Ok, so I'm happy with this lens but I do suspect a slight influence from internal dust on flare/glow/halation wide open. I removed the front element thinking the dust was on the outside of the second element but that area is clean as a whistle. So, I suspect the dust is on the rear most front element on the other side of the aperture blades and also perhaps on one side of the rear group. Here is the question. The rear group seems very hard/tight to unscrew. I don't want to force anything obviously. Is there a trick, place on a rubber mat and turn perhaps. There is no set screw are anything is there? It is the outermost spanner wrench notches of the most rear element that need to turn right? I have tried turning this with my spanner wrench but it seems to require more force than I'm comfortable applying. Thanks in advance.
Most lenses have a lens group before and after the aperture mechanism, that unscrews. Always check those inside surfaces for dust, first before disassembling the individual lens elements.
The rear lens group behind the aperture will unscrew CCW. I'm talking about the whole black assembly. The spanner wrench notches will unscrew a retainer ring holding in the individual elements. Latex gloves help get a good grip.
I had a 58/1.2 that squeaked when the aperture ring was opened up from f/2.0 to f/11 or so. Couldn't figure out how to get rid of the squeak. When I unscrewed that rear assembly and re-tightened it back not so tight, the squeak went away.
Well, it did not come apart as a group. I turned the whole rear assembly with my hand in a latex glove and the outermost element unscrewed alone. The next element is turning out to be really tough to unscrew.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
I am hoping you are taking pics along the way for the "archive..."
Max
Sorry, its already dust free and back together. There was no dust between the front elements which is funny because the flashlight test made it seem that the dust was in that area. Three retaining rings on the front element. The outside ring really does nothing. Unscrew it and then you will find two more retaining rings. Here you unscrew the inner one and that allows the front element to come out. I'm not sure about the outside one and I did not mess with it. On the rear, I think that in most cases, if you unscrew the whole assembly, the whole rear group would normally come out as a unit. Of course, mine was the oddball in that unscrewing the whole thing removed just the rear element alone because the next element behind the aperture was extremely tight. I almost gave up on it in fact. Removing it revealed dust on the inside of that element and also on the rear most front group which you can get at when the aperture is held wide open. I think this is the exact area Paul has mentioned before as being where dust accumulates. Those are the two spots where my dust had accumulated also. I should have taken pics to show just how much dust it was. More than I have ever seen in a lens before.
p.1 #10 · Question about Rokkor 58 1.2 dissasembly
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Sorry, its already dust free and back together. There was no dust between the front elements which is funny because the flashlight test made it seem that the dust was in that area. Three retaining rings on the front element. The outside ring really does nothing. Unscrew it and then you will find two more retaining rings. Here you unscrew the inner one and that allows the front element to come out. I'm not sure about the outside one and I did not mess with it. On the rear, I think that in most cases, if you unscrew the whole assembly, the whole rear group would normally come out as a unit. Of course, mine was the oddball in that unscrewing the whole thing removed just the rear element alone because the next element behind the aperture was extremely tight. I almost gave up on it in fact. Removing it revealed dust on the inside of that element and also on the rear most front group which you can get at when the aperture is held wide open. I think this is the exact area Paul has mentioned before as being where dust accumulates. Those are the two spots where my dust had accumulated also. I should have taken pics to show just how much dust it was. More than I have ever seen in a lens before. ...Show more →
Yep, exactly where I found most of the dust.
I had one copy that didn't want to let me have its rear assembly all in one piece. I showed it who's boss
p.1 #12 · Question about Rokkor 58 1.2 dissasembly
ooh... the yellows match
Looks like a killer combo. I love the feel of smaller-ish MF lenses on these big honking dslrs, especially with a hand grip. Here's to some big prints for you
If you happen upon another retired Floridian that is offloading a rokkor on the cheap, keep me in mind ;-)
p.1 #13 · Question about Rokkor 58 1.2 dissasembly
I had the rear element unscrew from the rear group before too, it's a pain when that happens. some rubber bands and channellock pliers cured that though, to get the whole rear group out.
p.1 #14 · Question about Rokkor 58 1.2 dissasembly
Ed Sawyer wrote:
I had the rear element unscrew from the rear group before too, it's a pain when that happens. some rubber bands and channellock pliers cured that though, to get the whole rear group out.
