Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Are those fungus by any chance?

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spree86

    It kills the fungus but it doesn't remove them. Also, there might be fungus on the inside of the barrel as well, you can't really kill off all of them.
    Putting in the sun is the next best thing to a dry cab.

    No other better way of dealing of fungus.

    Dry cab will also not kill all fungus. Fungus spores are everywhere in high humid air

  2. #22

    Default Re: Are those fungus by any chance?

    Quote Originally Posted by donut88 View Post
    Putting in the sun is the next best thing to a dry cab.

    No other better way of dealing of fungus.

    Dry cab will also not kill all fungus. Fungus spores are everywhere in high humid air
    Yes, there is a better way of dealing with fungus, that is to get it professionally cleaned. Putting the lens in sunlight might kill the fungus on the lens but the remnants are still left behind.

  3. #23
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Are those fungus by any chance?

    good to hear from CSC that it is not fungus on TS's lens,

    just a few things to take note,

    fungus spores is airborne and in the air that you and I breathing now, so is already on everyone lenses now, it only waiting for the right condition to grow.

    weather seal is not air tight, as long air can go in, fungus spores can go in as well.



    and dry cabinet is not air tight, it won't kill or remove fungus, it only slow down the growing process, make it very hard to grow. So just make full use of your lenses while they are still good.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  4. #24

    Default

    There is a device thar makes ozone. Can put it in drycab. Anyone know where can one purchase that?

  5. #25

    Default Re: Are those fungus by any chance?

    Quote Originally Posted by bobofish View Post
    There is a device thar makes ozone. Can put it in drycab. Anyone know where can one purchase that?
    It's called an ionizer. Won't help.
    Alpha

  6. #26

    Default

    Why would putting a fungus affected lens in the dry cab affect other non-infected lenses? Fungus need the humid condition to grow. If the dry cab is working well, the fungus cannot thrive.... won't kill it either...just inhibited.

    The theory of putting in the sun is a myth. Basically it's the UV that kill the fungus, not infrared or heat. On the contrary, it may even encourage the growth of the fungus by giving it heat and humidity under the sun.

    How abt using a lens with some fungus in it? Would it thus make the camera body a 'spores carrier? Fungus pores are everywhere in a tropic environment, naked to human eyes. I have heard of some dealers shop in air-conditioning environment also catch fungus.

    Some fungus can also find it's way into sealed lens elements that cannot be cleaned or reached....as gd as stage 4 cancer.

    Maybe one day we can user lasers to kill it....??? Or put UV light in the dry cab???

    2-cents...
    Last edited by ataraxist; 25th March 2012 at 09:42 PM.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hinata76
    hmm...just by putting in the sun to kill the fungus..does it really work?

    how?

    open lens cap and just let it stand in the sun?

    back cap also?
    How abt suntan lotion too??? Hehehe...

  8. #28
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,392

    Default Re: Are those fungus by any chance?

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxist View Post
    Maybe one day we can user lasers to kill it....??? Or put UV light in the dry cab???
    Could be an idea.. but you will need those lights as used in medical / laboratory equipment. The fancy UV light that some people put under the car won't help much.
    EOS

  9. #29

    Default Re: Are those fungus by any chance?

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxist View Post
    The theory of putting in the sun is a myth. Basically it's the UV that kill the fungus, not infrared or heat.
    Ah boss... Sunlight is a massive source of UV, even on a cloudy day. It's not just IR...
    Alpha

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae

    Ah boss... Sunlight is a massive source of UV, even on a cloudy day. It's not just IR...
    Yes boss...uv a/b etc. But there has been report that it didn't work n it got worse...fungus spread further. Guess it may help but as a treatment to put it under deliberate sunning is not what I will do.

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxist
    The theory of putting in the sun is a myth. Basically it's the UV that kill the fungus, not infrared or heat. On the contrary, it may even encourage the growth of the fungus by giving it heat and humidity under the sun.

    2-cents...
    U never go to school arh?

  12. #32

    Default Re: Are those fungus by any chance?

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxist View Post
    Yes boss...uv a/b etc. But there has been report that it didn't work n it got worse...fungus spread further. Guess it may help but as a treatment to put it under deliberate sunning is not what I will do.
    I tested it on an old nikkor macro (cheap cheap, mushroom farm) and there was a noticeable improvement. Of course, to totally get rid of even the "dead" webs you need proper cleaning, but I would recommend regular sunning for your lenses... In other words, go out and shoot!
    Alpha

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxist

    Yes boss...uv a/b etc. But there has been report that it didn't work n it got worse...fungus spread further. Guess it may help but as a treatment to put it under deliberate sunning is not what I will do.
    Think u got the facts all wrong.....

