Do you also have damp / fungus in your lens

[Glenn NK]

Checked all my lenses last night - a bit of dust on the rear elements so I blew it off/out.

No sign of fungus at all - the only fungi seem to be on me.

I've always wondered the ages of some of our members; I had a good idea that Richard (rpcrowe) was close to my age by his US Navy and Vietnam experience. My deep dark secret (which some may have already figured since I mentioned that I had a 1952 Kodak Brownie Hawkeye) is that Richard is about two months older than I am, and Ted has close to a year on me.

Richard's comment about leather is timely - pure organic provides excellent food for fungus.

Other than keeping things dry, perhaps regular cleaning of front and rear elements would help - but this won't protect the inner glass. I don't know what's in lens cleaner but one element in sensor cleaner is isopropyl alcohol which can be purchased at some drug stores (99 percent pure) and should be safe on lenses too. Any comments on this Richard?

[Stagecoach]

Richard's comment that leather attracts mould I fully concur with and is a significant problem here. In addition I have found that mould is obvious on the rubber parts of some items of gear but not on the rubber of other parts.

Grahame

[FootLoose]

Eh, isn't it the scientists who have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that climate change is happening and than humankind is primarily responsible?

No, Donald, they haven't and that is why the 'debate' rages. They say there is a high probability that the climate is changing and that it is caused by CO2 (because they don't know what else it could be) and that humankind is responsible, but they cannot prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. The best they can do in the way of demonstrating their theory is with computer modelling, but all of those results depend on who is doing the modelling and what data they choose to input. In other words, the gigo principle applies.


Back to the fungus, FWIW: in an earlier life-time I was a surveyor, and some of the theodolites I used had problems with fungus on the lenses. That was long before cash-strapped scientists invented climate change and global warming.

[ajohnw]

http://lensn2shutter.com/fungus.html

John
-

[pnodrog]

No, Donald, they haven't and that is why the 'debate' rages. They say there is a high probability that the climate is changing and that it is caused by CO2 (because they don't know what else it could be) and that humankind is responsible, but they cannot prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. The best they can do in the way of demonstrating their theory is with computer modelling, but all of those results depend on who is doing the modelling and what data they choose to input. In other words, the gigo principle applies.


Back to the fungus, FWIW: in an earlier life-time I was a surveyor, and some of the theodolites I used had problems with fungus on the lenses. That was long before cash-strapped scientists invented climate change and global warming.

I am surprised with the weather conditions that both our countries have experienced over the last 5 years that you deny it as proof that climate change is happening. There is still some argument as to the exact rate and mechanisms but the general consensus that human activity is an important factor.

A retired lecturer in chemical engineering friend of mine who up to about 4 years ago held a similar view to many scientists that it was complex topic and we should not leap to any premature conclusions. He now acknowledges that the evidence is overwhelming that CO2, CH4 and other gases generated by industrial nations are a contributing factor . It is not a myth or some sort of conspiracy fueled by cash-strapped scientists.

Now back to the topic - I used to live in a bush surrounded suburb and had a constant fight with fungus on lenses. The constant high humidity and damp of living in the bush contributed to the demise of one lens and another two were cleaned successfully by a technician and I still use one of them 12years later. For the last 10years I have lived in a warmer rural area on a sunny hill and have not had any more problems. No longer need to keep lenses in sealed containers with silica gel desiccant. However I now always "pump" zoom lenses in a warm dry area if they have been used in any damp or humid environment.

[Stagecoach]

http://lensn2shutter.com/fungus.html

John
-

John,

Quote from article ""This discount is my personal effort to save wonderful old lenses so they can continue to be used and appreciated for many years to come"".

The conclusion I came to when reading up on this a few years ago was that for modern lower to mid range lenses with their electronics it was not cost effective to pay for the professional services required to undertake the work that can not be guaranteed to return a 100% cured lens to you.

Grahame

[FootLoose]

I am surprised with the weather conditions that both our countries have experienced over the last 5 years that you deny it as proof that climate change is happening. There is still some argument as to the exact rate and mechanisms but the general consensus that human activity is an important factor.

A retired lecturer in chemical engineering friend of mine who up to about 4 years ago held a similar view to many scientists that it was complex topic and we should not leap to any premature conclusions. He now acknowledges that the evidence is overwhelming that CO2, CH4 and other gases generated by industrial nations are a contributing factor . It is not a myth or some sort of conspiracy fueled by cash-strapped scientists.

Now back to the topic - I used to live in a bush surrounded suburb and had a constant fight with fungus on lenses. The constant high humidity and damp of living in the bush contributed to the demise of one lens and another two were cleaned successfully by a technician and I still use one of them 12years later. For the last 10years I have lived in a warmer rural area on a sunny hill and have not had any more problems. No longer need to keep lenses in sealed containers with silica gel desiccant. However I now always "pump" zoom lenses in a warm dry area if they have been used in any damp or humid environment.

