The shutter is still proving to be a bit thorny. Keeps jamming on me. I'm going to contact Packard and see if they can offer any insight.
Same here. The very first lens I ever completely disassembled was my Helios 44-2. I had no idea how aperture blades actually worked and it's been a marvel to me ever since.
I mean...cough...if you don't want it you could...you know...give it to me :) BTW, my Insta messenger is completely down. It's part of the big Meta outage. It's as if everything was reset to the messages from two days ago and I can't send/receive anything. Because why not?
I wonder if Kodak's recommended use of 5x8 relates to sharpness rather than coverage. I have a couple of lens that are recommended for 4x5 that have plenty of coverage for 8x10, but the image circle is only sharp on the inner half of the image circle, so corners/edges goes to mush on the larger formats. Good job on the cleaning, that lens looks great for the age.
I think you really hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the "image circle". I'll admit that I'm somewhat ignorant when it comes to the differences between relative focal lengths, image circles and image receptor size. All that withstanding, I think more than likely their designation for the #34 to be used with 5x8 negatives is related to facilitating camera movements more than anything else. In another part of the catalog they broke down the different models of lenses and the Anastigmats were specifically listed as view camera and studio lenses. So all that to say yeah, I think you're right in thinking the 5x8 isn't the "maximum" negative size like I think I alude to in the video; more of the "ideal". Thanks a lot for the kind words on the rejuvenation btw.
It's a quite interesting little lens to be sure. It has the same mount as my 19 inch Goerz so I've been contemplating putting it on the 11x14 and exposing a few paper negatives just out of curiosity.
@@AdamWelch I just got an 11x14 myself, an old Kodak/Century from the early 1900's. Awesome camera except the new film holders don't fit, so I had to rework the back slightly. For the lens in this video, did you have any fungus residues on the glass? That is one issue I have with many of my old lenses. The fungus residues etched the glass and cannot be removed. I am contemplating repolishing the glass on some of these lenses with a molded polishing pitch tool and cerium oxide, like what they use to make optics/telescopes.
@@constantinf.5764 You are extremely correct, there is just something wonderful about these old big cameras. My 11x14 is brand new, and I love it, but I'll admit to missing all those little nuances that come from nearly a century of time. I was blissfully unaware of how particular film holders become once a person moves to ultra large format. In a way I find the issue to be slightly over exaggerated at times but as you said, fitment is definitely an issue. I did have fungus in this lens but I cleaned it with no lasting problems thankfully. However, this Kodak has begun experiencing some balsem separation but has not affected the frame as I can tell. I hope your etching is not overly pronounced and that it won't be a problem. I'd be interested to know your results should you attempt the grinding you mentioned.
@@AdamWelch I will share the results when I get to polishing. An example of the pitch polishing process can be found on the channel Huygens Optics. His videos on making small telescopes explains this. There are also many videos on general telescope making, mostly mirrors, but same polishing principles apply to lenses. I purchased some pitch and cerium oxide powder but haven't made the tool or molded the pitch yet. The only problem with this methods is it will remove the anti-reflection coating, if there is one on an old lens. But what good is a coating on a lens that was permanently etched by fungus? As for balsam separation, I watched a few videos on lens separation using heat, then cleaning the old balsam and cementing back together either with new balsam or a UV-curable resin. Just need to ensure the lenses are aligned same way as before separation. Both angular and radial positions of the two lenses have to be maintained.
@@constantinf.5764 I've known of people either steaming the elements to seperate them and some just dumping the elements in boiling water. I will likely (if I ever do) steaming to avoid potential breakage. However, unless there continues to be massive separation I'll likely continue to call the entire lens issue "character" :)
Does Zeiss pay you for advertising? After all, you don't really do anything sensible but talk about Zeiss cloths. Decades of dirt (dust with grease and soot) is best washed gently in plain warm water with the addition of dishwashing liquid. Then rinse well in plain water and after drying in DISTILLED water!!! After that, the lenses should be washed with a suitable solution of ammonia (ammonia water) and after wiping with DUST-FREE cloths (I use "Keystone"), they should be washed with isopropyl alcohol "IPA" and again thoroughly wiped dry. At this stage, use ltaex gloves or finger guards. On the other hand, the diaphragm blades MUST be removed, washed in gasoline or other solvent that removes old oil, rinsed again in fresh solvent and - if necessary - rinsed again. Each leaf should be washed with a delicate brush. Do the same with the other mechanisms and shutter leaves. finally, when everything is dry and clean, the leaves should be "greased" with graphite. this is done professionally. And you are not an expert. you are a bungler who advertises a company and rubs old dirt all over the lens. Don't take on a job that is beyond you. Rather, you are harming people and monuments.
I enjoyed watching the patience and love with which you cleaned the lens and restored the shutter. I'm glad it's working well for you.
Thanks, Gilbert. The shutter is still proving to be a bit thorny. Keeps jamming on me. I'm going to contact Packard and see if they can offer any insight.
aperture blades have always been a mechanical wonder to me, but these are, as you say, hypnotic. A very fun watch.
