CI Photocommunity
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Zeiss 85/1.2 at ebay
- Thread starter dirk
- Start date
D
djg
$3.2K for both of those lenses is a total steal! How'd you swing that?
The price of 21 2.8 shot up for reason that it can be used on Canon. The price will go up further if more people is using the Canon. On the other hand, if Canon DSLR is replaced by something else in the future, the price of 21 will go down.
God knows what will happen to Canon DSLR. Could it be replaced by some more sophisticated means of photography ?
I don't know what should I do with my second 21 2.8, definitely I should not shoot it because it will reduce its price. Shall I sell it to make a profit ? Shall I keep it and make more profit at a latter date ? I am definitely keeping my first 21 2.8 as I like so much that I will never sell it no matter what price.
God knows what will happen to Canon DSLR. Could it be replaced by some more sophisticated means of photography ?
I don't know what should I do with my second 21 2.8, definitely I should not shoot it because it will reduce its price. Shall I sell it to make a profit ? Shall I keep it and make more profit at a latter date ? I am definitely keeping my first 21 2.8 as I like so much that I will never sell it no matter what price.
Chi, if something happens to Canon DSLR it will most likely be Canon who does it. While other camera makers are struggling, the well financed Canon juggernaut keeps rolling into the future. Informed sources say the next wave due to be announced is a 24 meg, full frame replacement for the 1DsMKII. That kind of leap forward will most likely sound the death bell for even more camera companies.
I think the C/Y super lenses will retain value for some time to come simply because they can be used on such powerful digital cameras. However, if Canon should "wake up" and turn their attention to bolstering their lens line-up with better wide angle glass, then the need to adapt other lenses may diminish. For longer lens applications Canon has some decent glass. The now discontinued Canon 200/1.8 is due to be reintroduced to market as an Image Stabilized (IS) version. This lens was aready one of the best out there, and with IS will probably be an untouchable image making tool.
I think the C/Y super lenses will retain value for some time to come simply because they can be used on such powerful digital cameras. However, if Canon should "wake up" and turn their attention to bolstering their lens line-up with better wide angle glass, then the need to adapt other lenses may diminish. For longer lens applications Canon has some decent glass. The now discontinued Canon 200/1.8 is due to be reintroduced to market as an Image Stabilized (IS) version. This lens was aready one of the best out there, and with IS will probably be an untouchable image making tool.
One of my old 85 1.2 has a small bit of fungus in it. I thought the best place to have a service is Zeiss, Germany. So, I e-mailed them. This is their reply.
> Dear Mr. Wang,
>
> in case of severe fungus groth on the glass surfaces of photographic lenses
> we generally refrain from any repair attempt because of the high risk of
> contamination.
> If such a lens is brought to our benches, the spores of fungi would spread
> to all places
> including all used tools. This would be a danger for other lenses as well,
> which never
> had a fungus problem before.
>
> If you find fungus on outer surfaces at an early state, try to clean by
> yourself and separate
> this lens from others.
>
> I am sorry to give you this hard statement, but these rules have been
> decided after some
> very bad experiences in the past.
>
> With best regards
>
> Dr. Hubert Nasse
> Carl Zeiss AG
> Camera Lens Division, Laboratory
> phone  49-(0)7364-20-2846
> FAXÂ Â Â Â Â 49-(0)7364-20-4045
> e-mail     nasse@zeiss.de
>
> Internet Â
Do you believe this is their reply for my 85 1.2 ?
> Dear Mr. Wang,
>
> in case of severe fungus groth on the glass surfaces of photographic lenses
> we generally refrain from any repair attempt because of the high risk of
> contamination.
> If such a lens is brought to our benches, the spores of fungi would spread
> to all places
> including all used tools. This would be a danger for other lenses as well,
> which never
> had a fungus problem before.
>
> If you find fungus on outer surfaces at an early state, try to clean by
> yourself and separate
> this lens from others.
>
> I am sorry to give you this hard statement, but these rules have been
> decided after some
> very bad experiences in the past.
