This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Beware Radioactive Lenses
p.4 #1Beware Radioactive Lenses
sebboh wrote:
how come? (you mostly use the newer one, not how come you won't give me your older one 
)
also, how many lenses do you have multiple copies of?
The Rokkor 58/1.2 and the Rokkor 28/2 are the only lenses where I have two copies.
28/2 because one copy has an extra element and larger filter size, considered better verson.
And I have two Rokkor 58/1.2 copies because I had to get a radioactive copy since Paul told us that out of all his copies of the lens, the sharpest one was a scalloped one. Plus the scalloped ("ribbed for her pleasure") version looks cooler than the the newer rubber covered focus ring.
Plus it is fun to watch everyone's reactions when you tell them it is radioactive!
wayne seltzer wrote
Nope, can't have my radioactive Rokkor 58/1.2 copy. I mostly use my newer, non-radioactive copy of the lens though. I better get a lead lens case for my radioactive one.)also, how many lenses do you have multiple copies of?
The Rokkor 58/1.2 and the Rokkor 28/2 are the only lenses where I have two copies.
28/2 because one copy has an extra element and larger filter size, considered better verson.
And I have two Rokkor 58/1.2 copies because I had to get a radioactive copy since Paul told us that out of all his copies of the lens, the sharpest one was a scalloped one. Plus the scalloped ("ribbed for her pleasure") version looks cooler than the the newer rubber covered focus ring.
Plus it is fun to watch everyone's reactions when you tell them it is radioactive!
Dec 17, 2010 at 05:25 PM
p.4 #2Beware Radioactive Lenses
slungu wrote:
Right, but in any case, we all have a 100% chance of dying.
Problem is that all this statistical stuff is not saying anything about you or your future. So starting to worry about certain things like the radioactive lenses is a little bit stretched imho. Plus, this is what we know today. Tomorow new things and new statistics will emerge and somebody in hundred years from now might ask : how did they survive ? Same thing goes with all the chemical stuff that you had in the last half of the XX century. And the list goes on....Show more →
I never said I was worried.
Right, but in any case, we all have a 100% chance of dying.
Problem is that all this statistical stuff is not saying anything about you or your future. So starting to worry about certain things like the radioactive lenses is a little bit stretched imho. Plus, this is what we know today. Tomorow new things and new statistics will emerge and somebody in hundred years from now might ask : how did they survive ? Same thing goes with all the chemical stuff that you had in the last half of the XX century. And the list goes on....Show more →
I never said I was worried.
Dec 17, 2010 at 05:25 PM
p.4 #3Beware Radioactive Lenses
wayne seltzer wrote:
The Rokkor 58/1.2 and the Rokkor 28/2 are the only lenses where I have two copies.
28/2 because one copy has an extra element and larger filter size, considered better verson.
And I have two Rokkor 58/1.2 copies because I had to get a radioactive copy since Paul told us that out of all his copies of the lens, the sharpest one was a scalloped one. Plus the scalloped ("ribbed for her pleasure") version looks cooler than the the newer rubber covered focus ring.
Plus it is fun to watch everyone's reactions when you tell them it is radioactive!
a bit off topic but...
so did you notice any difference between either pairs? i'm more interested in the differences between the 28's. i've been looking for one and would prefer the 49mm filter sized one due to it being smaller, however if it actually isn't as good optically i'll try and get the other. i had just heard that it had less metal in the construction, hadn't seen any comparisons.
The Rokkor 58/1.2 and the Rokkor 28/2 are the only lenses where I have two copies.
28/2 because one copy has an extra element and larger filter size, considered better verson.
And I have two Rokkor 58/1.2 copies because I had to get a radioactive copy since Paul told us that out of all his copies of the lens, the sharpest one was a scalloped one. Plus the scalloped ("ribbed for her pleasure") version looks cooler than the the newer rubber covered focus ring.
Plus it is fun to watch everyone's reactions when you tell them it is radioactive!
a bit off topic but...
so did you notice any difference between either pairs? i'm more interested in the differences between the 28's. i've been looking for one and would prefer the 49mm filter sized one due to it being smaller, however if it actually isn't as good optically i'll try and get the other. i had just heard that it had less metal in the construction, hadn't seen any comparisons.
Dec 17, 2010 at 05:42 PM
p.4 #4Beware Radioactive Lenses
rtester wrote:
I think I need to shorten all my lens straps, just to be on the safe side.
Now there's a man who knows what to protect first! Your priorities are in order, sir!
Those who already have kids could probably stand to lengthen their straps.
I think I need to shorten all my lens straps, just to be on the safe side.