Paul, as the climate scientists insist, the weather is not the same as the climate. The climate is the average of measures taken over hundreds of years. Hence, climate is what you expect (based on the record) and weather is what you get (daily). So a short term change in weather conditions is not evidence of climate change.

The fact that the temp has not increased over the last 12 (or is 17?) years is a cause for concern amongst some climate scientists, while others dismiss is it as only a short term fluctuation. If this 12 or 17 year period is not viewed as evidence, then how can you say the weather over the much shorter 5 year term is evidence?

The fact that one of your friends has changed his opinion - whether he is a chemist, a butcher or a candle stick maker - is not evidence, either.

That the climate is warming is patently obvious. It has been going of for millennia -- otherwise we would still be living in an ice age. The debate is about the uptrend over the last 50 years or so: is it a problem, and if so, is it caused by carbon-based emissions or something else, and if it is caused by carbon, is human activity responsible? Or is it part of a natural cycle?

Before anyone worships at the foot of the IPCC they should research the genesis of this political body, and its history since Villarch. The one thing that stands out, is its constant drive to secure funding. Hence, I think cash-strapped is a reasonable adjective. Is it a conspiracy? Well, that is your word: I would simply point out that the alarmists have gone to great lengths to silence dissent.

[DanK]

Here's a good place to start, if you don't mind the easy-reading format: http://tinyurl.com/ac9n8dz. There is plenty of more technical information linked at this page. This from the National Academy of Sciences, which is one of the best places to go to find out what we actually know from the evidence currently available, not what people prefer to believe.

Studies of this sort are undertaken by the National Research Council, which is the research arm of the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine as well as the National Academy of Sciences. The process of constituting NRC panels is very careful; efforts are made to select people with varying expertise and points of view, and potential conflicts of interest are explored in detail and in open discussion. Members serve without compensation. The study process is thorough and disciplined, and the review process is exhaustive. I know this firsthand (albeit not in the area of global warming), but I suspect there is good documentation of all of this on their website somewhere if you think I am making this up.

Yes, the climate is warming, and yes, the evidence is extremely strong that human activities, including burning fossil fuels and even raising cattle (all that methane), are contributing. And if it is still relevant, there is no fungus on any of my lenses.

[pnodrog]

Paul, as the climate scientists insist, the weather is not the same as the climate. The climate is the average of measures taken over hundreds of years. Hence, climate is what you expect (based on the record) and weather is what you get (daily). So a short term change in weather conditions is not evidence of climate change.

The fact that the temp has not increased over the last 12 (or is 17?) years is a cause for concern amongst some climate scientists, while others dismiss is it as only a short term fluctuation. If this 12 or 17 year period is not viewed as evidence, then how can you say the weather over the much shorter 5 year term is evidence?

The fact that one of your friends has changed his opinion - whether he is a chemist, a butcher or a candle stick maker - is not evidence, either.

That the climate is warming is patently obvious. It has been going of for millennia -- otherwise we would still be living in an ice age. The debate is about the uptrend over the last 50 years or so: is it a problem, and if so, is it caused by carbon-based emissions or something else, and if it is caused by carbon, is human activity responsible? Or is it part of a natural cycle?

Before anyone worships at the foot of the IPCC they should research the genesis of this political body, and its history since Villarch. The one thing that stands out, is its constant drive to secure funding. Hence, I think cash-strapped is a reasonable adjective. Is it a conspiracy? Well, that is your word: I would simply point out that the alarmists have gone to great lengths to silence dissent.

I suspect sadly we wait for the evidence to climb to a level that is absolutely irrefutable and it will be to late to do anything other than adjust to rather than influence the change to any great extent. A bit like the Titanic's late but heroic attempts to avoid an inevitable fate.

Never claimed my friend was evidence just a very informed point of view, certainly more informed than a candle stick maker.
It is unfortunate that so many political interest groups and parties with huge financial interests that are so clouding the issue that is easy to ignore the mounting evidence.

From a photographic point of view when I have visited parts of the northern hemisphere I find the polluted atmosphere to be very helpful in lowering the dynamic range of landscape and especially beach scenes - pity about the night sky.....


P.S. With only a few exceptions now, if someone tells you the IPCC reports are all wrong, you can be almost certain they have little or no background in atmospheric physics. Instead they are giving you an opinion based on fear and political belief. The exceptions to this are just a handful of researchers (out of thousand upon thousands worldwide).

Extract from :http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2011/11/24/it-may-not-seem-like-it-but-scientific-truth-is-slowly-winning-the-day/

Just maybe they are right....

[FootLoose]

Never claimed my friend was evidence just a very informed point of view, certainly more informed than a candle stick maker.

How do you know what a candle stick maker knows? Remember it was a lorry driver who called Al Gore to account.


Here is a history of the IPCC's origin. It is a lengthy read:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/internat.htm

[pnodrog]

How do you know what a candle stick maker knows? Remember it was a lorry driver who called Al Gore to account.


Here is a history of the IPCC's origin. It is a lengthy read:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/internat.htm

I just ask my navel which is as you suspect a source of all my knowledge..... ....and I will read that history.

[Glenn NK]

I suspect sadly we wait for the evidence to climb to a level that is absolutely irrefutable and it will be to late to do anything other than adjust to rather than influence the change to any great extent. A bit like the Titanic's fate but heroic attempts to avoid an inevitable fate.


P.S. With only a few exceptions now, if someone tells you the IPCC reports are all wrong, you can be almost certain they have little or no background in atmospheric physics. Instead they are giving you an opinion based on fear and political belief. The exceptions to this are just a handful of researchers (out of thousand upon thousands worldwide).

"fear and political belief". You're being kind and polite.

I'm not worried about the survival of Earth - it will be here long after humankind has gone, and it will change and reinvent itself slowly as it's always been doing. If we change our climate due to our own actions, and it affects us, what does it matter to Earth? Earth has been through many dramatic climatic and geologic changes - these will continue and they will affect life on Earth as they always have.

If we're not here, then who will care and why should it matter? Human populations seem only to be important to Earth in a negative way. Our planet is probably more valuable than we are.

Now that should raise a few hackles eh?

[pnodrog]

"fear and political belief". You're being kind and polite.

I'm not worried about the survival of Earth - it will be here long after humankind has gone, and it will change and reinvent itself slowly as it's always been doing. If we change our climate due to our own actions, and it affects us, what does it matter to Earth? Earth has been through many dramatic climatic and geologic changes - these will continue and they will affect life on Earth as they always have.

If we're not here, then who will care and why should it matter? Human populations seem only to be important to Earth in a negative way. Our planet is probably more valuable than we are.

Now that should raise a few hackles eh?

As much as I agree with "fear and political belief" they are not my words but rather a quote from an article that I found interesting.

Yes a small group of mankind continue to create havoc, enforce amazing cruelty and destruction in the pursuit of power and wealth. Unfortunately it is not only mankind that suffers the consequences.

[AB26]

Finally we agree on something, Andre

Well Ted, only fools never differ!

[Saorsa]

With 7 billion people on the earth, it would be difficult for them not to be noticed. There are even more insects but folks don't look at them unless they bite or sting. Thousands of people could walk by this grasshopper without seeing it.



We only have real data over much of the globe since the 70s when we began using remote sensing and satellite data. All before that is interpolated and estimated. That's OK in gross terms but when we see a degree of accuracy claimed that is really a matter of precision then the 'data' is questionable.

Think of this. Much of our record is derived from the ice cores taken in Siberia and Antarctica. Those are little circles about 8 inches around taken from a single point on the surface of the earth and from which we think we can understand, in great detail, the global climate of the time. Each of those sections of the core represent a point in time. Now, look to this winter with freezing temperatures in Pensacola FL while the ice melts in Alaska. We are unlikely to ever get an ice core for Pensacola so the interpretation would show a mild winter.

Tree ring sizes are based on weather, temperature, water, nutrients and CO2. Yet, somehow only the CO2 seems to be estimated in the climate world. Horticulturists know better but they aren't climatologists.

[rpcrowe]

Perhaps something like this well help:

http://drizair.com/

I noticed an electric dehumidifier at Camping World yesterday but didn't write down its name. I figured I could find it on the www.campingworld.com website, but have been unsuccessful in that search. I am eewturning to Camping World early next week and will apprise you of what I have found...

[rpcrowe]

Richard's comment that leather attracts mould I fully concur with and is a significant problem here. In addition I have found that mould is obvious on the rubber parts of some items of gear but not on the rubber of other parts.

Grahame

I think that the difference might be in the composition of the adhesive attaching the rubber to the gear, rather than in the rubber itself...

Do a Google search with "electric dehumidifier" as the search parameters.

Here is one hit I got with that search. However, I can neither recommend nor not-recommend any specific type of electric dehumidifier...

http://www.amazon.com/Eva-Dry-Edv-11.../dp/B000H0ZDD2

[GrahamS]

I have encountered many different types of Fungi living inside lenses over the years. One species has the appearance of a fine silken weevil web and covers a large area. One is thicker and more irregular and looks like thick spider web. One has the appearance of spots and blobs, and there are others. Some fungi produce a residue that is acidic and that etches the surface of the glass. When this happens, the lens generally cannot be rescued by cleaning or polishing. Others seem to etch the coating away, if the lens has a coated surface, and can be removed by removing the coating by polishing. The lens becomes an un-coated lens but is quite usable. The spotty variety seems to come in both forms, and can be cleaned off of the lens if it hasn't been allowed to grow for a long time.

If you wish to try polishing fungus off of a lens, the polishing compound to use is Ponds Cold Cream, the stuff ladies use to remove makeup. It must be the old fashioned type, without additives. Apply it with the tip of your finger, not with a cloth or tissue or any other implement, and gently rub in small circles. It takes a very long time so have patience. I was taught this method by an Olympus technician who worked at the Olympus factory in the 1980s. It works for me if the fungus has not etched the surface of the glass.