| Author |
Message |
    
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 1
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - 03:52 pm: | 
|
Good afternoon,I was sent to this site seeking an answer and or help. My question is concerning a Canon T50. First off ,is that considered old enough for this forum ? Pending an answer I will then post my dilema for your consideration. |
Rick_oleson
Tinkerer
Username: Rick_oleson
Post Number: 1213
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - 05:49 pm: |
|
I'm sure I won't be able to help with it, but maybe someone else will be ... go ahead and ask. If anyone complains tell them I made you do it.
: ) = |
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 2
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - 07:50 pm: |
|
In the past I was attaching an Albinar ADG 80-200 mm zoom lens to my T-50 body. I was momentarily distracted at the last second and the lens joined to the body but out of proper alignment. The lens seated and the lock ring locked. The lens mounted freely to the body, no force was used. The lens will move freely side to side about one half of a inch. I took the camera to a local camera shop and after a couple of days I got a call. I was told that in order to remove the lens I would hve to sacrifice one or the other in the process. I find that an unacceptable answer. The camera and the lens are both in very good condition. The lock ring is metal and I think the mount is also metal as it has been a long time since I had seen it. Any help would be appreciated, also I have enclosed some pictures of my nightmare. Thanks, John |
M_currie
Tinkerer
Username: M_currie
Post Number: 293
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - 08:22 pm: |
|
I saw no pictures. I have no particular experience with Canon mounts, so my advice must be assumed to be sort of generic here, but I have had difficulty in the past with a Nikon or two. IN the case of Nikon, there's a little setscrew in the lens mount which prevents it from over-rotating, and if that is gone, it can go too far over, or even start to come off in the wrong direction. When this happens, the aperture levers in lens and camera get crossed, and jamming occurs. It also sometimes occurs with Nikon and others that the little latch that engages the back side of the lens jams. When this latter occurs, sometimes you can work a very thin tool between lens and camera to push that latch out.
In the case of the lost setscrew, other than breaking or bending something, it is sometimes possible to open the back, and put the shutter in T mode, to hold it open. With shutter open, you can see what is interfering.
Before sacrificing anything, I'd at least try getting the shutter to stay open and see if there's any information visible there. If the lens was able to go in in the wrong alignment, its a good possibility that the problem will be in the interference of levers, and you might be able to bend one over the other without breaking anything. YOu might also be able to pull back on some lever or pin, which can be accessed from inside. It's worth a look.
Failing that, I'd take it somewhere else if you can. I'm willing to bet this has happened before, and a good technician will know a trick that doesn't involve ruining things that badly. |
Finnegan
Tinkerer
Username: Finnegan
Post Number: 172
Registered: 09-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - 09:01 pm: |
|
Considering it is a T-50 which is, basically, worthless and an Albinar lens (gag) that is likewise, basically, worthless you can simply replace the whole outfit for under $25. by visiting the big auction website and choosing from the zillions of them there. |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2012 - 07:13 am: |
|
John,
Glad you followed my advice and found the Forum - I do not think you would have had anything from where you originally posted. Before your kit gets dumped in the parts bin, can you confirm that the lens mount is the original FD breech type - usually the locking ring is a silver alloy ring with serrations around the circumference - and that the lens is not of the interchangeable mount type. ie you cannot remove the rear mount assembly to allow use on another make of camera. |
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 3
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2012 - 01:56 pm: |
|
\ Sorry here are the pics. |
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 4
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2012 - 01:59 pm: |
|
pic 2 the arrow indicate the amount of free travel from left to right and back. |
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 5
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2012 - 02:02 pm: |
|
 pic 3 |
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 6
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2012 - 02:02 pm: |
|
pic 1 as you can see the alignment was out about .5". |
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 7
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2012 - 02:18 pm: |
|
Glenn The lock ring on the lens is black with serrations and it not of the interchangeable type. I had used it on this camera for a few years with no problems. |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 08, 2012 - 06:52 am: |
|
John,
Two questions:-
So your mount is of the nFD type, ie you press a button/catch before turning lens anti-clockwise to remove it?
