This Radioactive Lens Might Ruin Your Pictures

The use of Radioactive Thorium Oxide in camera lenses was a very common practice in the 1940's-1970's and was used in photography lenses along with cinema lenses. The radiation coming off the glass elements of the lens tested is enough to show up on pictures and ruin long exposures, astro timelapse or star stacking photos. The radiation coming off the rear element of the Pentax lens used in the test was around 650x (24,000 CPM) background radiation.
The star trail photo is from a place called White Pocket in Arizona and the shot was taken over the course of 3 hours. Stacking was done in Photoshop.
The Geiger counter used in this video was a Thermo Scientific Radeye B20.
www.thermofish...
uraniumstore.com
Produced by: 599productions.com
#radiation #radioactive #thorium

[@sarahlowrey723]

Hi Drew: Keep in mind that radiation you see on your digital sensor is doing permanent damage to it! We use video cameras in hi rad areas, and they get rainbow permanent specks after exposure.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

My cameras still work find. Same amount of hot pixels as before. Most cameras map them out now.

[@Relkond]

Gamma is just high energy photons… Doing a bit of googling… looks like you’d need more than enough exposure to kill a person before most electronics will show detrimental effects from the exposure… That said, (working now from memory) most electronics have MANY MANY parts to them, and the newer stuff is using just a few atoms to make a circuit on a chip - breaking the circuit is easier, and failing to notice the fault is also easier - especially as some electronic devices use designs that anticipate failures, correcting for them on the fly. I wouldn’t keep that lense in my pocket - likewise I would not keep it permanently attached to the camera - just attaching it for the time I’m using it.

[@stickyfox]

a lens is not going to expose you to that kind of radiation.

[@Relkond]

@@stickyfox I prefer to err on the side of caution with these things. I”d math it out, but I’m not a Rad expert, and I’m promptly encountering inconsistent information (yay for incompatible data) - what we do have is the detector is seeing 24000 cpm. the source is thorium (presumably Th232, emits primarily alpha/beta per my notes) - so… open questions: - are my notes flawed? - Is the 24000 cpm measurement strictly the gamma component of the emissions? (Not all detectors detect all radiation types) - how does the emission compare to what is safe? (CPM measures vary by source, but I’m seeing 100-150 cpm as the cutoff between ‘completely safe’ and ‘interesting’) - what answers do we want? I’d settle for: if I keep that lense in my pocket for a year, will I… ‘never have kids?’ ‘Die in 10 years from cancer?’ ‘Not survive the full year?’ we could math each of those with all the appropriate details, which I don’t have.

[@bjmcculloch]

@@RadioactiveDrew I’ve actually dumped sterilizing doses (>10 kGy) of radiation into digital camera sensors. This resulted in significantly increased noise, but most of the damage did eventually anneal out, but low light performance never fully recovered. Some pixels persisted as hot pixels, but in-camera defective pixel correction would help with these. tl;dr: I think your camera is no worse for wear.

[@olafzijnbuis]

The color is easy to remove. The best way is to remove both lens caps and place the lens face down on a mirror. Then use a LED desk light like the cheap Ikea just above the rear element. Rotate the lens a few times. 24 hours will do. NEVER use sunlight! This creates a lot of internal heat and you end up with sticky aperture blades or worse.

[@stevenclark2188]

I always heard it was sunlight you wanted to bleach out the optical cement like that.

[@SilvaDreams]

@@stevenclark2188 It's the UV radiation that causes the shift, but it's the thermal radiation will cause the metal and plastics to expand and not at equal amounts which will lead to the sticking. A LED does produce a tiny, TINY amount of UV radiation but not nearly as much as what we get going outside, you can get a UV light though just not an LED one... But I would be very careful around those because they are generally used for sterilization and will burn your skin.

[@mikepxg6406]

I used a UV lamp to remove cast on mine.

[@mikepxg6406]

@@stevenclark2188 Sunlight contains UV so do artificial lights. I used a UV lamp for 24 hours to clear mine. Sunlight may overheat the lens and make grease run out of helical focus ring.

[@AstroDenny]

There was a pretty cool DIY random number generator project (based on particle decay vectors) you could build with a radioactive source and an old parallel port logitech camera. These sensors can definitely see both alpha and gamma particles.

[@jaakkooksa5374]

Online game companies (poker etc) use hardware random number generators to ensure that their games are truly random. I would guess that, whichever way they work, they must be based on some kind of quantum randomness. They might work by measuring noise, such as the noise in an electric current, or radioactive decay, I guess.

[@piercebros]

That’s super neat!

[@lawabidingcitizen5153]

@@jaakkooksa5374 some of them use the avalanche breakdown noise of a p-n junction

[@lucaballardini1]

wow I never tought of this!

[@harrison00xXx]

electromagnets can do the same, that is how early detectors differed between alpha gamma and beta

[@wngimageanddesign9546]

As pointed out in some comments below, UV treatment can reverse the yellowing phenomenon to the lens elements. I bombarded some of my radioactive lenses with severe yellowing with UV from a HID automotive xenon bulb. I had an extra one bulb wired up above the lenses and even after 24 hours, the yellowing was nearly all gone. This worked for a some Minolta MC lenses and a Takumar 35mm f/2 lens. An old fashion UV tanning lamp would be great for this if you can find one, since it runs on AC.

[@markus_blend16]

Is it common for old lenses to be radioactive? Some people here in the comments said that it's not harmful but I'm now scared to buy old lenses hahaha

[@SkintSNIPER262]

Is this a one an done thing or something you need to every now and then? I'm building a set of SMC Takumars so I want to keep them well maintained.

[@SkintSNIPER262]

@@markus_blend16 Yes, it has to do with the coating. Not all levels of radiation will kill/harm. If you're willing to carry a phone around you shouldn't fear these lenses.