Now there's a man who knows what to protect first! Your priorities are in order, sir!
Those who already have kids could probably stand to lengthen their straps.
Dec 17, 2010 at 05:52 PM
p.4 #5Beware Radioactive Lenses
The older/larger filter size version has an extra element and I think is slightly sharper than the newer/smaller filter size verson but I have never done any side by side testing to prove this.
The smaller filter size version definitely has more vignetting when shooting wide open.
Both are sharp lenses.Hard to find. Debuggerus also has a copy of the larger version of the 28/2.
The smaller filter size version definitely has more vignetting when shooting wide open.
Both are sharp lenses.Hard to find. Debuggerus also has a copy of the larger version of the 28/2.
Dec 17, 2010 at 05:54 PM
p.4 #6Beware Radioactive Lenses
As do I: 55mm MC 28/2.
It's spectacular. Can't say much more than that, nor have I done any kind of "testing"
It's spectacular. Can't say much more than that, nor have I done any kind of "testing"
Dec 17, 2010 at 05:57 PM
p.4 #7Beware Radioactive Lenses
thanks both of you. given the scarcity, i'll probably just get whichever one i can find first.
Dec 17, 2010 at 06:05 PM
p.4 #8Beware Radioactive Lenses
Just have to say that I'm quite amazed and impressed with the level of knowledge FM'ers have as a whole regarding all things radiation based.
I've been going to back to school for nuclear medicine (don't think the outlook to continue being able to earn a living as a photographer is looking too good) and learned all this stuff, though no lens specific lessons lol, and I really thought the material wasn't so commonly known, but many here have proved otherwise.
Really is pretty interesting subject matter though isn't it ??
Cheers
I've been going to back to school for nuclear medicine (don't think the outlook to continue being able to earn a living as a photographer is looking too good) and learned all this stuff, though no lens specific lessons lol, and I really thought the material wasn't so commonly known, but many here have proved otherwise.
Really is pretty interesting subject matter though isn't it ??
Cheers
Dec 18, 2010 at 12:32 AM
p.4 #9Beware Radioactive Lenses
wayne seltzer wrote:
Plus it is fun to watch everyone's reactions when you tell them it is radioactive!
+1
I'd pay extra for a radioactive lens
Plus it is fun to watch everyone's reactions when you tell them it is radioactive!
+1
I'd pay extra for a radioactive lens
Dec 18, 2010 at 03:30 AM
p.4 #10Beware Radioactive Lenses
There are lots of Youtube videos of people using home Geiger counters (I can't believe I just typed that) on camera lenses, uranium glass, Fiestaware etc., but this woman sounds like she knows what she's talking about:
Dec 18, 2010 at 03:49 AM
p.4 #11Beware Radioactive Lenses
As there are real radiation experts here I can't resist a question.
For night photography I've been looking for small reliable torches, and I keep being tempted by those tritium powered torches that never need batteries. Presumably they are powered by radiation? Should I be worried about using them? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick on this?
For night photography I've been looking for small reliable torches, and I keep being tempted by those tritium powered torches that never need batteries. Presumably they are powered by radiation? Should I be worried about using them? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick on this?
Dec 18, 2010 at 05:24 AM
p.4 #12Beware Radioactive Lenses
The radioactive decay product of tritium is a low energy beta that cannot penetrate the outer dead layer of human skin. Therefore, the main hazard associated with tritium is internal exposure from inhalation or ingestion.
Conclusion: don't swallow the stick.
PS: I am not the expert, but I know my Google:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/tritium.htm
EDIT: fixed link
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 05:36 AM · View previous versions
Conclusion: don't swallow the stick.
PS: I am not the expert, but I know my Google:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/tritium.htm
EDIT: fixed link
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 05:36 AM · View previous versions
Dec 18, 2010 at 05:33 AM
p.4 #13Beware Radioactive Lenses
David Baldwin wrote:
As there are real radiation experts here I can't resist a question.
For night photography I've been looking for small reliable torches, and I keep being tempted by those tritium powered torches that never need batteries. Presumably they are powered by radiation? Should I be worried about using them? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick on this?
Don't worry.
"Beta particles from tritium can penetrate only about 6.0 mm of air, and they are incapable of passing through the dead outermost layer of human skin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
Edit: A few seconds late!
As there are real radiation experts here I can't resist a question.
For night photography I've been looking for small reliable torches, and I keep being tempted by those tritium powered torches that never need batteries. Presumably they are powered by radiation? Should I be worried about using them? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick on this?
Don't worry.
"Beta particles from tritium can penetrate only about 6.0 mm of air, and they are incapable of passing through the dead outermost layer of human skin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
Edit: A few seconds late!