In pic 1 is the lens turned clockwise as far as it will go and apart from the radial displacement, does the lens look fully seated on the body, ie no lean or droop when viewed from top or side?
Pretty sure the hang up is situated at the interface of male and female mount rings, just need to be sure. If one is completely ham fisted and a lot of brute force is used, it is possible to cause the iris 'actuating' levers to jam a nFD lens on the Canon body. However, in this situation the 'levers' in the lens box are bent to buggery! since you state care and no force was used, I do not consider this is the cause of your jam. |
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 8
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 08, 2012 - 02:52 pm: |
|
Glenn , Yes the lens is turned as far clockwise as it will go. No you dont press a button to turn the lock ring. Again when the lens seated, it seated as if it was properly located, there was no force of any kind used in the process.The lens also turns in the .5" freeplay with no force needed. The lens is completly seated as if it were properly connected. On my canon lenses you have to press a button on the lens to remove it. They are :a fd 50mm 1:18 and afd 28mm 1:2.8 |
Ronnies
Tinkerer
Username: Ronnies
Post Number: 27
Registered: 09-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 08:50 am: |
|
If the lock ring has no release button (like the old original FD lenses) then why can't you just turn it as you would normally to remove it? What stops you from doing this?
Ronnie |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 10:54 am: |
|
If the quoted 'lock ring' is in fact a Breech ring the answer is obvious - with the lens radially displaced on the body mount, the retaining mechanism that locks the ring in the open position is fouled up and jams the ring. However; a lens manufactured to Canon breech lock specifications will not mount squarely on the body when it is radially displaced - the location 'pin' fouls the mount. So if the lens is a 'breech type' to have got this far the mount must be very worn and /or have bits missing, because John states that the lens is 'square' fitted on the body. A situation impossible with sound lens and body mount assemblies.
John,
Please clarify - on this lens do you just turn the ring to retain the lens or do you in fact twist the whole lens barrel - as in your lenses with the lock button - to mount/dismount the lens. |
Michael_linn
Tinkerer
Username: Michael_linn
Post Number: 64
Registered: 04-2011
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 07:47 pm: |
|
Years ago I came across an Alibinar stuck to a Canon FT. With a knowledge of the mount and my set of dental picks I got it apart in about 30 minutes as I recall. I blocked the shutter open and went in from the back.
I was more stubborn back then. |
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 9
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, June 11, 2012 - 02:47 pm: |
|
On this lens you turn just the ring. the lens is fully and squarely seated on the body. I had used the camera for 5 to 6 years since new and never abused or mistreated it. All of the usage of this equipment was just normal wear and tear and i never had any problems before with mounting and dismounting any of the lens'. Michael how did you block the shutter open ? |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 1017
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 - 03:49 am: |
|
Use a short lockable cable release, an all important tool in the DIY tool box. I am searching for a good rear view of the mount assembly of your particular lens before I comment on how to release it. |
Donnie_strickland
Tinkerer
Username: Donnie_strickland
Post Number: 154
Registered: 09-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 - 08:38 am: |
|
Glenn, I don't think that will work for a T50...it's been many years since I owned one, but as I recall there's no provision for a regular cable release, only a dedicated electronic one. And I don't think there is a Bulb setting at all. |
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 10
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 - 08:54 am: |
|
Glenn, I think I solved the mystery concerning the location pin you keep refering to, on this lens the locating pin the "ee pin " is retractable depending on the settings on the lens. Turning the diaphram ring to a manual aperture setting retracts the ee pin on the rear of the lens. So now that question is answered. Also on the cable release connection there is three contacts in that port. |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 - 03:08 pm: |
|
Thanks Donnie; 1983 is a bloody long way back to remember specs and as the T90 was the only professional T Series camera produced, the T5/50, T70 and T80 thankfully never entered my equipment cases.