[@OktoPutsch]

Good to know, thank you very much for this information

[@GarageGeek]

The best Takunar lenses didn’t have coatings. If you can get a first generation 50mm f1.4 it actually had an additional element. The thoriated lenses were quietly used later to decrease manufacturing costs while minimizing impact to performance.

[@jaakkooksa5374]

Amazingly, the yellow tint, which forms in the glass, can be removed by exposing the lens to ultraviolet radiation, for example leaving it in bright sunshine for a couple of days. I have no idea what the mechanism is.

[@guser436]

UV can react with glass and tint it purple so I'm guessing this cancels out the yellow same way purple toothpaste works. Idk just a wild guess

[@YellowLAVA]

@@guser436 purple is in the opposite end of the color wheel so that makes sense

[@yeah493]

The heat from the Sun may damage the lens so probably just use a UV LED

[@stickyfox]

Color, I think, largely comes from the behavior of paired vs unpaired electrons in a crystal lattice. Nuclear radiation or high-energy photons can knock atomic nuclei or electrons out of "perfect" crystals and leave a defect that absorbs light of a specific wavelength. Why radiation turns it yellow and UV turns it clear I have no idea.

[@mikepxg6406]

Don't put in the sun the lens may overheat and cause grease to run out of helical focus ring. I use a UV led Light (the type used to cure nail varnish) for about 12 hours these stay cool.

[@salvatoreshiggerino6810]

Title: this lens might ruin your pictures Video: this lens might very slightly degrade your pictures under very special circumstances

[@pauldogon2578]

I have one in my camera bag, have had it for ages running it on my Canon 350D. It also explains some of the noise on my astrophotography attempts

[@Starphot]

Some old aerial cameras had Thorium as well. The yellow filters out the blue/UV haze usually associated with photographing at high altitudes. A WWII bombsight Erfle eyepiece was sold by a well known surplus outlet. Yellow when it was first made had by year 2000 turned into a brownish tint. Stay away from brown eyepieces!

[@ajacks1349]

Yep, got a Pentax Super Takumar F2 55mm that's moderately hot at the rear element. Ironically cheaper to buy attached to a nice Pentax SP500 than buying separately.

[@AF6PA]

One of my favorite lenses! The yellow can be bleached out with UV light. Even leaving it in the sun will work. The 35mm f1.8 Tak is also active.

[@AgentOffice]

What's the radiation for

[@SilvaDreams]

@@AgentOffice The radiation is purely a byproduct of the thorium oxide as the thorium breaks down... But it's half life is fairly long as it is a low emitter and it's mostly alpha and beta radiation (stuff that will mostly not penetrate your clothing and skin). Just don't go and eat the stuff.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Beta radiation will easily penetrate clothing.

[@kingzozo19]

@@RadioactiveDrew penetrating power od beta radiation greatly depends on density of shielding material (not that much on thickess) and on energy of said radiation. Low energy beta radiation is rapidly attenuated.

[@frankthomas855]

Loved the time lapse on the end! Always great work and info.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Thanks.

[@TheXone7]

This is seriously the best channel on these topics! That lens is a pretty neat testing source of Th.

[@CKOD]

I worked with a projector-ish piece of equipment which was transferred to us from another organization, and in the box of goodies with the equipment was a spare lens. A huge Kodak Aero Ektar lens. Which no one mentioned until it was finished transfering to us and sitting in the corner of the lab was radioactive, with of course no paperwork on how spicy or not it was. Was fun to call industrial hygiene with a "So hey, guess what I got, you guys wanna come check this?"

[@harrison00xXx]

A few things to adress: 1) "Image Quality" 2) "Noise by radiation" 3) Astrophotography 4) Radiation at all 1) To be honest.... the video with the tinted takumar looks better than the blueish/cold with the Zeiss lens. The tinting is even wanted by many photographers and i also prefer it... its basically better and more natural looking than if you make the images warmer in post with digital cameras. Also, i would consider the "3d pop" also into image quality, and especially considering its price and still very good optical performance at F2+. I have had like 10 different fast 50s, mainly primes in my past. NONE of them had such a beautiful look and 3d pop as the takumar (but all were corrected mildly to very heavy unlike the "uncorrected" Takumars) 2) Noise by radiation is not that annoying, at least not for the average usecase you would want to use a thoriated, fast 50. I shot it at F2 or even F2.8-5.6 in low light with shutter speeds of like 0,5 seconds on my Canon EOS R7 and its very hard to catch radiation induced noise (or better... white dots/stripes, unlike the typical, mainly RED and definately heavily annoying noise). Only at the next point its really annoying but this is definately NOT the usecase you want any vintage or even radioactive lens for 3) Astrophotography... well i dont know what to say since i think its clear that you dont want to use that lens for with its inferior corner sharpness and the radiation induced white noise. 4) especially regarding to 6:45.... i have made a video already showing the difference between the rear element measured directly (7,2 ySv/h, like 1 cm from the lens) versus on the camera at the viewfinder (0,4ySv/h, like 2x background radiation 98%+ are for sure blocked by the camera itself already...). So no, on the camera its absolutely safe and you would need to look thru the viewfinder your whole life long to have any issues if at all. Yeah the eyes are not as radiation resistant as the skin, but still its pretty much more or less just very very weak radiation (and looking with your eyes around in bright sunlight expose the eye to more radiation and so they get faster weaker)

[@mistermac56]

Back when I was a pro photographer in the 80's, and did a lot of air travel, I had my camera bag with film hand screened at the airport, as the X-Ray machines used back then would fog film. An easy test to see if the Thorium Oxide lens would affect film would be to place a roll of unexposed black and white film still sealed in the box, like Kodak Tri-X, in constant close proximity of the lens for a week or two and have it processed to see if it fogs the film.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I plan on doing this test.

