Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

UV Capable Lenses Seen on Ebay: Sept 2014


Andrea B.

Recommended Posts

Hm. Added yet another 35 to the lens arsenal? :D

 

I counted my 35/3.5s yesterday and refrain voluntarily from getting more of them ....

Link to comment
I definitely do not need any more 35/3.5 lenses !! So it was not me. :D Must have been Timber.
Link to comment

@ Timber,

 

Those optical designs (such as the lens above) aren't bad. They're definitely ok for the "uv beginner" on a tight budget.

 

As long as the prospective buyer is aware that this optical design (re-badged under many names: Titar, Sonagar, Aubell, Photax, Paragon, Terragon, Access SQ, Bower, Telesar, etc) only transmits usable and practical UV down to about 365 / 370 nm, or so.

 

(It's the same optical design as the 'Photax' which Enrico Savazzi speaks about on his lens tests. I can tell, instantly, by the shapes and extrusion points of the barrel design, the position of the rings, and the element diameter. I've gotten quite good at spotting design variants, regardless of re-badge / re-seller names, after going crazy with buying and experimenting with over 320 lenses so far in the 35mm F/3.5 range. Yes, I'm nuts.)

 

Like I said: Not bad. But definitely not the same optical design as the much deeper-transmitting Kyoei clone variants from earlier eras.

 

I call these "second generation pre-sets." Designed somewhere around late 60's to early 70's. Whereas the "first generation pre-sets" (Kyoei clones) were from the late 50's / early 60's, and transmit usable / practical UV down to about 320 / 325 nm or so.

 

In any case: I have all of the clone variants, as I've listed above (and even others, too, under yet MORE re-badge / re-seller names. The sheer amount of "also-rans" out there are ridiculous!)

 

I've taken them all apart, even, and re-assembled them again, just to confirm this. I can even swap glass with all of them. Hence, they are all optically identical, these "second generation" offerings. Although they DO show slight variations in coatings.

 

Now, to be clear: There ARE older lenses branded with 'Prinz', 'Galaxy', and even 'Prinzgalaxy' (fused name), which employ the earlier Kyoei optical design, too. But they are not the same as this slightly later, and less deeper-transmitting design.

 

Still a generally useful lens for UV photography, I am sure. But nothing to write home about, either. :-)

 

(They are quite common, too. And LITTER the market, everywhere you look. You just have to be able to recognize the design, when you see it from the crowd. Regardless of what name is stamped on the barrel. I've concurrently found so many re-sellers, which the majority of the UV community is still unaware of. And I am still working on my "master list", to this very day. The re-seller / re-badge names that I provided above are just a tiny fraction of how many there truly are. It's mindboggling, actually).

 

This does change one prevailing notion, though: The idea that "accidentally" UV-transmitting lenses are "as rare to find as hen's teeth", as once stated by a certain Dr. Schmitt, is no longer a true statement. Hehe. :) (Although I am sure that he first started his search long before many others came on the UV scene. So, he is definitely a pioneer.)

 

In short, though: UV-capable lenses (at least for general use) are no longer "rare" or "uncommon." You just have to know what to look for (design clues), and spot them among the crowd. That sometimes takes a keen eye that has been trained through buying countless lenses, and experiencing the joys and disappointments of trial and error buying (and running up some serious and probably unnecessary expenses, unfortunately), like myself. :D

 

Oh, well. Maybe something good will come of all of my maniacal-like buying binges, in the name of exploration and experimetation. (Or maybe I'll just go bankrupt, with no fair recognition or credit to show for all my troubles.) Haha.

Link to comment

I just tested the UV-Nikkor 105/3.5, Lentar 135/3.5, Omegar 75/4.5, UV-Planar 60/4.0, EL-Nikkor 80/5.6, Noflexar 35/3.5, Soligor 35/3.5 and Vivitar 35/3.5.

Two of the 8 lenses are fluorite/quartz, very expensive and fairly rare UV-dedicated lenses.