Same here. The very first lens I ever completely disassembled was my Helios 44-2. I had no idea how aperture blades actually worked and it's been a marvel to me ever since.
Those aperture blades… 😻 indeed…. What a lovely video. It gives me hope for my old Eastman View 2-D 8x10… Cheers, ✨🦇✨ - Jen
I mean...cough...if you don't want it you could...you know...give it to me :) BTW, my Insta messenger is completely down. It's part of the big Meta outage. It's as if everything was reset to the messages from two days ago and I can't send/receive anything. Because why not?
I wonder if Kodak's recommended use of 5x8 relates to sharpness rather than coverage. I have a couple of lens that are recommended for 4x5 that have plenty of coverage for 8x10, but the image circle is only sharp on the inner half of the image circle, so corners/edges goes to mush on the larger formats. Good job on the cleaning, that lens looks great for the age.
I think you really hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the "image circle". I'll admit that I'm somewhat ignorant when it comes to the differences between relative focal lengths, image circles and image receptor size. All that withstanding, I think more than likely their designation for the #34 to be used with 5x8 negatives is related to facilitating camera movements more than anything else. In another part of the catalog they broke down the different models of lenses and the Anastigmats were specifically listed as view camera and studio lenses. So all that to say yeah, I think you're right in thinking the 5x8 isn't the "maximum" negative size like I think I alude to in the video; more of the "ideal". Thanks a lot for the kind words on the rejuvenation btw.
I think the smaller recommended coverage for this lens has to do with movements, while maximum coverage without lens movement allows for 8x10.
It's a quite interesting little lens to be sure. It has the same mount as my 19 inch Goerz so I've been contemplating putting it on the 11x14 and exposing a few paper negatives just out of curiosity.
@@AdamWelch I just got an 11x14 myself, an old Kodak/Century from the early 1900's. Awesome camera except the new film holders don't fit, so I had to rework the back slightly. For the lens in this video, did you have any fungus residues on the glass? That is one issue I have with many of my old lenses. The fungus residues etched the glass and cannot be removed. I am contemplating repolishing the glass on some of these lenses with a molded polishing pitch tool and cerium oxide, like what they use to make optics/telescopes.
@@constantinf.5764 You are extremely correct, there is just something wonderful about these old big cameras. My 11x14 is brand new, and I love it, but I'll admit to missing all those little nuances that come from nearly a century of time.
I was blissfully unaware of how particular film holders become once a person moves to ultra large format. In a way I find the issue to be slightly over exaggerated at times but as you said, fitment is definitely an issue.
I did have fungus in this lens but I cleaned it with no lasting problems thankfully. However, this Kodak has begun experiencing some balsem separation but has not affected the frame as I can tell. I hope your etching is not overly pronounced and that it won't be a problem. I'd be interested to know your results should you attempt the grinding you mentioned.
@@AdamWelch I will share the results when I get to polishing. An example of the pitch polishing process can be found on the channel Huygens Optics. His videos on making small telescopes explains this. There are also many videos on general telescope making, mostly mirrors, but same polishing principles apply to lenses.
I purchased some pitch and cerium oxide powder but haven't made the tool or molded the pitch yet. The only problem with this methods is it will remove the anti-reflection coating, if there is one on an old lens. But what good is a coating on a lens that was permanently etched by fungus?
As for balsam separation, I watched a few videos on lens separation using heat, then cleaning the old balsam and cementing back together either with new balsam or a UV-curable resin. Just need to ensure the lenses are aligned same way as before separation. Both angular and radial positions of the two lenses have to be maintained.
@@constantinf.5764 I've known of people either steaming the elements to seperate them and some just dumping the elements in boiling water. I will likely (if I ever do) steaming to avoid potential breakage. However, unless there continues to be massive separation I'll likely continue to call the entire lens issue "character" :)
🔥🔥🔥🔥
Does Zeiss pay you for advertising? After all, you don't really do anything sensible but talk about Zeiss cloths. Decades of dirt (dust with grease and soot) is best washed gently in plain warm water with the addition of dishwashing liquid. Then rinse well in plain water and after drying in DISTILLED water!!! After that, the lenses should be washed with a suitable solution of ammonia (ammonia water) and after wiping with DUST-FREE cloths (I use "Keystone"), they should be washed with isopropyl alcohol "IPA" and again thoroughly wiped dry. At this stage, use ltaex gloves or finger guards. On the other hand, the diaphragm blades MUST be removed, washed in gasoline or other solvent that removes old oil, rinsed again in fresh solvent and - if necessary - rinsed again. Each leaf should be washed with a delicate brush. Do the same with the other mechanisms and shutter leaves. finally, when everything is dry and clean, the leaves should be "greased" with graphite. this is done professionally. And you are not an expert. you are a bungler who advertises a company and rubs old dirt all over the lens. Don't take on a job that is beyond you. Rather, you are harming people and monuments.
I feel like I should pay you for this goddamn novel you just wrote....