[@SteveSelvidge]

I have a Super Tak that I keep just for the yellow cast. With the right film and light, it can look beautiful.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

It does have an interesting look.

[@ohjajohh]

Great video! I recently picked up a vintage Takumar lens which I assume is also radioactive (yellowed rear element) I really like the lens, but I'll try to keep usage to a minimum.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

The lenses are totally fine to use and pose no danger...unless you are eating them.

[@ohjajohh]

@@RadioactiveDrew good thing I'm on a diet

[@felzebub1762]

@@RadioactiveDrew question, will that damage your camera sensor or anything like that..? I assume not..?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@@felzebub1762 I would assume it wouldn't damage it. But I've never done any long term tests to see what would happen.

[@harrison00xXx]

@@felzebub1762 I have a smc takumar nearly all the time on my Canon EOS R7, but: 1) I use exclusively glass filters between lens and camera with theEF RF Adapter 2) It seems its one of the not soooo radioactive ones (7,2yS/h) but my geiger counter isnt really made for alpha (only beta, gamma and x ray)

[@99unclebob]

good video, back in December 2011 i went to the northern Ireland via Heathrow to visit family for Christmas for the first time since 2001 and i am a hobbyist photography and bought a new Sony camera and a assortment of minty Minolta lenses that i couldn't turn down for the price this original owner wanted, i was so excited to take pictures when i arrived, while going through security to catch my plane to Belfast , walked through no problem and then they sent my camera bag through and this alarm and flashing lights went off at the same time and it was ear piercing , i was pulled back by security and restrained by my arms and they shortly after turned off the alarms, and was questioned by this female head of security what are bringing into N.I, just my camera gear and some gifts, a few minutes later 2 specialists show up with their equipment to check over my camera gear which seemed like an eternity and this lady could've cut me in two with her stare, she asked me the same question several times and gave her the same answer, oh yeah she was a bitch , when the guys tested my gear and came to talk to me, they asked you know these are radioactive and i said now i do and told them had bought the gear 5 days prior, then they told me about thorium oxides in the old Minolta lenses i bought and that is what set off the alarms, these were just beautiful old manual lens with a twist of thorium added i had no fracking clue, the Sony kit lens was good, they did a final sweep of my gear to test for any trace of Gamma radiation and the guy said it won't damage your gear and it turned out negative and they finally said your good to go and have a good holiday, the look in the eyes of that old battle-axe were like lasers, i was never so glad to board the plane and land in Belfast, my cousin i visited there had a good laugh when i told and he wasn't surprised and told me that the Brits and Israelis have the most sophisticated equipment at their airports for this reason , Belfast being one of the top global hotspots for trouble of this nature, my holiday was good and met quite a few Northern Ireland police and explained to them what happened and they were not surprised at all, it is a regular thing over there from all the radicals planning shit , i had a good time and enjoyed the lenses and sold them within 2 years by the advice of my Irish police cousins who told me if i travel to the USA and i frequently do to visit friends and it happens there ,homeland security would have a heyday with me and be on the 6pm news, next trip there i will only carry a cellphone, I've had my home broken into and felt violated , this was 100 times worse

[@davegrenier1160]

If I recall correctly, the lenses start clear, and become colored as the thorium and its radioactive decay products change the chemistry of the molecules in the lens. This is why exposure to UV reverses it. Obviously, exposure to UV can't change the elements in the lens, but it can knock apart molecules. When the molecules knocked apart are those causing the yellowing, the yellowing goes away. (The elemental decay products that contributed to the yellowing are still present, but no longer bound to other elements that together created the yellow cast.)

[@marinedalek]

I wonder if there would be an issue with fogging when shooting 35mm, if say the camera was left for a few weeks with a partially-shot roll and the lens attached. Might make for a fun experiment!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I would think that would be possible for sure.

[@Subgunman]

As an old photographer, no one has ever complained about adverse exposures to films, even high speed films never showed any fogging.

[@catey62]

@@Subgunman I agree, I have an older Nikkor lens with the thorium glass in it as well ( I'm a film shooter ) and have never had an issue with it causing problems with my photo's. 🤨

[@phillipsstanley]

Mamiya also produced some lenses with this coating as well

[@charlesworton4020]

If I recall correctly, the Super Multi Coated Takumar lenses came out in the mid '70's, back when film was king. It would be interesting to find a roll of Tri-X pan (or some other high speed black and white film) and expose it in a film camera using the Bulb function on the shutter speed dial. Expose for 1 hour with the lens cap on, wind through an empty reference frame, then expose for two hours, and continue until you got tired. This test MIGHT generate a series of gray squares of increasing density on the developed film, IF the radiation was strong enough to affect the film. It would be a huge blunder for Pentax to have created lenses that would fog film.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I plan to do a test like this to see if it can be shown. The SMC 50mm lenses aren't the most radioactive but they are more radioactive than most as I know it.

[@Luokiteltu]

Great video, I have a Fuji 50mm f1.4 that's pretty radioactive too, and was always wondering about the radiation exposure from that. If I keep my lens in a dark place for a long time, the radioactivity causes the glass to become increasingly brown/amber, something I actually enjoy because of the color shifts it gives the photos. The ionizing radiation causes F-centers to form in the glass, and since those absorb some visible light it causes that color. If I leave the lens out in the sun for a day, it becomes almost completely clear again.

[@nickykodak7536]

Seriously? Just one day?