John,
You can forget about trying to release the lens via the rear of the mirror box, the jam is not caused by anything reachable from the rear of the lens. The 'ee pin' is not the location pin and the location pin is a solid, screwed in fitment on Canon produced lenses.
Given what you have stated about how the lens is actually now located on the body, it is simple to state why a Breech Ring FD lens has been seated on the body mount in this way. Basically it is failure of one small mechanism, general wear and tear and poor initial construction tolerances. A quick rundown of the FD mount in its Breech form will explain all.
When one looks at the chromed mount ring on the body, three segmental 'lugs' can be seen located at 12, 4 and 8 o'clock. The segment at 12 o'clock is longer than the other two (which are of equal length) and has a slot milled in it (dead at 12 o'clock). It is into this slot that the lens barrel location pin fits, orientating the lens and stopping the barrel rotating during focusing etc.
If one now examines the rear of the Breech FD lens, it can be seen that the rear face of the rotatable ring has three female cutouts that correspond in shape and size to the 'lugs' on the male body mount. With a correctly working and unworn lens off the camera, one will find that the breech ring is locked in a position that allows the lens to be lifted on and off the body mount. It will also be noticed that the locator pin can be seen plumb centre of the long (12 o'clock) breech ring cutout.
So it can be seen that if one tries to mount a correctly working lens radially displaced on the body mount, it is impossible to get the lens to seat flat on the body. Two things prevent this - the location pin has no slot to go into and the small cutout in the rear face of the ring will not fit over the large body 'lug' at 12 o'clock.
It is infact possible to to mount the lens and tighten the breech ring if two things occur on the lens. As I have stated, the breech ring is held in the mount/unmount position by an internal latch that is freed as the rear of the lens locates against the front face of the body mount. If this latch fails the ring will be free to rotate between the fully open and fully closed stops - this situation should not lead to a fully mounted and jammed lens if (and it is a big if) the location pin is not worn or the lens not manufactured to poor and thus sloppy tolerances, because the location pin comes up against the front face of the body mount and the lens cannot fully seat. Unfortunately if the pin is worn or there is slop in the mount on the lens, the pin can slip off the front face of the body mount and slide into one of the sectors that were machined out of the body mount to produce the lugs. This explains why the lens barrel can be twisted back and forth by 1/2" or so. The failed breech ring latch allowed the ring to be in such a position to slip over the male mount 'lugs' even though the barrel was radially displaced. Unfortunately the faulty ring latch is now preventing the breech ring being turned back far enough to free the lens so that it can be removed.
The only thing is to mount the body solidly on the edge of a bench, hold lens barrel in one hand and breech ring in other hand, then try rotating both back and forth ie jiggle them about, not very technical but you have nothing to loose. I do not hold much hope, but something might free up or give. |
Br1078lum
Tinkerer
Username: Br1078lum
Post Number: 321
Registered: 11-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 - 07:46 pm: |
|
Very good explanation, Glenn. Seeing as it is a third party brand lens, it is highly probably that the lugs overode the pin. And with the degree of rotation I saw in the photo, also likely that the lens lug has gone beyond the pin, and now will not lift back up over it. If John cannot get the lens to rock slightly to lift the lug back over the pin, it may be a matter of having to dismantle the lens the hard way. Or chuck it all, and get a replacement for both.
PF |
Br1078lum
Tinkerer
Username: Br1078lum
Post Number: 323
Registered: 11-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 - 07:29 am: |
|
Please excuse the post I made earlier. After further study, I can't see how John could possibly rotate the lens back into proper position. I suggest getting a kitchen jar opener to enable a grip on the breechlock ring, and rotating it to unlock the lens. They also come in handy for filter and element removal.
PF |
Agchicago
Tinkerer
Username: Agchicago
Post Number: 9
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 - 10:51 am: |
|
John- if you want to just bust the lens and get it off, I will ship you a perfect condition Soligor fd mount zoom with about the same range for shipping only. I might have a few others you can have too. Ever try to sell an off-brand Canon fd mount zoom? No one wants them. |
Hollenbj
Tinkerer
Username: Hollenbj
Post Number: 61
Registered: 03-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 - 04:36 pm: |
|
An awful lot of work and stress for that Albinar lens. I know that the right lens for a person is the one they're satisfied with, but the Soligor offered by Agchicago will certainly be better, potentially a *lot* better.
