F
flowers
Guest
zim said:RomainF said:
Clue: Have you got a lot of red blisters oozing fluorescent green puss on your face?
zim said:Ah wait, that’s puberty my mistake :
haha
RomainF said:
Sella174 said it, there's a list! Actually a couple of lists, and you can also search for the name of your lens and if you're "lucky" enough to own a thoriated lens, you will probably find a forum thread where someone has tested it for radiation! Then you know at least your lens might be one, and reading more will help you discover more.
In some lenses not all lenses of that kind were thoriated, only up to or after a certain year, or a certain batch.
Upvote
0
I have an early Leica 50 f/2 collapsible Summicron. A few years ago, I had it recoated. The guy that did that said there was some degradation of the rare earth lens elements. He said it was due to radioactive decay.
Great lens though. Almost worth buying an A7r or something, just to put that lens back in service.
Great lens though. Almost worth buying an A7r or something, just to put that lens back in service.
Upvote
0
Probably zero or one.
My M42 lenses date from that time, but aren't on the list. Not all lenses were made by the name on the lens label, however. My normal lens focal length and f/stop (55mm f/1.4 Mamiya_Sekor) is not on the list in a likely name (there is a Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar , and I am unsure if these were still made in Jena by 1968). I also have inherited an old Canon AE1 which I don't use. It has one of the lenses said to be thoriated, the 50mm f/1.8, but I haven't checked this particular one, either by looking for the characteristic yellow tinge or by geiger counter, which I do have access to at work.
My M42 lenses date from that time, but aren't on the list. Not all lenses were made by the name on the lens label, however. My normal lens focal length and f/stop (55mm f/1.4 Mamiya_Sekor) is not on the list in a likely name (there is a Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar , and I am unsure if these were still made in Jena by 1968). I also have inherited an old Canon AE1 which I don't use. It has one of the lenses said to be thoriated, the 50mm f/1.8, but I haven't checked this particular one, either by looking for the characteristic yellow tinge or by geiger counter, which I do have access to at work.
Upvote
0
I was living rather close to Chernobyl (lucky me) when it melted down, so I probably am irradiating my lenses . Between that and living in London during the mad cow disease outbreak, I had a nice time in Europe during the 80s & early 90s 
. Between that and living in London during the mad cow disease outbreak, I had a nice time in Europe during the 80s & early 90s
Upvote
0
surapon
80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
mackguyver said:I was living rather close to Chernobyl (lucky me) when it melted down, so I probably am irradiating my lenses
+1 for me too , Dear Mr. mackguyver.
My home for past 35 years is located with in 10 miles from the big nuclear plants---Yes, We get FREE IODINE PILLS from The Local Government in every years, The Local government give us the direction how to use these Iodine pill incase of the NUKE break down. Just Put in our A__ Hole, Incase of we have diarrhea, and our brown movement ( SH-T) will not contaminate the Soil. No, Not for take by Mouth, Because too late in the very close area like my home, to the NUKE Plants and I will die any way.
YES, Past 35 years, All of my Canon Lenses are Radioactive Lenses, Why ?---Because all of my Photos are Lousy/ Not Good Pictures, With Green Shade Colors---Not Good as my 2 weeks old Canon EOS-M, And M Lenses---Just New Lenses/ New Camera and do not get Contaminated Yet = Still great Photos ---Ha, Ha, Ha.
I must buy another 7 D MK II when she on the market, and Keep her in the Lead Box all the times, And Will improve my Photos quality.
Just Kidding/ Joking before the great Weekend start.
Surapon
Upvote
0
I tested all my lenses today. Most of the lenses tested did not show any significant levels of radiation above background but my EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS (1998 date code) was at 96 CPM above normal background levels. Additionally, I accidentally left a B+W XS-Pro UV filter on and it was at 50CPM above background levels. From that discovery I tested all my B+W XS-Pro UV filters and they all had about this same level above background levels. I also tested B+W kaesemann polarizers (the slim MRC ones) and they tested negative.
Each test was performed by putting a 2" highly sensitive Geiger-Muller tube up as close as possible to the front element (or filter) and performed a 10 minute timed test in order to figure out the average CPM over that time.
Lenses tested:
EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS (96 CPM over normal background levels, 1998 date code)
EF 70-200 2.8 IS II
EF 85 1.2
EF 100 2.8 IS Macro
TS-E 24 3.5 II
2 different EF 40mm 2.8s (An older one and a newer one)
EF 8-15 4.0 (This one seemed to have a consistently minor reading above background, about 5 CPM and may not be significant.)
EF 2x extender III
Each test was performed by putting a 2" highly sensitive Geiger-Muller tube up as close as possible to the front element (or filter) and performed a 10 minute timed test in order to figure out the average CPM over that time.
Lenses tested:
EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS (96 CPM over normal background levels, 1998 date code)
EF 70-200 2.8 IS II
EF 85 1.2
EF 100 2.8 IS Macro
TS-E 24 3.5 II
2 different EF 40mm 2.8s (An older one and a newer one)
EF 8-15 4.0 (This one seemed to have a consistently minor reading above background, about 5 CPM and may not be significant.)
EF 2x extender III
Upvote
0
ME said:I think everyone is missing an important factor: ... The white balance might have to be adjusted.
Actually, yes. I really don't use my Takumar lens enough in bright sunlight, so the thorium has turned the Canada balsam the colour of raw honey.
Upvote
0
Hah! Interesting topic! I never thought to check if any of my lenses were radioactive. Most of my lenses were purchased before the Fukishima incident, and I don't know that Canon was manufacturing anything close enough to that for any of them to become irradiated.
The only potential lens would be the EF 600mm f/4 L II...I purchased that only 8 months ago...
The only potential lens would be the EF 600mm f/4 L II...I purchased that only 8 months ago...
Upvote
0
F
flowers
Guest
Not likely
Canon only has one factory in Fukushima and they make printers there. Canon facilities were nowhere near enough to get irradiated. The scope of the earthquake was larger than the scope of the resulting nuclear accident.
Alas, you have no radioactive lenses! Now you'll have to buy a night light or flashlight separately if you need light in the dark.
http://www.canon.com/news/2011/mar13e.htmljrista said:
Canon only has one factory in Fukushima and they make printers there. Canon facilities were nowhere near enough to get irradiated. The scope of the earthquake was larger than the scope of the resulting nuclear accident.
Alas, you have no radioactive lenses! Now you'll have to buy a night light or flashlight separately if you need light in the dark.
Upvote
0