[@harrison00xXx]

@@nickykodak7536 one day (partially even some hours) in strong sunlight but not recommended. better a cheap low powered light and for 24h+ so you dont break the aperture blades or to avoid getting grease on the elements in the visible part of the lens A friend did such a „curing“ once with sunlight (in summer…) and not only grease got on the glass elements but also the aperture blades melted inside. It was impossible to repair the lens was just radioactive waste then (but no tint anymore haha)

[@Luokiteltu]

@@nickykodak7536 Yeah one day in direct sunlight will do it, but as @harrison00xXx said, the heat from sun on a hot day can destroy your lens. I like the tint on my lens, so I avoid sun exposure beyond what it gets in a normal day of photography.

[@northstar1950]

My 55mm f 1.8 is also radioactive dating from around 1973, I have owned this lens since new used it many times and I'm pleased to say I'm still around ! I also have a similar but later example too, the type with the rubber grip on the focus ring and that two appears to be radioactive.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

They are cool little lenses. I'm working on a video about high end cinema lenses from the past that used thorium in them.

[@huge_balls]

The timelapse picture is incredible. Like a telescope image of the stars.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Thanks.

[@davey3765]

I own that exact lens and I keep it out in my shed and stopped using it years ago - I just about crapped when I put my geiger counter on it.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I keep mine in my office. The radiation off of these small lenses drops off pretty quickly.

[@tomcooney183]

I like the golden tint, looks way nicer, especially skin tones

[@mcb187]

As an FYI, sitting the lens in the sun for a few days will remove or reduce the yellow tint. I have a Nikon F camera that has a period correct radioactive lens, the 35mm f/1.4, but unfortunately it costs a lot of money lol.

[@cross27]

I personally think that a star stacking photo with radiation artifacts would be really cool looking.. Everything is too clean now days

[@SilntObsvr]

I have a slightly older Super Takumar 50 mm f/1.4 (also in M42) which I acquired with a Pentax Spotmatic in 1981. By 2005, it was quite "tea-colored". I read about a way to fix that, so I wrapped the rear end of the lens in aluminum foil (as a reflector) and stood the lens on a windowsill (inside) where it got direct sun for several hours each day. After about three weeks on the windowsill, the yellowing was greatly reduced. I figure it'll need another treatment around 2040 or so, but I'm not sure I'll care by that time, since I'll be 80 year old...

[@Subgunman]

The net result is a warmer more realistic photo when you used the Pentax lens compared to the non radioactive lens.

[@TheXone7]

I am actually on a search for the biggest lens with thorium oxide produced. As a collector, I must have this. Currently only have small takumar 50mm f1.4 one.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

If you want to find some super hot lenses. Look for old cinema lenses. I'm working on a video right now looking at some radioactive cinema lenses that were used for TV and film productions.

[@coolcat_vlogs69]

Brilliant Video! Excited to see more of you work! :)

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Thanks. Have a lot more coming.

[@jplum7708]

Low radiation exposure? I hear Godzilla started out as a photographer. Now look at him. 😊

[@josephwisniewski3673]

I still have my old Pentax 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar. Lovely brown elements.

[@Muonium1]

the streaks on the detector are probably Compton scattered electrons or Auger electrons I'd guess. All of these lenses seem to have a yellowish color. Is the color due to the intrinsic color of thorium compounds or because of F center formation in the glass due to self-irradiation over time? Would be interesting to compare the color of an old and new thorium lens to see.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Seems like the color cast comes from the self-irradiation. But it can be reversed with UV light exposure.

[@Muonium1]

@@RadioactiveDrew that's interesting. If real you should be able to observe dim thermoluminescence from the F center / trapped electron recombination on heating. Temperatures probably high enough to crack it tho

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

I had this specific lens. 1. To clear the yellowing leave the the lens exposed in direct sun. Mine cleared after a couple or three weeks of exposure over summer. 2. The radiation induced speckling on any single image is really no different from that from intrinsic thermal noise. Exposure stack and it'll go away on the final image. 3. Thorium emits alpha particles. This is just helium ions being emitted at high speed. A sheet of paper can stop it. So, if you really want to just stop the scintillation from being recorded on the images in the first place, try placing a glass filter in front of the sensor. I'm thinking the magnetic filters, like the Kolari clip-ins should do. I haven't tried this myself. Post if you do. I'm curious.

[@wright96d]

Would be interesting to use the radioactive interference to create a sort of dust and scratches overlay effect, but it’s radioactive interference instead of film damage.

[@godfreypoon5148]

Sounds like grinding up these lenses and snorting them might not have been the best idea.

[@CptJistuce]

Nope. Turns out powdered glass in your lungs is super-bad for you. Even worse when it's radioactive.

[@godfreypoon5148]

@@CptJistuce No waaiiii

[@Kondekka]

Pleasantly warm color on the thorium oxide coated lens.

[@JimSollows]

The gold tint can be removed by exposing it to UV.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

That's what I've heard. I have a pretty strong UV light that I might try to do this with and see how long it takes.

[@JimSollows]

@@RadioactiveDrew You can also leave it in a window exposed to sunlight but be very careful it doesn’t overheat. I use a desktop UV light and it takes anywhere from a few days to a week depending on the amount. Many also like the gold warming tint.

[@serge9492]

On film the radition is way more visible w/o any noice reduction back than. The specs were like thick lines all around the picture

[@colinrich9486]

Good work, Drew. I had no idea these lenses used thorium. What is it about thorium oxide that mitigates CA?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

The thorium added to the glass cuts down on dispersion and a high refractive index can be achieved. Simply saying the light meets up better at its final destination...the film plane.

[@CAMacKenzie]

I would have thought this would have been a big problem in the days of film, as the emulsions were sensitive to radiation, and there was no way to compensate for the radiation fogging. You might have the lens on your camera and film in the camera for hours or days. Also, having the lens, on or off the camera, in your camera bag with rolls of film. I don't remember this being a problem, but then, I wasn't a professional, so maybe the cheap lenses I used didn't have thorium.

