Here is a basic approach to the problem which has worked for me with my
personal 'RULES':
Rules:
1. NO hammering or impact approach........ Amen.
2. Incremental or measured restoration works; one-shot approaches
ALWAYS over shoot.
3. Use Archimedes lessons!!!!
4. The glass and the glass and the glass.........
A. An easy DYI: At one time I made with a 3/16" threaded rod and two
pieces of acrylic plastic (~ 1cm x 1cm x 1cm) as an 'expander. Edges
and bottom of the plastic in contact with glass or finish are polished
(light touch with a soldering iron) smooth. The fixed 'end' plastic
piece had just a hole partially drilled with offset allowing clearance
of the rim. This permits the fixed end of the threaded rod (long
machine screw can substitute) to turn, but deep enough to maintain the
axis orientation of the rod. The other piece of plastic was drilled
through and tapped to the thread of the rod. The unit is positioned
such that both plastic contacts are snug inside the rim at 'normal'
diameter by turning (DO NOT over tighten) the threaded rod to 'snug'.
Rotation / counter-rotation in incremental steps over the 'ding' with
gentle tightening of the threaded rod works like charm to incrementally
expand and not damage the threads. (The plastic 'bumpers' obviously
have the thread impressed into them in this setting. Suggest tape or
other protection around the metal threaded rod where it crosses the rim
lest damage be inflicted midst heat of the 'battle'.)
B. Variant of the above: When the above gizmo could not be found also
created two plastic cubes similar to the above with small holes drilled
in the top surface which fit each tip of a large pair of scissors.
(Used Pliobond to make sure they did not slip off the tip.) As above,
starting at normal diameter on the inside of the rim with
rotation/counter rotation, moderate dings can be removed in a minute or
two. Obviously the scissors provide a lever as the blades are opened
with increasing pressure - - need only one hand to expand.
Care used to protect the finish and the glass with either approach
provides a K-I-S-S result for this 'S'. The metals used are fragile,
but 'malleable' if the process is done incrementally and without
hammering. A small piece of maple, etc., hardwood could be
substituted, but be careful of force vectors and wood grain which
combine to conspire against you.
Cheer,
Bill
On Jan 6, 2004, at 12:55 AM, Jim Couch wrote:
One other thing to note, the 85/2 uses 49mm filters vs the 55mm
filters used on the 100/2. My "indoor low light" kit consists of a
28/2, 50/1.8, and 85/2, a very compact set of lenses that all use 49mm
filters. (Or at least did until the 28 got dropped over the holidays -
now it does not use filters, the filter ring is dented!) :)
Jim Couch
Skip Williams wrote:
SNIP
That said, I like the 85/2 over the 100/2 as the 85/s smaller size
means a lot to me. In fact, I prefer the 90/2 over the 100/2, as I
find the macro capability a big plus. And I didn't notice a
significant difference in performance between the 90/2 and 100/2 in
my cursory evaluation of the two lenses.
SNIP
Skip
< 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 >
|