Dec 18, 2010 at 05:34 AM
p.4 #14Beware Radioactive Lenses
Haha, där fick du kompis!
Haha, gotcha Pal, in Swenglish.
Haha, gotcha Pal,
in Swenglish. Dec 18, 2010 at 05:38 AM
p.4 #15Beware Radioactive Lenses
kosmoskatten wrote:
Haha, där fick du kompis!
I would have (ignorantly) translated this slightly differently, based on my limited knowledge of German. Funny how fick (ficken) can mean different things in the various Germanic languages.
It probably means "toast" in Danish.
Haha, där fick du kompis!
I would have (ignorantly) translated this slightly differently, based on my limited knowledge of German. Funny how fick (ficken) can mean different things in the various Germanic languages.
It probably means "toast" in Danish.
Dec 18, 2010 at 07:55 AM
p.4 #16Beware Radioactive Lenses
back when tschernobyl sent its particles up to be transported by wind and rain, I borrowed a fairly accurate geiger counter to measure radiation levels in the garden (as expected, maximum where the rainwater came down the gutter from the roof).
I also measured some of my optics. Some of the early Kern Switars turned out to be radioactive, others of almost the same vintage, not. I think the oldest type in the non- auto alpamount did not register, while some in the early non-macro mount diid.
I didn´t make precise measurements, and didnt take notes so I cannot contribute ad the dose rate, but I calibrated the counter against a caesium source and THAT was many orders of magnitude stronger.
p.
I also measured some of my optics. Some of the early Kern Switars turned out to be radioactive, others of almost the same vintage, not. I think the oldest type in the non- auto alpamount did not register, while some in the early non-macro mount diid.
I didn´t make precise measurements, and didnt take notes so I cannot contribute ad the dose rate, but I calibrated the counter against a caesium source and THAT was many orders of magnitude stronger.
p.
Dec 18, 2010 at 08:04 AM
p.4 #17Beware Radioactive Lenses
David Baldwin wrote:
As there are real radiation experts here I can't resist a question.
For night photography I've been looking for small reliable torches, and I keep being tempted by those tritium powered torches that never need batteries. Presumably they are powered by radiation? Should I be worried about using them? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick on this?
I'm definitely late on this one, but tritium is dangerous mostly because it exists as a gas in its natural state. So it would be quite easy to inhale enough of it to do some real harm if there was a leak at a tritium containment facility.
In a watch dial or something like that, that danger doesn't exist. Unless you crack it open and get a whiff of the gas inside...
As there are real radiation experts here I can't resist a question.
For night photography I've been looking for small reliable torches, and I keep being tempted by those tritium powered torches that never need batteries. Presumably they are powered by radiation? Should I be worried about using them? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick on this?
I'm definitely late on this one, but tritium is dangerous mostly because it exists as a gas in its natural state. So it would be quite easy to inhale enough of it to do some real harm if there was a leak at a tritium containment facility.
In a watch dial or something like that, that danger doesn't exist. Unless you crack it open and get a whiff of the gas inside...
Dec 18, 2010 at 08:50 AM
p.4 #18Beware Radioactive Lenses
I'm going to lock everything up in a lead-lined room for 200,000 years before I use it. Then I should be safe from any radiation. 
Dec 18, 2010 at 10:20 AM
p.4 #19Beware Radioactive Lenses
runamuck wrote:
I'm going to lock everything up in a lead-lined room for 200,000 years before I use it. Then I should be safe from any radiation.
And what kind of food do you eat, or air do you inhale? Good luck with that....
I'm going to lock everything up in a lead-lined room for 200,000 years before I use it. Then I should be safe from any radiation.
And what kind of food do you eat, or air do you inhale? Good luck with that....
Dec 18, 2010 at 11:43 AM
p.4 #20Beware Radioactive Lenses
A little bit of knowledge, misapplied, goes a long way. Seems like most people here have a pretty rational outlook on radiation.
For those of you who are nervous; relax. it's not worth it. You'll shorten your life more worrying than you will using a thoriated lens.
And as a last humorous anecdote, we used to gobble down bananas before we had chest scans to see if we could get a K-12 peak. Yes, even the humble banana has RADIOACTIVE components. Benign but amusing.
For those of you who are nervous; relax. it's not worth it. You'll shorten your life more worrying than you will using a thoriated lens.
And as a last humorous anecdote, we used to gobble down bananas before we had chest scans to see if we could get a K-12 peak. Yes, even the humble banana has RADIOACTIVE components. Benign but amusing.
Dec 18, 2010 at 12:35 PM