-Ed
Yep, I use channel-locks as well. Rubber bands are a good idea, though. Maybe I ought to use some
Funny story regarding the rear assembly:
The second Rokkor 58/1.2 I bought arrived (from UK) in a f^&#ing bubble mailer that was jammed into my mailbox by the mailman.
As if that was not bad enough, upon opening the bubble mailer, I heard something rattling around inside. I removed the rear cap and gave it a little shake, only to find that the rear assembly was wobbling around inside the barrel like a bloody Weeble.
The only thing preventing the Weeble from falling completely out of the barrel was the mount itself. So, I actually learned how to install the rear assembly before I learned how to remove it.
The punch-line?
This was the lens that came to be known as "my keeper."
p.1 #15 · Question about Rokkor 58 1.2 dissasembly
Daniel Heineck wrote:
ooh... the yellows match
Looks like a killer combo. I love the feel of smaller-ish MF lenses on these big honking dslrs, especially with a hand grip. Here's to some big prints for you
If you happen upon another retired Floridian that is offloading a rokkor on the cheap, keep me in mind ;-)
The Rokkor definitely makes its presence known when your handling it. Its quite weighty and not really that small. It dwarfs a Pentax Takumar 50 1.4 for instance.
p.1 #17 · Question about Rokkor 58 1.2 dissasembly
Daniel Heineck wrote:
Ah... compared to a L-glass standard zoom, they're light and nimble.
I for some reason though that these Rokkors weren't too much bigger than my olympus 50 1.4, but maybe that guy is just tiny.
D
That Olympus is much smaller, I had one at one time. This thing is closer to something like the older FD Canon 85 1.2L. Not quite that big but closer to that than an Olympus 50 1.4. It must be lighter and less cumbersome than a 24-70 2.8L though.
I will keep an eye out - and you in mind - when I find a cheap stash of these Rokkors. You just know there sitting in some closet somewhere, unused for years, just waiting to turn up in a yard sale or flea market for next to nothing.
p.1 #18 · Question about Rokkor 58 1.2 dissasembly
cogitech wrote:
Yep, I use channel-locks as well. Rubber bands are a good idea, though. Maybe I ought to use some
Funny story regarding the rear assembly:
The second Rokkor 58/1.2 I bought arrived (from UK) in a f^&#ing bubble mailer that was jammed into my mailbox by the mailman.
As if that was not bad enough, upon opening the bubble mailer, I heard something rattling around inside. I removed the rear cap and gave it a little shake, only to find that the rear assembly was wobbling around inside the barrel like a bloody Weeble.
The only thing preventing the Weeble from falling completely out of the barrel was the mount itself. So, I actually learned how to install the rear assembly before I learned how to remove it.
The punch-line?
This was the lens that came to be known as "my keeper." ...Show more →
...and the guy probably sold the lens due to poor performance. The rear element was probably partially unscrewed when he mailed it so you know if someone had tested it, it would have performed terribly.
p.1 #19 · Question about Rokkor 58 1.2 dissasembly
A bubble mailer! damn. I would have just about swam to the UK to give that guy an asskicking for something like that. ;-) fortunately no harm done, it sounds like.
the size/weight of the 58 1.2 is most equivalent to the Canon 100/f2 EF I think. (or maybe the 85 1.8 but I never had one of those).
p.1 #20 · Question about Rokkor 58 1.2 dissasembly
Ed Sawyer wrote:
A bubble mailer! damn. I would have just about swam to the UK to give that guy an asskicking for something like that. ;-) fortunately no harm done, it sounds like.
the size/weight of the 58 1.2 is most equivalent to the Canon 100/f2 EF I think. (or maybe the 85 1.8 but I never had one of those).
-Ed
The Rokkor is about 50g heavier than the EF 85/1.8
