Yes depending on which version it is, it may need about $300 of work. The
300 can be extremely hard to take apart. The 3rd lens (a group of 2) are
mounted into the front tube SO the front tube would have to be replaced.
Parts cost alone (for MC version) is over $100 for that one part.
John Hermanson
___________________________________
http://www.zuiko.com
Camtech, Olympus Service since 1977.
21 South Lane, Huntington NY 11743-4714
Phone/fax 631-424-2121
Free Olympus Manuals: 1-800-221-3000
___________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Olaf Greve" <olaf_greve@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:43 AM
Subject: [OM] 300mm lens -- warren
| Hi,
|
| >Looking at the diagram I would say it is the second element from the
front
| >- not the cemented pair behind it that has the
| >marks/deposits/fungus/whatever
|
| From personal experience I can tell you that the location of stuff in that
| particular lens can be amazingly deceptive. I too have a 300/4.5 which has
| something on the inside (two tiny fungus specks) and when looking through
| the front I could have *sworn* that these specks were located on the top
of
| the 2nd element. They weren't. In fact, they weren't on the bottom of the
| 2nd element either, nor were they on the top of the 3rd element. Then I
| could not proceed any further, as the two halves of the lens (one needs to
| unscrew those two halves to work one's way further into the lens) were
glued
| together. I'm still not positive where the fungus is located, but now I
| assume it's either between the 3rd and the 4th one (i.e. the part which is
| cemented together) or on the bottom of the 4th part. Either way: I can't
| reach it, and as (I think) everyone here knows by now I actually managed
to
| damage the 2nd element upon reassembly, as well as introducing more dust
| into the lens than was present when I openened it.
|
| You need to be very careful with the lens you bought. A DIY cleaning job
is
| not something I would recommend, and having it done by a professional is
| expensive. Leaving the lens as-is may cause image degradation. In my case
I
| paid $150 for the lens, because of these two tiny fungus specks. The issue
| with your lens sounds more severe. I would try to get the lens for around
| $150 because of this damage. Either way, I would say $300 is too much for
| the lens in the condition you describe...
|
| Having said that, perhaps the image quality doesn't noticably suffer from
| the problems with your lens. You'd have to test that...
|
| Cheers!
| Olafo
|
|
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|