B+W UV-PRO Premium Anti-Fungus Light

[stephengv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone tried this? Is this really made by B+W? Thank you. 

 

Here is a link from Leica Rumors https://leicarumors.com/2016/04/26/this-bw-uv-pro-premium-device-should-prevent-lens-fungus-leica-mount-compatible.aspx/ 

[Ecar]

Interesting... Light therapy for lenses suffering from depression from lack of use...

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stephengv]

Interesting... Light therapy for lenses suffering from depression from lack of use...

 

 

Hahaha that's funny. On a serious note, I live in a tropical country where it gets very humid. I think of adding this as an additional protection, aside from my "dry cabinet",  against fungus.  

[jdlaing]

Pricey little devil too.

[Ecar]

Hahaha that's funny. On a serious note, I live in a tropical country where it gets very humid. I think of adding this as an additional protection, aside from my "dry cabinet",  against fungus.  

 

Understood. Makes sense. I stick to silica gel when needed, but don't live in a humid climate. I know that others have put their lenses under UV light to remove yellow casting or indeed try to kill fungus. But that seemed to be a longer (days) undertaking. Two minutes seems very short. IIRC, the UV light source also needs to be pretty strong as the glass absorbs a lot of it. Not sure about that B+W "affiliation" either...

Edited July 5, 2017 by Ecar

[stephengv]

Pricey little devil too.

 

 

Yes its pricey. But, I saw one on ebay for 120 USD though. 

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

not pricy considering repair cost.

[stephengv]

not pricy considering repair cost.

 

 

You're right. 

[stephengv]

Do you think UV Light will damage the lens? 

[spydrxx]

UV light has been used for years to clear up brown thorium lenses, mostly those wonderful Pentax 50/1.4 from  the 1960s.

[michaelwj]

Sunlight has plenty of UV, but less reaches us as the humidity increases (water absorbs UV) and it's free. So the best way to not get fungus is to use the equipment regularly. There are other cheaper sources of UV light too. You could get a UV water sanitiser and put it on the lens covered by aluminium foil (you don't want to get the dose). It'd be cheaper and you can use it for water too! In the end it's just a UV LED and a cover to stop the light escaping. Looks to be battery powered too so it can't be putting out that much power.

 

I would have thought that by now lens manufacturers would have included an anti fungal agent on their coatings...

Edited July 6, 2017 by michaelwj

[Exodies]

That goes against all the principles of built-in obsolescence

[jaapv]

 

... uses UV light to kill bacterias

 

That is "interesting", given that fungus is caused by...fungi, not bacteria. (where did that s come from?)

 

Snake oil, if you ask me. The way to kill fungus by UV light is to expose the lens for a longer period of time, not a few seconds.

[michaelwj]

The way to kill fungus by UV light is to expose the lens for a longer period of time, not a few seconds.

 

 

It's actually total accumulated dose that kills the fungus. You need to deliver the right number of photons, either with a very short high intensity burst, or a weak source with a long exposure. In reality it's better to deliver the dose quickly, so the organism doesn't have enough time to repair itself before the next photon hits it.

The long and slow approach comes from yesteryear when high intensity UV sources were confined to large scale science facilities. 

 

(I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a paper about X-ray induced radiation damage on small organisms with several different preparation methods - it's pretty complicated when you get deep into it)

Edited July 6, 2017 by michaelwj

[almoore]

Is this really made by B+W?

I doubt it. Does anybody know for sure?

[jaapv]

I wouldn't put it past them. They peddled a Photoshop "Polaroid filter" plugin some years ago. Couldn't work. Didn't work.

[jaapv]

It's actually total accumulated dose that kills the fungus. You need to deliver the right number of photons, either with a very short high intensity burst, or a weak source with a long exposure. In reality it's better to deliver the dose quickly, so the organism doesn't have enough time to repair itself before the next photon hits it.

The long and slow approach comes from yesteryear when high intensity UV sources were confined to large scale science facilities. 

 

(I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a paper about X-ray induced radiation damage on small organisms with several different preparation methods - it's pretty complicated when you get deep into it)

quite true, but this being a low intensity battery driven light it would need a lot of time.

[michaelwj]

quite true, but this being a low intensity battery driven light it would need a lot of time.

 

 

Most likely, but being an LED it *could* be quite efficient at emitting light at a narrow wavelength band, but they give no information about the wavelength range or the LED intensity.

 

Also, it gives a wavelength of less than 300nm and a time of 2 min after which the unit shuts off. Given glass transmits roughly sweet f-all at wavelengths less than 300nm I'd be concerned by the time, especially for lenses with a lot of glass. But hey, at US$350 I'm not going to use it.

[pgk]

Do you think UV Light will damage the lens? 

 

I had the rear group from a 35mm Summicron v.4 re-cemented after it had delaminated a couple of years ago. The friend who got this done for me is fortunate in having access to a specialist lab (long story but they really do know what they are doing and produce very exotic and expensive lens systems for highly specialised users). The comment which came back was that they had had to use a high dose of UV to cure the cement due to the high UV absorption of the glass in this rear group. So whilst I doubt damage (although earlier, balsam cemented lenses may be a concern if UV affects balsam?) I'd also very much doubt any beneficial effect at low dosage.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Soden]

But hey, at US$350 I'm not going to use it.

True at $350 no, but at $120 I'll give it a shot. I have one on order. The big question is how to prove its effectiveness. It's easy to prove if it's a failure, but success, that's more difficult.

 

The question of authenticity, I'll judge on build quality, when it arrives.