jack
Senior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by jack on Jan 11, 2006 21:56:11 GMT -5
The point I was trying to make is that we do not have all the information to make a informed decision. We do not know how the measurements where taken, at the lens glass, at the viewfinder or at the focusing ring. Radiation levels fall off with distance just like light from a flash, and can be reduced by materials between us and the source. A raw number taken at the source does not tell you what your exposure is. His meters give you a rate per hour, which has to be multiplied by the number of hrs of expose to find the yearly rate which is referenced in my posted link. I was not trying to be funny about sending me you lens or ducking and cover as we use to call it, but only trying to point out how we panic at the thought of a danger with out full knowledge of the concerns. We all know that the duck and cover routine would not have saved many people from a horrible death or existence if they survived. Precautions should be taken but panic should not set in.
Jack
|
|
rover
Lifetime Member
Dad with a Camera, or two, or...
Posts: 101
|
Post by rover on Jan 13, 2006 6:07:29 GMT -5
I am not in any position to discuss the science or medicine of this topic, but wow.
First off, buying a Geiger counter on ebay, amazing world we live in. Just the confirmation of the "hot" rumor seems interesting. Quantified no less by actual readings.
I sold my Takumar a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by litesong on Jan 15, 2006 15:02:07 GMT -5
Thankyou Bob & Jack for really informative emails on radiation...& phooey on those making jokes! You think you got problems with the Taks...I'm the one whose been defending the Fujica cams & lenses around here. Boy, am I glad I made little money & opted for the f/1.8 Fujinon instead of the f/1.4 lens in 1974 (cost $30 more)! I walked slow steep 10,000 plus miles thru the Washington Cascade Mtns. & my trusty Fujica ST801 w/f1.8 lens was banging on my chest all the way. Plus I carry my Fujica even more around the lowlands & Monroe, my hometown. As beautiful as Washington State is, is as much as I carry my Fujicas. Talk about fried eggs & ham....that would have been my chest if I'd carried the Fujinon f/1.4 lens! Again, thankyou Bob for your concern illuminating this subject!
|
|
|
Post by vintageslrs on Jan 15, 2006 19:10:09 GMT -5
Litesong and Rover.....
you are most welcome. Nice to see that I am not alone in wanting to be cautious and if I err, let in be on the side of good health.
I have purchased a device to measure radiation on Evilbay, myself.....when it arrives I will test all my lenses...I will pay particular attention to my Takumars, Fujinons and any F1.4 lenses I have...and I will see for myself. Also, I will be able to test other items like the Microwave oven and the smoke detectors, etc...and see just how they compare to the lenses in question. Please don't mis-understand...I am not one to panic...nor am I one to rashly sell any lenses...but I want to know...I want to be well-informed...and if I deem it necessary...I wish to be prudent in using and storing any "hot" lenses. Seems some are interested in this topic and some are not....so once I receive this device and start testing things....if anyone wishes to know the results...feel free to email me privately @ bob40caliber@yahoo.com and I will pass along the results to all those interested. This way if you are not interested...I will not waste your time or this board's bandwith...seems fair?
thanks Bob
|
|
|
Post by litesong on Jan 16, 2006 0:33:51 GMT -5
Hi Bob....Oh, I was so thankful about your radiation story(& I had the non-radioactive Fujinon f/1.8 lens), that I forgot to tell my whole story. Guess who owns a radioactive Fujinon f/1.4 lens as of 2 months ago? Me. Guess who won't carry the f/1.4 lens against his chest for 10000 hours. ME, ME, ME.....& I ain't tuning up to sing an aria! Bob, I think if any story belongs in the Camera Collector, your continuing radiation story does. I think people, upon a second reading, now understand that your story is worthy & not a subject of laughter.
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Jan 16, 2006 8:07:07 GMT -5
This is all I could find on the subject. Google results The person doesn't seem to think it's that dangerous, but who knows. I have some Super Takumar lenses but I see no yellowing in them. Are they all bad or just some of them Bob?
|
|
|
Post by vintageslrs on Jan 16, 2006 8:51:57 GMT -5
Randy
I think the most questionable ones are the F1.4 ones...they seem to have the most of the "rare earth elements" in them. The F1.4 ones that I have are significantly yellowed...the F1.8 ones I have are not. That may be a good indicator. But I will test all the lenses I have once my device arrives (and perhaps after our move is complete) and I will let anyone who emails me privately know the results.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by litesong on Jan 16, 2006 14:33:27 GMT -5
In the early 70's Fujica & later Olympus & Pentax decreased their SLRs & lenses in weight & size. Radioactive thorium was used in rare earth glasses to boost refraction indices to higher levels & allowed lenses to be thinner & lighter. Yes, my Fujica f/1.4 lens is smaller than my f/1.8 lens, & dramatically smaller & shorter than Konica Hexanon & Vivitar M42 f/1.4 lenses that I have...if you exclude the size & weight of the geiger counter(extra cost option on the Fujica).
|
|
|
Post by litesong on Jan 16, 2006 15:07:33 GMT -5
Oh, yeah....The Fujinon f/1.4 is much smaller than my Mamiya SX f/1.4 too. So that explains why your radiation count was low on the Mamiya.
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Jan 16, 2006 19:12:22 GMT -5
Okay, here's the 24 dollar question. I don't have any 1.4 or 1.8 lenses, all of my Super Takumars are 1.2s!!! Now what's the story on 1.2?
|
|
|
Post by vintageslrs on Jan 16, 2006 20:40:49 GMT -5
Randy
that's F1.2 not F2.0 right?
well, my guess would think they would be very similar to the F1.4.....have they yellowed at all?
and I think we will have to wait til I get my measuring device...and if you wish send me one I'll test it and send it back to ya---OK?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Jan 16, 2006 22:23:30 GMT -5
Part #37103 Super-Takumar 1:2 55mm f-2 to f-16, 49mm filter ring. Not yellow. So that makes it an f/2 lens.
|
|
|
Post by litesong on Jan 17, 2006 12:30:36 GMT -5
Hi Bob...I thot(thought) my EBC Fujinon f/1.4 lens had no yellowing. But while looking at white surfaces & comparing it carefully with my EBC Fujinon f/1.8 lens, the f/1.4 lens shows a very faint yellow cast. Hey! You're a prophet! I bet your Geiger counter would count lots of Geigers around my f/1.4 lens. Thanks again...for your article & for putting up with the initial yuk makers around here. Grace & Peace to you, Bob
|
|
rover
Lifetime Member
Dad with a Camera, or two, or...
Posts: 101
|
Post by rover on Jan 17, 2006 12:52:07 GMT -5
I think that only the 1.4 Taks are hot.
Don't quote me on it, but I am pretty sure.
|
|
|
Post by vintageslrs on Jan 17, 2006 13:32:23 GMT -5
Rover .... the initial findings by the good doctor, Chuck Ibolite, M.D. found that the Takumar SMC F1.8 and F2.0 lens were "warm" but not as "hot" as the Fujinon EBC F1.4 lens. He did not have a Takumar SMC F1.4 to test. He was thinking it would be possibly as "hot" as the Fujinon because his Fujinon F1.4 lens had yellowed as just about all of the Takumar F1.4 lenses have. I do a Takumar F1.4 to test and a 1.8. And a host of Fujinon to test. And several other F1.4 lenses, including Rokkor and Canon. When I am able to perform the tests, I will happily share the info. with anyone who emails me privately.
Bob bob40caliber@yahoo.com
|
|