[@JohnLobbanCreative]

I just got an old Canon FL 50mm f/1.8 that has a pretty hot rear element. Just under 10k CPM (Radiacode 103) and 4.27 μSv/h. Pretty cool.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Nice...some of that old Canon glass can be a little spicy.

[@1.4142]

I mistook cosmic ray noise in my photo for a meteor once

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I could see that happening.

[@jeffandlucywilliams5082]

I think the 50 mm lens from my pentax K1000 (1983) was of this type. Had the same tinting

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Its very possible...there are a lot of these lenses out in the world.

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

I have some Soviet era optics, binoculars, rifle scopes, telescopes and camera lenses that have that pleasing warm cast to them. I wonder if they are radioactive?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Could be. Only way to know for sure is to test them with a Geiger counter.

[@richpayton7162]

I had that exact lens that came on a Pentax Spotmatic II. I had no idea...

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

Don't inhale or eat that lense. It will be bad for your health.

[@panconkisu]

3:27 oh my god I need that photo

[@rmeliso]

Film shooter here. The Tak images look so much better than the cool blah Zeiss.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

The Zeiss gives a very clean image...you have to add character. The Pentax has the character built in.

[@mosswareproaudio6328]

I have the GQ GMC-320 Plus Geiger Counter Nuclear Radiation Detector. For vintage lenses this does fine. It does not take that long to get a max reading for lens sources. I store my vintage radioactive lenses in a sealed plastic "tub face up" with 3 sheets of half inch plexiglass on either side. I read about this online and tried it. It works great. I am not concerned with Alpha because they can't get through your skin (and I never hold the camera to my face), but the others I do care about. In making these kinds of measurements "I think" it is best to measure one of the radiation types and not all three or two as it can be misleading to see a composite reading.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I tested that GMC-320 Plus and it had a bunch of problems with it. Also the detector it’s going to have a hard time seeing beta radiation under a certain energy level. Alpha radiation can have an effect on materials as it Carrie’s the most ionizing energy. Btw, you aren’t measuring one of the radiation types with your detector. You are measuring beta and gamma. Reading all three gives everyone an idea of what you are getting when you pick up an item like this.

[@mosswareproaudio6328]

Yes, measuring beta and gamma is the problem I was talking about with all these counters. So, do you ever measure uSv/h ? I saw your review of the different counters. Regarding the GMC-320 Plus, you seem to have a problem the speed and the build. I don't have a problem with these two things. As an electronics engineer I am used to working with test equipment that can break if not handled right. Also, I have lots of time to let the counter reach it's max count. What you should have done there in that video was compare the accuracy of each at measuring a single source, like this lens. Accuracy is more important than speed. I am actually surprised you didn't think of this yourself. Maybe you should make a follow up video about the Accuracy when measuring things like lenses which are not red hot like your other sources on the review video. I bring this up because of your CPM reading on this lens here. What is your education in? Do you have a college degree in a field that relates to this topic in any way? Just wondering. Because an opinion from someone who does would be handy.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@@mosswareproaudio6328 well response time is a big thing with Geiger counters. I personally like to know the reading right away so I don't have to sit around and get extra exposure when I don't need to. Its also a terrible thing to have out in the field. So that detector was one of the worst ones I tested and its far and away from being accurate, which is also reflected in its price. The Ludlum and the Radeye are detectors used in the nuclear industry, not the GMC-320. Good for you on being an electrical engineer. Not sure what that has to do with radiation. I have no degree in this subject or filming making. But I have been making videos professionally for 15 years and have been learning and dealing with radiation and radioactivity for the last 6 years.

[@mosswareproaudio6328]

What being an electronic instrumentation engineer, published by IEEE NSS (IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium), has to do with your measurement Accuracy is as I described in the comment that somehow keeps getting deleted. Maybe you are deleting them. I will try again.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@@mosswareproaudio6328 I don't delete comments...KZbin does if it doesn't like your links or something along those lines. Look, you can makeup whatever you want about yourself, I don't care. The fact is that GMC-320 detector is garbage...you get what you pay for. I showed it was garbage in my video.

[@evaross9249]

Some photographers actually enjoy using these because of the yellow-orange hue they give to colors.

[@mosswareproaudio6328]

Thorium 232 -> releases alpha α -> becomes Radium 228, then Radium 228 -> releases beta β - -> becomes Actinium 228, and so on.

[@mosswareproaudio6328]

I have that same lens and it only reads 2250 CPM and my Geiger counter was calibrated recently. Your test gear needs re-calibration as it is off by an order of magnitude. just bought this lens as was surprised to learn about the level of uSv/h it has. If you want to examine a real radioactive lens take a look at the FUJINON 50mm f1.4 lens. It is radioactive to the tune of 3706 CPM and get this... 22.77 uSv/h !!! They say that 100 uSv/h will cause you to start growing a third eye. I just bought this lens as was surprised to learn about the level of uSv/h it has. I love it! I love all my radioactive lenses. By the way, it appears that your lens is pre-Pentax. It does not say Pentax anywhere. It is a Asahi Takumar. Also, you should try using that menu option called WHITE BALANCE. That will elimiinate yellow tint. You should be using that for every shot you do.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Well the reading for these lenses won't all be the same. Also it depends on what type of detector you are using. The one I use can detect alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This makes me think that the detector you are using can't see alpha radiation.

