On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:46:31 -0500, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@attAbi.com> wrote:

>"Mickey98" <mic98@worldnet.att.net> wrote...

>> I know it's a dumb question but I can't seem to find the definitive

>> answer anywhere:

>> Is it correct to place, for example, a 135mm lens into a hard lens

>> case with the mount facing upwards & the lens nose down or vice-versa?

>I don't think the direction of the lens matters if the lens is

>not broken (I'll explain in a moment), but do add a small bag of

>silica gel to prevent moisture from collecting on or in the lens.

>

>I have an older screw-mount 200mm lens that gets oil on the blades

>of the automatic aperture (and that's a disaster) if I put it the

>objective end down (and the mount up). I have cleaned it who knows

>how many times and tried to make sure it doesn't have any oil in it

>at all, but somehow oil remains either in the diaphragm mechanism

>or in the focussing threads, and if I put it mount up, the oil gets

> into the diaphragm. I consider that lens broken and always

>keep it mount-down when off the camera.

>

>Come to think of it, in many places where I saw lenses stored (on

>a shelf in a used equipment shop, for example), they all sit mount

>down. There may be some merit to it and now that I've written

>this I begin to think that my 200mm may actually be alright and

>it simply shouldn't be stored upside down... OTOH, it could be

>linked with the fact that the mount is better protected against

>damage than the front...

With most Nikkors, the focus helical is forward of the

aperture, so I store these face down (and this does seem

to help the couple of lenses I've had that tend towards

oil on the diaphragm...). BTW, those small bags of

silica gel last only a few hours in an unsealed environment,

so without heating to "recharge" them, they provide

little or no protection from high humidity. Without this

protection, lenses are better stored in the open...