tzhang4284 wrote:
This doesn't sound right for the lenses you listed unless you live in a really humid part of Germany. These lenses seem all very recent and are built with good weather sealing - this shouldn't happen. I'd take it to another store or even send one to the manufacturer to get it checked. If it were Leica or vintage lenses, I'd believe it more but for the lenses you listed, it just doesn't make sense.
dust is regularly reported inside supposed weather-sealed lenses, and spores are far, far, smaller than most dust particles so I absolutely believe they can circumvent weather sealing.
The problem is that fungus is so contagious. Zeiss refuses to service lenses with fungus since fungus spread is a really serious problem. It would be very unfair to sell such an infested lens to a third party that might risk further dissemination to other lenses they might own.
Knut. wrote:
The problem is that fungus is so contagious. [...]
Again, I don't think that is correct:
As I understand it the spores already are everywhere. One may get the idea they are contagious as several lenses at the same place can show fungus. But, that is the fungi starting to grow on all lenses as they all are at a spot where the growing conditions are favorable. Please let me know if I am wrong (and provide a link to a good trustworthy place to read about it).
Why would Zeiss state that they refuse to service such lenses if contageousness is not a problem?
I would consider Zeiss to be a serious source of information. Of course there are thousands of different fungi and not all grow on rather clean glass surfaces, but those that do, you would not want to pair them with other lenses you have (and Zeiss does not want these contaminated lenses near other lenses they service or get in contact with tools they work with on lenses).
I'm pretty sure that in a room with fungus growing on the walls, there are more spores in the air. Environmental conditions that are favorable to fungal growth, increase the chances of fungal growth as well.
So the worst is having a bunch of live fungus in an environment conducive to fungal growth.
So I think you want to kind of minimize both. Don't have a bunch of active fungal growth and try not to create an environment to conducive to growth.
I would also consider old camera bags as a source of fungal spores. Especially leather ones might well be infested by spores. Carrying lenses in such bags would give the spores time to spread to and into the lenses. When you then use these lenses in a moist environment (tropics, but also in winter with many environment changes (cold outside, warm moist interior) the circumstances for fungal growth suddenly increase sustantially. Non-contaminated lenses survive such risks, but lenses that have been exposed to excessive sporal loads in the past might develop fungal growth within a few days.
My understanding is that the chance of fungal growth is as much to do with the concentration of spores as it is about having the right growing conditions because (depending on the fungus) not all spores remain viable for long, especially in daylight.
So, yes, Zeiss doesn't want any concentration of spores at all in its HEPA-filtered clean rooms. I also read that Leica has a quarantine area for dealing with moldy lens repairs.
After getting paranoid many years ago about fungus in lenses I read up on it and was surprised to learn that it's not that hard to avoid the problem. Spores need relatively high humidity (and a food source) to germinate but they need that moisture for multiple days if they'e to get started, so a moist lens for a day (or even two) is not a big deal as long as you dry it out and store it somewhere under 60% humidity.
Sorry to hear about it. Kill it! Sunlight or a UV-C lamp will do. It'd be a good idea to expose your living area and bags to UV-C for a while at a time you're not there. You'll have to get use to the ozone smell, but it'll fade.
wordfool wrote:
dust is regularly reported inside supposed weather-sealed lenses, and spores are far, far, smaller than most dust particles so I absolutely believe they can circumvent weather sealing.
Maybe for one lens but for all his lenses seem a bit unlikely. Unless op really stored his lenses poorly, seems unlikely.
Knut. wrote:
Why would Zeiss state that they refuse to service such lenses if contageousness is not a problem?
I would consider Zeiss to be a serious source of information. Of course there are thousands of different fungi and not all grow on rather clean glass surfaces, but those that do, you would not want to pair them with other lenses you have (and Zeiss does not want these contaminated lenses near other lenses they service or get in contact with tools they work with on lenses).
Yes, Zeiss is, in general, a serious source of information. Thing is we don't _know_ why they refuse to service lenses with fungus on them.
Here is another guess:
• Zeiss will normally service your stuff. That comes at a rather high cost. Now fungus infested lenses will often (most often I guess) be cleaned good enough but at the same time there will be traces left from the damaged coating. The customer won't be happy with that and will perhaps even feel ripped off. In he long term Zeiss gets unhappy as well.