[@allancopland1768]

I have a little collection of radioactive items and a DIY Geiger-Mueller counterfor Beta/Gamma. My thoririated gas mantles are rather 'spicy' and I have plenty of old camera lenses... another hobby, so I'll have a bit of fun trying to check if any of them are radioactive. Should help keep me out of trouble tomorrow :-)

[@TheFranqd]

Thanks that it was the information that I was looking for, and it’s no easy to found it. I’ve been asking to my astronomic group if anybody knew this lens in especial this model SMC Takumar 50mm and there was several opposites opinions. I usually make astrofotography with a dedicated camera, ASI 183 MC pro, and I thought that this beta radiation basically electrons should generate to much noise. My lights are usually of 600s and refrigerate the sensor to -10 C to avoid noise and add more noise from the lens have no sense for me…. So thanks for your video I will sent it to my astronomical friends. Thanks from Catalonia Spain !!!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Glad you found this information helpful.

[@harrison00xXx]

Should be common sense to no use radioactive glass for astrophotography but ok at least you know now…

[@nickykodak7536]

Auto White Balance on a digital renders issues negligible. And there's no need to stack endless images. Like what's the point? As far as film cameras go, the images are simply the same as using a Skylight 1b or 81a; hardly worth worrying about and essentially warmer and more attractive imaging. The Takumar actually gives the skin tones more warmth and smoother tones than the Zeiss.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

On a digital camera when you do star stacking shots you would see these radiation artifacts. Do I think they are a problem and you should stop using these lenses...no. But there is a measurable effect on the image.

[@nickykodak7536]

@@RadioactiveDrew "Measurable" is an arbitrary term. I can measure to pieces of spaghetti and find out one is longer then the other. A more accurate measure is whether it's worth worrying about, or does it matter at all?

[@harrison00xXx]

so true. the color rendering of the takumar is superior And i have no clue how he came to the astrophotography argument regarding to your comment since it should be commom sense that a unsharp vintage lens is anyways not really a good idea for astrophotography (tho it works well at F2

[@OktoPutsch]

LOL, I have this super Takumar lense, it's one of my best buys ever. Always felt it gave me more luminous photos but never knew it was radioactive. It's now in my storage, since home eviction. The day I find a geiger counter, i'll test it !

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Its a great little lens. I might do a lens comparison between the Takumar, Zeiss and Sony 50mm. Some people were saying that the radiation would have no effect on the image...my tests didn't show that. My tests were with long exposure photography.

[@OktoPutsch]

@@RadioactiveDrew Well, they added such oxides for the optical properties given to glass, so it obviously has an effect on the output image. What should be measure for a side by side comparison is their refraction index, and considering the time they were made it's a clever design for sure.

[@harrison00xXx]

Also something to consider (tho not related to radioactivity) is the „3d pop“, i had the past years many fast 50mm prime lenses but none of them was that „uncorrected“ as the smc takumar. This missing correction glasses and coatings combined with a simple (planar?) design result in amazing portrait shots with a really outstanding 3d pop. Only a good old canon ef 50 1.4 USM had some sort of 3d pop but not too strong so i didnt even realized it the days i had it only just recently since i have the smc takumar and compared the shots to all shots with the previous nifty fifties.

[@smartduck904]

I use highly radioactive lenses for some of my Creative Photography a little dangerous yeah but as long as I remember to take them off the camera at the end I don't think I have to worry about sensor burn in gladly

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Some of those older lenses have a pretty cool look to them.

[@stevengill1736]

I've done autoradiography with thorium nitrate, and it takes a couple days to produce a sihlouette of metal objects.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Good to know.

[@PeterMarchl]

I just bleached a takumar lens with 2 weeks ov uv light. Worked fine!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Dang, two weeks.

[@Iamthelolrus]

Cool, now I can blame my crappy photography skills on my k1000.

[@charliewecker]

Astrophotography right from your bedroom.

[@jeeptrail08]

Great now I need to order a giger counter to see if my 35mm lenses will make me glow in the dark lol. Great video by the way. I had no clue that certain lenses where radio active. Where any of these marked with a radioactive symbol of any kind?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

None of the ones I have seen are marked in any way to indicate they are radioactive.

[@ScottBalkum]

Fascinating!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Glad you found it interesting. I also wonder how long it would have took for some of these lenses to fog some film sitting in a camera body. Maybe something for a future video.

[@robinwells8879]

I assume that it was therefore not enough radiation to have damaged even the faster old fashioned films.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

That's a test I still need to do.

[@ChasWG]

I've wonder this exact same thing. Owning that same lens, which is fairly "hot" when compared to my other radioactive lenses (Yashica Yashinon-DS 50mm f1.7, S-M-C Takumar, 55mm f1.8 and one other, but I forget right now...). Mine is fairly yellow, but its something that I will leave as its part of the character of that lens. But this was an interesting video. Hopefully more people are freaked out by these lenses, that way the prices stay low and there are more of them out there for me to buy! ;)

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Hahahaha...I'm sure some people will panic sell some of their lenses when finding out they are radioactive.

[@dakotalapse]

Cool video Drew!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Thanks man. Have a lot more coming.

[@TaskerTech]

you can disable the noise reduction on thesony

[@shahrammehdizadgan5614]

Cool video man! I’m thinking of buy a Canon 50mm 0.95 Dream Lens, however I cannot find any info on the web if it is radioactive or not. I know in the advertising from the late 1950’s that its little brother/sister canon 50mm 1.2 ltm lens had rare earth materials, it actually said it in the add. Not sure what that means. Anyway I might still buy it and then get a Geiger counter to check it out

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I looked up that f0.95 lens and from the pictures it might have thorium in the glass. Even if it does that shouldn't stop you. Like I said in the video, the lenses are safe to use. If you are doing long exposure photography with them they can add some noise. But you would only see it if you were stacking photos.