>
> With best regards
>
> Dr. Hubert Nasse
> Carl Zeiss AG
> Camera Lens Division, Laboratory
> phone  49-(0)7364-20-2846
> FAXÂ Â Â Â Â 49-(0)7364-20-4045
> e-mail     nasse@zeiss.de
>
> Internet Â
Do you believe this is their reply for my 85 1.2 ?
Yes, what Zeiss says is true. You must be extremely careful with preventing fungus. Once fungus visually appears on one lens, it is almost certain that one or more lenses that have been stored and/or handled with that contaminated lens has fungus as well. You may not see it in the other lenses at first, but the spores are probably too small and still incubating. (This is one of the reasons why I do not purchase used lenses from Asia, which due to the extreme humidity (Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, etc.) have a much higher probability of fungus infection.)
Unfortunately, your 85/1.2 should be destroyed. Otherwise, you risk losing all of your other lenses as well. I would not trust anyone who says that they can clean it, unless they work for a disease control center and have access to bio-containment equipment (extremely expensive). However, if you really want to try and save this lens, you will have to purchase all the tools to open and clean the lens yourself, work in a location that is isolated, wear disposable lab clothing/masks/gloves/etc., open and clean the lens thoroughly (using the right chemicals to kill fungus, yet not deteriorate/damage the lens surface), then dispose of everything (tools and clothing) and finally irradiate the lens with UV light.
To try and save your other lenses, you can try to irradiate them with UV l&s to kill any incubating spores. Then, keep radiating them regulary especially after each use. When not in use, you should store your lenses in an electronic cabinet that removes all moisture and maintains constant humidity. These cabinets are easily found in Hong Kong and Singapore.
Unfortunately, your 85/1.2 should be destroyed. Otherwise, you risk losing all of your other lenses as well. I would not trust anyone who says that they can clean it, unless they work for a disease control center and have access to bio-containment equipment (extremely expensive). However, if you really want to try and save this lens, you will have to purchase all the tools to open and clean the lens yourself, work in a location that is isolated, wear disposable lab clothing/masks/gloves/etc., open and clean the lens thoroughly (using the right chemicals to kill fungus, yet not deteriorate/damage the lens surface), then dispose of everything (tools and clothing) and finally irradiate the lens with UV light.
To try and save your other lenses, you can try to irradiate them with UV l&s to kill any incubating spores. Then, keep radiating them regulary especially after each use. When not in use, you should store your lenses in an electronic cabinet that removes all moisture and maintains constant humidity. These cabinets are easily found in Hong Kong and Singapore.
I dont think that UV is going to help much. It cannot penetrate into the nooks and crannies of your precious lens. There isn't sufficient energy in the photons to even go through the thinnest metal!
If you want to keep the lens, I would consider these possibilities:
1. Ethylene dioxide: Get a hospital near you to gas sterilize the lens. I'd repeat it 3 times! Yes it may damage seals, however, it will prevent contaminating other flass and at least you could contemplate rebuilding it.
2. Chlorine gas: do research on that. I beleive govt used that or some derivative for federal buildings after anthrax attacks.
3. Radiating it. You could have the lens radiated. However you would need something like a 20 Million electron Volt accelerator and you would need a dose of about 50,000 rad, photons! It is doable in any research lab that radiates bacteria for research or a cancer center or idustrial sterilization plant.
3. In any case, from now on all your lenses have to be stored in a humudity controlled chamber. These are designed for cameras.
All your shelves need to be cleaned with bleach. Discard lens cleaning cloths, bags, straps or gas sterilize them x 2 as descrived above.
Don't underestimate your problem.
Essentialy, your whole lens system is infected or at great risk.
Asher
If you want to keep the lens, I would consider these possibilities:
1. Ethylene dioxide: Get a hospital near you to gas sterilize the lens. I'd repeat it 3 times! Yes it may damage seals, however, it will prevent contaminating other flass and at least you could contemplate rebuilding it.