Over the years, I have accepted a number of Albinar and Quantaray lenses to use in high danger/fatal situations such as crab fishing, sandstorms, mud wrestling (OK, maybe not mud wrestling). I receive the lenses for free from dissatisfied folks and use them primarily for B+W because the CA is substantial. When they die, I might salvage some small screws (on the Quantaray lenses because they're slightly better built) and toss them. I doubt I would ever go through the trouble of attempting to save one.
I'd offer a replacement lens too, but I got rid of my FD stuff years ago. But, I see perfectly nice Canon FD lenses in the local thrift shops for very low prices ($20US or less). Again, you can do much better than the Albinar. Just my 2 cents. |
Br1078lum
Tinkerer
Username: Br1078lum
Post Number: 325
Registered: 11-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 - 08:50 pm: |
|
A Dremel tool to cut the breech-lock ring will help. Just don't get too close to the body.
PF |
Agchicago
Tinkerer
Username: Agchicago
Post Number: 10
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2012 - 06:10 am: |
|
John- I pulled the lens out last night. It's a Soligor 85-300mm f5 Macro C/D ("computer designed") MC (multi-coated). Not kidding, it looks brand new, with a soft bag and a Tiffen Haze-1 filter. |
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 11
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2012 - 01:36 pm: |
|
I want to thank all who posted useful and helpful suggestions. To those who posted their less than desirable comments . Oh well. After reviewing the posts I decided to go Godzilla on it and used 16" channellocks and the ring moved . the 2 fingers on the lens bent and the finger on the bottem inside the body bent and twisted. So ends this episode. Thanks again for all of your help. John |
Hollenbj
Tinkerer
Username: Hollenbj
Post Number: 65
Registered: 03-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2012 - 08:39 pm: |
|
Jhstarz, Sorry if it was my comments that were less than desirable. However, you will be much, much, happier with the Soligor that Agchicago offered you. In fact that lens is downright nice. I'm not a "camera snob", by any means although it might sound that way from my post. But, I have had many decades of experience with a wide array of gear. Albinar lenses have clearly positioned themselves as a low cost, low performance lens for SLR owners who are satisfied with the mediocre images they produce. As I said before, if the photographer is happy with those results, then the lens is right for that person. Period. Having said that, I truly hope that the Soligor lens shines as the nice lens it is -- substantially less chromatic aberration, and less distortion too. It will be sharper at wide apertures and overall perform so much better.
Funny, but some of my favorite cameras and lenses are not much better performers than an Albinar. In fact I just finished a roll in my Brownie Hawkeye that has 1 shutter speed and no focus (its a beautiful bakelite cube-like thing). I have to re-roll 120 film onto a 620 spool to use the darn thing and the images come out fine only because of the magic of film latitude. I love the thing (I have 3 of them). In fact, I heartily recommend a Brownie Hawkeye to all fellow camera buffs. Most of us already know...images are soft focus, with flare, the whole "Lomo" experience. Oh boy. |
Br1078lum
Tinkerer
Username: Br1078lum
Post Number: 331
Registered: 11-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2012 - 09:40 pm: |
|
John, hopefully you can get the actuating lever inside the mirror box back in shape. My idea of cutting the locking ring off was so that you would not have to rotate the lens to remove it. But if it rotated while you were locking it on, the damage to the lever was probably already done.
PF |
Jhstarz
Tinkerer
Username: Jhstarz
Post Number: 12
Registered: 06-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, June 18, 2012 - 02:35 pm: |
|
Hollenbi your comments were appreciated. Again I would like to thank all that tried to help me and your comments also. I have already replaced the lens and the camera. No harm no foul. Thanks john |