[@shahrammehdizadgan5614]

Really appreciate your reply man! I one of those photographers that takes their camera everywhere with them, I’m shooting every day, so I was only worried of the commutative over a long time of having the cane in the bag around my torso for nearly every day of the year. Also gamma radiation going through the metal canon 7 body and hitting my face. I’ve actually seen the lens in real life, the glass doesn’t appear to be yellow when you have it straight on with white paper under it. The coating is that umber yellow coating. Thank you

[@RadioactiveDrew]

If that lens does have thorium in the glass the strength of the radiation can vary by a lot. Also thorium is mainly an alpha and beta emitter. It does give off some gamma through its decay chain but not a lot. As far as the radiation being strong enough to penetrate the camera body, that shouldn’t be much of a concern. In my testing I did not detect a significant increase of radiation coming through the camera body from the lens. Also the copy of the lens you did see might have been treated to some daylight or UV light to clear up any yellowing of the glass. Only way to know if that lens is radioactive is with some kind of detector.

[@shahrammehdizadgan5614]

Thank you for your informative and detailed advice! I really appreciate it 🙏

[@Mr.BrownsBasement]

I think it would be concerning if a Thorium lens was part of the viewfinder! That would be right next to your eye and not far from your brain.

[@archie_en]

Дружище, ты снял видео про этот объектив! Наконец-то. Никак не мог найти информацию о виде радиоактивности и его уровне. Скажи, какая мощность дозы от линзы в рентгенах или зивертах?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Just checked my lens and I was getting 14 uSv/hr with the Radeye B20 using a gamma filter and 10 uSv/hr with the Radiacode 101.

[@archie_en]

@@RadioactiveDrew В моей местности это природный фон. А в твоей сколько?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@@archie_en my natural background is 35 CPM or .08-.1 uSv/hr.

[@Anima420]

That is so cool. I had a Pentax Asahi 85mm 1.9 laying around because of relative has died and it's also radioactive. Wouldn't have known without you :o

[@ItsRenderInnit]

I used this lens on a Pentax film body for many years, for prolonged periods of time 😅

[@NJPurling]

I think that Kodak used Thorium glass in making the 178mm f2.8 Aero-Ektar lens, the glass turns amber. I think that the glass can be cleared under intense UV light. It's a mad lens to stick on a 4x5 Speed Graphic. I have lenses for 39mm Leica Thread cameras that are known to incorporate Lanthanum. I have no idea if they were radioactive or not. my only personal acquaintance with Thorium is in old lantern mantles. specifically Thorium and cerium Oxides. So there's a source of Alpha & Beta rays.

[@Kylejphotographer]

I just got a Pentax 67 and it came with an old 105mm f2.4 with the thorium glass and I’m wondering will it ruin my film? I’m not using it in any digital camera just the Pentax 67 but I’m wondering if I should use a UV light to remove the slight yellowing or just trade the lens in for a non thorium lens

[@RadioactiveDrew]

People used those lenses for a while and I don’t think it ruined any film. I think the main risk to the film in the camera would be leaving it in for long periods of time with that lens on the body. Long periods of time I would imagine to be a year or so. Also depends on how radioactive the lens is…the different thorium lenses have different intensities of radiation based on how much thorium was used.

[@SomethingAbstract]

I like the tint

[@Bluescout612]

Drew if you don't know yet some older TV's have similar coatings

[@Takeo-iq2lh]

This lense would be a nightmare to put on my film camera

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I think you would have to have it on a film frame for a while before you would notice any major fogging from the radiation.

[@Takeo-iq2lh]

​@@RadioactiveDrew Oh, there definitely can be stretches of time where the film isn't advancing. Each role costs money, so I only shoot something if I really want to shoot it. So it might be that I'm done for the day of making photos, but the film isn't full. So it stays that way in the camera for some time until I go out to shoot again. I imagine that the frame it stayed on for a few days (or weeks) will be full of little white spots

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

you forgot to mention it can destroy the camera main board. Ive got nearly 200 radioactive lenses.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

You've had radiation destroy the camera's main board? Seems like that would take a while to do.

[@JimSollows]

That’s a myth! No it will not. The radiation level is barely more than normal background radiation. If anything could be damaged it would be the sensor and not the main board. NASA astronauts deal with cameras killed by radiation levels all the time but it’s the sensor that becomes damaged. In addition their cameras are exposed to radiation levels thousands of times higher than that emitted by a Thorium lens.

[@richardstott7777]

​@@JimSollows

[@incorporeal3793]

You must have sought those out specifically or you have the worst case of G.A.S ever!

[@DanGonzalesDenver]

Pentax screw mount is an ancient lens mount, the cameras that took these lenses were entirely mechanical. Pentax didn't even have in-camera metering until the 60s

[@theenchiladakid1866]

I have one of those and is on a shelf above my bed

[@daveyeatyourfries6493]

Nice video! Really liked seeing the comparison between the yellowed lens and the non-yellowed. The digital sensor information was also very interesting. I own two vintage Pentax 50mm f1.4 lenses. One is the original “Super-Takumar” 8 element version from around 1964. The other is an “SMC Takumar” 7 element version from around 1974. Simon, on his wonderful KZbin channel “Simon’s utak”, has determined that out of the multitude of vintage lenses he owns the "SMC Takumar" is the spiciest (1227 CPM, 7.975 uSv/h). He used a GQ GMC-300E Plus for measurements. You might find his 3 part series discussing the radioactivity of vintage lenses interesting. Cheers!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Thanks. I’ll have to look for the video. Who knows, maybe I already saw it.

[@daveyeatyourfries6493]

Measured my 1974 SMC Takumar today. 13.96 uSv/h. More than I expected.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

The lenses can get a little spicy.