2. Chlorine gas: do research on that. I beleive govt used that or some derivative for federal buildings after anthrax attacks.
3. Radiating it. You could have the lens radiated. However you would need something like a 20 Million electron Volt accelerator and you would need a dose of about 50,000 rad, photons! It is doable in any research lab that radiates bacteria for research or a cancer center or idustrial sterilization plant.
3. In any case, from now on all your lenses have to be stored in a humudity controlled chamber. These are designed for cameras.
All your shelves need to be cleaned with bleach. Discard lens cleaning cloths, bags, straps or gas sterilize them x 2 as descrived above.
Don't underestimate your problem.
Essentialy, your whole lens system is infected or at great risk.
Asher
My opinion is quite different.
It is unethical to deny treatments to our patients when they are infected, so are Zeiss lenses.
For fungal infection to take place, two factors are most important, they are the presence of spores and humidity. These two factors have to be there before infection takes place.
I agree with Dr Nasse's opinion that infected lens can start an infection in their place. However, even if they don't have infected lens, infection can still start if their working place is not dry enough. The important point that was missed in his comment is that he regarded infected lens as the most important cause of fungal spread in his place, he did not mention anything about humidity control.
No matter how much spores are around, if the place is dry enough, they simply will not germinate. Fungi are very much dependant on the humid environment.
Spores are everywhere, even if there is no infected lenses around, infection can still spread to the lenses if the place is not dry enough.
Zeiss camera lens division should have an infection control unit. The very bad experience in Dr Nasse's place suggested they do not have a good control of the humidity. It is very important to understand that dryness alone can stop the the progress of infection completely.
Destroying the 85 1.2 is a bit overkilling. I don't think I am in risk of losing all my other lenses, just store them in different containers with the correct humidity. Dryness alone can stop the infection from spreading.I will get someone to clean it and store it in closed container with blue silica gel. There was some fungi in it when I brought it in the first place.
I might consider UV, ethylene oxide and gamma radiation. However, I consider humidity control as more important than other means of killing the organisms.
I store my lenses in many containers with blue silica gel. My father gave me his oldest Leica lenses which are 30 years old. They are stored with humidity control machine. None of them are infected.
It is a pity to deny treatment for Zeiss lenses. Please do not destroy lenses. Dryness alone can stop it.
The dryness I mentioned is from 0 to 50 %.
It is unethical to deny treatments to our patients when they are infected, so are Zeiss lenses.
For fungal infection to take place, two factors are most important, they are the presence of spores and humidity. These two factors have to be there before infection takes place.
I agree with Dr Nasse's opinion that infected lens can start an infection in their place. However, even if they don't have infected lens, infection can still start if their working place is not dry enough. The important point that was missed in his comment is that he regarded infected lens as the most important cause of fungal spread in his place, he did not mention anything about humidity control.
No matter how much spores are around, if the place is dry enough, they simply will not germinate. Fungi are very much dependant on the humid environment.
Spores are everywhere, even if there is no infected lenses around, infection can still spread to the lenses if the place is not dry enough.
Zeiss camera lens division should have an infection control unit. The very bad experience in Dr Nasse's place suggested they do not have a good control of the humidity. It is very important to understand that dryness alone can stop the the progress of infection completely.
Destroying the 85 1.2 is a bit overkilling. I don't think I am in risk of losing all my other lenses, just store them in different containers with the correct humidity. Dryness alone can stop the infection from spreading.I will get someone to clean it and store it in closed container with blue silica gel. There was some fungi in it when I brought it in the first place.
I might consider UV, ethylene oxide and gamma radiation. However, I consider humidity control as more important than other means of killing the organisms.
I store my lenses in many containers with blue silica gel. My father gave me his oldest Leica lenses which are 30 years old. They are stored with humidity control machine. None of them are infected.
It is a pity to deny treatment for Zeiss lenses. Please do not destroy lenses. Dryness alone can stop it.
The dryness I mentioned is from 0 to 50 %.