Ergo: it's easier for Zeiss to just say No thanks to fungus.
Contagiousness is probably a problem. A lot of spores probably means more growth. Then again, all our equipment is already infected and in incubation period. We just need to make sure the growth doesn't start.
The guy (an older, so presumably more experienced one...) said the Sony 16-35 f4 PZ looked so far OK, the others have many dust particles in them. The Sigma 105 has one a bit bigger particle. He said one can't say whether some of the particles could be fungus.
Quite different statement than that of the young guy in the 1st store who categorically said that all lenses have fungus!
I think the most rational plan of action is: I continue to use the lenses, buy silica gel packets, buy a new camera bag (my big storage mistake was that I mostly left the lenses in my bag, I have to shamefully admit...), buy a dry cabinet and expose all lenses regularly to sunlight. What do you think?
hasenbein wrote:
(my big storage mistake was that I mostly left the lenses in my bag, I have to shamefully admit...)
That doesn't necessarily have to be a mistake. I've been storing my equipment without silica gel in my traditional camera bags or backpacks for decades. All my lenses are crystal clear, even those for my Hasselblad from the '80s and my Rolleiflex from the '60s. However, I'm also more of a fair-weather photographer. Recently, for the first time, I bought a backpack used rather than new. Hopefully, I'll continue to be spared from this issue.
The guy (an older, so presumably more experienced one...) said the Sony 16-35 f4 PZ looked so far OK, the others have many dust particles in them. The Sigma 105 has one a bit bigger particle. He said one can't say whether some of the particles could be fungus.
Quite different statement than that of the young guy in the 1st store who categorically said that all lenses have fungus!
I think the most rational plan of action is: I continue to use the lenses, buy silica gel packets, buy a new camera bag (my big storage mistake was that I mostly left the lenses in my bag, I have to shamefully admit...), buy a dry cabinet and expose all lenses regularly to sunlight. What do you think? ...Show more →
I think
a) you are lucky having more than one camera store within reach, and
b) the second opinion sounds better, and it is also probably correct (see my first reply)
hasenbein wrote:
EDIT: Now I have managed to see the fungus. No real "spider webs", but many little dots and lines.
c) is it possible the dots and lines are dust particles and short hair strands (or similar)?
I would check again using a loupe and check that the lines really are dirt/hair. I guess they are but it's good to know for sure.
Then I'm getting increasingly interested in the matter. Until now I have been happy with a shelf in a standard cabinet. That means a dark, poorly ventilated and for periods warm environment with humidity levels higher than ideal. That's how it has been the last years. If this is "weather" or "climate" doesn't matter.
Jonas B wrote: quoting myself:
Are there even dry cabinets with UV-light in them, or perhaps room for additional light? And what is a good UV light source?
Questions, questions...
Having a full-time UV light in a dry cabinet might not be a good idea since any ozone produced could degradate any rubber seals in the lenses.
InFocus2014 wrote:
Having a full-time UV light in a dry cabinet might not be a good idea since any ozone produced could degradate any rubber seals in the lenses.
You are right of course. Thank you.
The light treatment is mainly meant for curing old yellow glass. That is of course better done outside of the dry cabinet. My lazy brain!
Just looked through the Google customer reviews of the first camera store.
Two other people in the last few months had the same experience as I had! Got told that their lenses were fungus-infested and that they probably should trash them - went to get a 2nd opinion - found out their lenses are just fine!
Are there only idiots and a-holes left on this planet, or what??
I live in a climate where the summers can be very humid. While my house is always climate controlled, when I am outdoors those extendable zooms are pumping in hot humid air like crazy. In well over a decade of dealing with many dozens of lenses, I have never had a fungus problem. I know, for certain, as I check all lenses with a flashlight - particularly when selling since I have found some buyers to be hypercritical about even a tiny fleck of dust ( ).
On the other hand, when my father passed some years ago, he left eight old Leica M-mount lenses. I was initially excited, until I did the flashlight test, which revealed massive fungus. I considered having them cleaned, but the fungus was so bad, it had consumed much of the lens coatings. I gave the lenses away as I did not even want to take them home. As a note, he lived in the California (dry) desert.
In doing research on lens fungus, I was told that newer lenses have a fungus inhibitor in the coatings that the old Leica lenses did not have. I have no idea how true that is, but evidence seems to support that supposition.
).