[@falmatrix2r]

How to take a picture of stars : use a radioactive lens

[@zacharymcintosh918]

Cool episode

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Thanks man. I might revisit it a little later as I think there is some more to talk about with these lenses.

[@aggibson74]

Interesting. Wondering if a radiation detector can be made using a digital camera sensor. Is that Mesquite sand dunes at death valley at the end of the video?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Those are the Mesquite Sand dunes…good eye.

[@rickduncan692]

Yea I have one of these lenses from my high school. Mine is older tho and is not super multi coated but just super takumar. But it definitely registers pretty well on my cdv 700 Geiger counter. I am inquiring about purchasing the lens if I can get it for a good deal as I love film photography and it fits my camera and is a very good large aperture lens.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

They can be found pretty easily on ebay.

[@rickduncan692]

Radioactive Drew yea but they are kind of expensive and seem to be sought after a little bit. I know there are way more expensive lenses but to me they are expensive.

[@lucaballardini1]

@@rickduncan692 If you want a solid lense and don't want to pay the premium of the f1.4 50 buy the f2 or f1.8 55mm, its bokeh is not as fine as with the f1.4 50, but it's still a really solid lense.

[@good4ud]

Would these lenses have any long term effects on the camera sensor if it was left on the body?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I don’t think so but it’s hard to say for sure. I haven’t done any long term testing.

[@lucaballardini1]

I'm storing my A7 II with the lens attached to it since over 4 years and I did not have any visible defects yet

[@JasonKjellberg]

Ooh wow! I have that same type lens on a Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic II. Mine is marked 4790280 not 5806413.

[@filmarchive7599]

Hii.. I have a different question. I bought 3 vintage lenses. These lenses are made with radioactive material. There is dust on the 2 lenses and around the edges. Could this dust come from inside the lens? So, can thorium come out of the lens in powder form? Respects

[@RadioactiveDrew]

No, the thorium can't come out as dust from the lens. If you shattered the lens you could get very small particles of thorium glass everywhere. Over a very very long period of time the thorium in the lens will slowly decay into Ra228 (solid) and then into Rn220 (gas) and then back into other isotopes which are solids.

[@dynamax1041]

@@RadioactiveDrew Thank u so much ! 🔥 Many thanks for giving me this information. It's very important to me. I was relieved.

[@filmarchive7599]

@@RadioactiveDrew thank u so much for your answer. Last question : Radioactive lenses problem for new generation dslrs censors ?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@@filmarchive7599 I don't think they are a problem. Not sure if there could be some form of damage to the sensor over a long period of time. I think it would be more of a problem for mirrorless cameras because the sensor is directly exposed to the radioactive lens. With a DSLR you usually have the shutter mechanism and mirror in the way.

[@filmarchive7599]

@@RadioactiveDrewI have Panasonic S5. I will also do research. Thank u so much for informations.. Respect from Amsterdam. Regards

[@zlatana8472]

Can this impact the eyes by looking trough the viewfinder when taking photos?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

No. The entire face is being exposed but the radiation level is extremely low. You would have to sleep with the lens on your face for a long time before any problems would arise.

[@zlatana8472]

@@RadioactiveDrew thank you, i love this lens

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@zlatana8472 those older lenses have some real character.

[@ridgecrestwack9746]

Ahh i see what you were telling me few days ago now, very cool

[@Torighostgangsmells]

They have a pen on Amazon you stir drinks with I can't remember what it's called but it's got thorium powder in it and was checked by multiple people with geigers and you can buy h to em today and it's also recommended for face care 😬

[@VladislavKurashov]

Great video! Collecting a Yashinon-dx lenses kit for video shooting, when I remembered there were Japanese radioactive lenses. I looked at the lists and unfortunately most likely 3 out of 4 of my lenses are radioactive. It’s unpleasant. I'll have to rent a geiger counter to check them out. Also, what exposure settings did you use to capture timelapse of photons?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

The radiation from lenses like this isn't that big of a deal. Would only be a problem if you used them as a pillow every night for years or ate them on a regular basis. The exposures that I started to see this effect at was the 5 second mark. But for the video to really show the effect I was using 30 sec exposures. Hope that helps.

[@craigcook8434]

anybody ever use those meters at the where the r the auroras are to see how much is getting through the magnetosphere?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Since all that activity is so high up I don’t think much is getting down to the surface. Would be interesting to see. I’ve seen the Aurora in Iceland but it was before I would carry a Geiger counter around with me.

[@parranoic]

I have a question. I have 2 identical lenses from Yashica. They are on the list of radioactive lenses. The are 2 conditions for the yellowing, age and the lack of uv light. One of them is new old stock and the other was used intensively over the years. The new one never saw the light of day as it sit in warehouse and judging by the serial number is even older than the used one. Does this mean its an earlier model and it has no thorium? The glass has no yellowing

[@brianyoung9014]

Those lenses were not intended for digital cameras, but for film.

[@CptJistuce]

News flash! Lens that predates digital photography was not designed for digital cameras! Film is sensitive to radiation as well. It is literally how radiation was discovered. Also how x-ray imagery worked before that went digital.

[@mikepxg6406]

The radioactivity will not harm you. It will not ruin your images if you remove the yellow tint with a UV lamp. People panic too much about the radioactivity of these lenses even bananas are radioactive.

[@harrison00xXx]

there are some, ok more realistic like a very few lenses out there with a lot of thoriated glass, for example a very common 135mm fujinon lens which has like over 2000x background radiation and its also the only well observed and tested „too radioactive“ lens regarding to this big list on the internet any other radioactive lens is just harmless as long you dont do stupid stuff (long periods DIRECTLY at the eye, smashing the rear element, grinding it to dust and breathe it in,…)

[@epiculo2]

I'm just buying one.