  14. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by donut88

    Think u got the facts all wrong.....
    I merely says there r different results for different pple. Conflicting reports. I didn't vouch it was facts. If it works for u gd.

    Yes I regretted not attending the same school as u.
    Last edited by ataraxist; 25th March 2012 at 01:10 PM.

  15. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae

    I tested it on an old nikkor macro (cheap cheap, mushroom farm) and there was a noticeable improvement. Of course, to totally get rid of even the "dead" webs you need proper cleaning, but I would recommend regular sunning for your lenses... In other words, go out and shoot!
    Go out n shoot is definitely a must. I agree totally. That's why lenses left in the dealers air con shelf, unused for a long time can get infected.

  16. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine
    Could be an idea.. but you will need those lights as used in medical / laboratory equipment. The fancy UV light that some people put under the car won't help much.
    I wouldn't mind trying this on one of my infected lens....where to buy such equipment? Probably has to experiment it in the dry cab condition.

    Those webs eaten into the lens coating, can't do anything to it already. At least I might rid all the remaining dormant spores.
    Last edited by ataraxist; 25th March 2012 at 09:42 PM.

  17. #37

    Default

    Someone posted this....interesting....


    I actually got the Ultraviolet imaging department at local university to fire a 266 nm 1Kw laser through Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens that had a bad case of fungus and the dreaded yellowing (this one was really bad) and in 0.8 seconds it was crystal clear and the fungus flaked off when I disassembled it.

    This was an experiment I have wanted to do for some time, and I know quite a few people at the science department at Adelaide University who were also interested in this particular problem. the takumar lens was given to me because of the damage from the yellowing and the fungus.

    The YAG laser was pulsed and had it's power output reduced. Ordinarily solid state YAG lasers in the Kilowatt energy class are only capable of exposing a target for only a few nanoseconds, but at a reduced power level the laser was able to sustain a relatively longer exposure equivalent to a continuous exposure of 750w for 0.8th of a second. This length of time was needed due to the high absorption of UV light by the glass in the lens. The absorption of the energetic UV photons increased the temperature within the lens further aiding the elimination of the fungus.

    Damage to DNA occurs in the presence of UV light in the 254~266nm range, several enzymes become denatured and in the presence of 186nm UV light DNA is able to be effectively destroyed. But unfortunately to use 186nm UV would have been impractical because the lens would have to have been stripped down and placed in hard vacuum due to the fact that air becomes opaque those wavelengths.

    From PentaxForums.com: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...#ixzz1ltxP1DTv
    Last edited by ataraxist; 25th March 2012 at 03:20 PM.

  18. #38

    Default Re: Are those fungus by any chance?

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxist View Post
    Someone posted this....interesting....


    I actually got the Ultraviolet imaging department at local university to fire a 266 nm 1Kw laser through Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens that had a bad case of fungus and the dreaded yellowing (this one was really bad) and in 0.8 seconds it was crystal clear and the fungus flaked off when I disassembled it.

    This was an experiment I have wanted to do for some time, and I know quite a few people at the science department at Adelaide University who were also interested in this particular problem. the takumar lens was given to me because of the damage from the yellowing and the fungus.

    The YAG laser was pulsed and had it's power output reduced. Ordinarily solid state YAG lasers in the Kilowatt energy class are only capable of exposing a target for only a few nanoseconds, but at a reduced power level the laser was able to sustain a relatively longer exposure equivalent to a continuous exposure of 750w for 0.8th of a second. This length of time was needed due to the high absorption of UV light by the glass in the lens. The absorption of the energetic UV photons increased the temperature within the lens further aiding the elimination of the fungus.

    Damage to DNA occurs in the presence of UV light in the 254~266nm range, several enzymes become denatured and in the presence of 186nm UV light DNA is able to be effectively destroyed. But unfortunately to use 186nm UV would have been impractical because the lens would have to have been stripped down and placed in hard vacuum due to the fact that air becomes opaque those wavelengths.

    From PentaxForums.com: How does this happen? - PentaxForums.com
    Wah lau, it must cost A LOT to get the lens blasted by laser commercially, rather just go out to shoot or buy a new lens

  19. #39

    Default

    One radical idea is to disassemble the lenses and have it treated under uv-c light wand that is available easily.

    However for elements that are sealed, we r not sure if it will effective or how long it will be needed under uv-c treatment.

    Wondering if service centers employ such method or not?

    2 cents

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •