• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Fungus or Separation (1 Viewer)

Honest (and ignorant) question: isn't 100 $ a little steep as an opening price given the condition? Is that model particularly collectible?
 
It is a nice glass for its model age, mid 50s single coated, and it has more ER than the Zeiss west 8X30. Not too many around these days, unless weathered. Separation more costly to service than just cleaning off fungus from what I am told by knowledgeable folks.
 
Yes who knows what else lurks inside that glass, like that car in the used car lot, shined up with an abused engine and other issues.
I asked the seller to do a flash light test on the bino, since there were no photos except the externals, it pays to ask questions. He lowered the asking price from $200 to $100. If someone had a sample with good optics and a weathered case, lots of time and patience, it could be a good project.
 
Suddarth optical could probably deal with two separated objectives and recement plus any other work needed for about $400.
Unless they had good spare objectives.

Is this worth it?

I think not, unless a family heirloom binocular.

It is better to buy a mint binocular for $300 or buy something else.

Some skilled amateur opticians could also do this work, but some jobs are not worth starting.

If indeed the objectives don't have separation faults then the repair would be cheaper.

Many Aero Ektar 7 inch f/2.5 lenses have star shaped separation patterns in the large front pair.
The lenses probably work anyway even though it is unsightly.

But some Zeiss Ikon lenses for a Voigtlaender camera have lens separation throughout the lenses and are basically a write off

Usually it is larger lenses that have separation problems.
3 inches is usually the limit for cementing pairs, but I have 5 inch diameter cemented pairs that are fine.
It depends on the coefficients of expansion and the steepness of the curves, but I think some cements are much more forgiving than others.

Zeiss obviously had a real problem with the Zeiss Ikon lenses.

Also early 1960s Japanese camera lenses had problems with grease getting on and jamming the irises.
This means taking apart the lenses and cleaning, and using modern grease.
This was solved by the late 1960s in general.

Regards,
B.
 
That is true, but I am more inclined to think it is faulty balsam.

If so I am not sure storage in a case is much of a factor.

High humidity is a leading cause of fungus.

Also I am very wary of binoculars bought secondhand from British seaside towns.

However, I have seen many more binoculars with haze or fungus compared to those with balsam faults.

B.
 
Honest (and ignorant) question: isn't 100 $ a little steep as an opening price given the condition? Is that model particularly collectible?
That really depends on how badly you want one. If you are a collector that for whatever reason needs a Leitz of that model in that condition, you would probably (unless you were absolutely determined to get one for less) be happy to pay $100.

As to whether collectible/desirable or not ... if you're into 1950s era single-coated porros, you'll want one (for the right price of course). It's certainly a great nostalgia piece, still enjoyable to use (not with glasses though, unless you can get the special short eyecups that Pinewood has, and even so you'll need to be a bit lucky) but a definite step backward if you're coming from a modern alpha. But for some folks, the feeling of using a binocular is more important than what you actually see through it.

I have my own opinion on the nature of the marks on the glass but will keep it "in-house".
 
That really depends on how badly you want one. If you are a collector that for whatever reason needs a Leitz of that model in that condition, you would probably (unless you were absolutely determined to get one for less) be happy to pay $100.

As to whether collectible/desirable or not ... if you're into 1950s era single-coated porros, you'll want one (for the right price of course). It's certainly a great nostalgia piece, still enjoyable to use (not with glasses though, unless you can get the special short eyecups that Pinewood has, and even so you'll need to be a bit lucky) but a definite step backward if you're coming from a modern alpha. But for some folks, the feeling of using a binocular is more important than what you actually see through it.

I have my own opinion on the nature of the marks on the glass but will keep it "in-house".

Yes and no. The reason I bought my first vintage bino was because a) I wanted to see for myself what manufacturing quality they were, b) what the view through glass utterly unacquainted with coatings is like, and ergo c) to see the world the way people saw it when it was made.
So I bought a Zeiss Telexem made in January 1927. It is a 6x24, weighs in at 550 g, and it is still a pleasure to use. Not a patch on modern glass with super-dooper coatings, waterproof to so many metres and made of the latest light yet robust materials. But the Einblickverhalten and the view are a lot better than even I had imagined and I am sure that most people, except the perennial anal nitpickers, would agree that with some caveats such as not good in low or difficult light it is still as good as some low-cost Bushnell or other cheap to mid-price offerings. This old thing has weathered is 97 years.
Even its 109-year-old sibling, a Feldstecher 6fach from Carl Zeiss Wien, can still be used after a clean of lenses and prisms, but it really is for the display case. Three years in WWI were not overly kind to it so it is in well-earned retirement.
Believe it or not, my current 'daily driver' is a single coated 1957 Zeiss Silvarem.
 
Last edited:
It would otherwise make a good addition to a collection.
@Ignatius
Hello Harry,

I have a small collection of binoculars. I would like each one to be in working condition but I do have at least one or two , which are simply for display. As Ignatius wrote, some old binoculars, even ones without coating, do have limited utility. A binocular with fungus does not belong in one's home. Lens separation is another matter.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
 
There is a further possibility with the Leica binocular.

If the objectives are coated then the coating may have failed.
The photos are not clear enough and from different angles so one can decide on this.
I have not seen coating failure with the structure shown, but it could be possible.

If coating failure then this is an expensive repair that may not succeed as few have the skill to remove coating, accurately repolish and then recoat.

I have had Leica binoculars from this period that have balsam failure.

I have Ross 20 inch f/6.3 EMI wide angle lenses from c.1955 where the internal coating has failed and was eaten by fungus.

Jason Adams in England routinely polished old Leica camera lenses, where the glass had failed, as it was a poor choice of glass type.
He would then coat these uncoated lenses.

Usually collectors go for mint examples for good reason, but if stored incorrectly these can fail.

The great Meudon refractors are still in use, but probably had overhaul.

I normally use more modern binoculars, but when needed will use old ones with features that modern binoculars don't have.

As to extensive fungus, it can occur in as little as six weeks from new in jungle environments and I have a Chinese binocular that had
extensive fungus brand new out of the box.

Regards,
B.
 
The Wikipedia article in post #15 is incorrect in many ways.

The temperatures mentioned are wrong.

Fungus does eat glass depending on the glass type and what chemicals are used to make the glass etc. etc.

Some very old simple glass types seem to resist fungal attack after 150 years or more.

I don't think the person writing that article is very experienced regarding fungus.

Gary has sound views and Alexis also has experience with fungus.
As did my chemist friend Dr A.N. Wright who sadly passed away recently at 90.
He was a world leading expert on Leica and lenses.

Just picking up Wikipedia articles and assuming they are accurate is no guarantee that they are really accurate.

Regards,
B.
 
Just whining about what is wrong in an article is not really a mature way to argue (#17). A truly knowledgeable person would actually impart the correct facts to help their fellow forumers, which is what I was attempting to do. Merely referencing, or name dropping, some folks who might or might not actually have the relevant facts isn't even pretense.
 
Hello,

As an addendum, I have had binoculars with lens separation in the eyepieces. Cory Suddarth replaced the cement and reassembled the eyepieces at a moderate additional cost, when the binoculars were overhauled. I have no idea of the cost of doing the same to the objective lenses.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top