Two of the 8 lenses are inexpensive enlarging lenses.

4 of the lenses are just ordinary inexpensive lenses with a simple construction.

 

Yet all 8 lenses gave the identical Rudbeckia UV-signature using the UV-Baader filter in bright sunlight.

http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/1030-field-test-f-mount-close-visiruv/

 

I'm not yet sure what I'm supposed to conclude from that test result.

Deepness of transmission is irrelevant if shooting floral UV-signatures??

Why pay for fluorite when a simple triplet will do the UV job??

Link to comment

Yet all 8 lenses gave the identical Rudbeckia UV-signature using the UV-Baader filter in bright sunlight.

 

I'm not yet sure what I'm supposed to conclude from that test result.

Deepness of transmission is irrelevant if shooting floral UV-signatures??

Why pay for fluorite when a simple triplet will do the UV job??

 

This is all true, and I agree, Andrea.

 

Which is precisely why I have never felt compelled to blow thousands of dollars on a dedicated, quartz-fluorite lens. :D

 

(And, my primary motivation for doing so much research on all of these "accidental" lenses. To help future and newcomer UV photographers to get started on a shoestring, with less hassles, and save them money, too.)

 

On the other hand, (and as discussed in other forums), it also depends on one's preferences and demands.

 

If we are just trying to see uv-absorptive / uv-reflective floral differentials ... then heck, why even go with a vintage lens? I know even some modern, auto-focusing lenses (even with heavy / multi-coatings), that can show some UV-patterns.

 

(if I am not mistaken, UV floral patterns can even be discernible with a lens that barely transmits down to as little as 390 nm or so. No?)

 

However, what about other parameters? (which, again, you and I already held prior discussions about).

 

Such as:

 

1. The deeper UV "color richness" or "color diversity" one can obtain, with a wider UV-A transmission bandwidth, after white-balancing to a UV-neutral target? We do, after all, like our deep blues / indigoes, our yellows, and a few other discernible "UV colors" (depending on the filters used). If a lens does not have a wide-enough UV-A bandwidth, then we won't experience this color richness / diversity. Or, at the very least, it will be subdued and not as vivid / saturated. To which one would be forced to do much heavier post-photo editing (saturation increase, etc.) And that can potentially degrade image quality.

 

2. What about image sharpness and / or resolution? What about image consistency, across the entire frame, with no anomalies or fall-off issues (ex: "hot spots", etc.), and other issues. What about contrast? What about flaring? What about other potential problems?

 

Which is why I am now learning that some coatings are actually sometimes better than no coatings (correcting for some image anomalies, but not impeding significantly on UV transmission). And why some slightly more complex optical formulas are sometimes better than overly simpler optical formulas (improved sharpness, improved contrast, and perhaps attenuation for some forms of aberrations.)

 

3. Having a lens with its own focusing helicoid built into the barrel / optical design is a major plus, in my book. Enlargers can sometimes be a pain, in this regard, when trying to do a "custom mod" with non-native helicoid add-ons. Many times, the adaptations are less than satisfying, too, and can introduce additional issues, all their own.

 

4. Deeper transmission can also mean drastically shorter exposure times. It also means potentially brighter scenes to work with, and help to focus with.

 

And there are other factors, of course. Such as the presence of significant focus shift (not so much a problem with "live view", of course. But still a commodity and a welcomed convenience to not have significant focus shift, which eliminates an extra and tedious step, regardless. Especially for older or damaged / less-capable eyes.)

 

 

In any case, it all boils down to what one expects to derive from their work, right?

 

And from my own position, I feel that the Kyoei 35mm F/3.5 design (and its re-badged optical clones - Soligor, Galaxy, Optomax, et al), is the most favorable "bang for the buck", so to speak. The greatest benefits, from the least money spent.

 

- Very little focus shift (especially once stopped down to F/8 or greater).

 

- Very sharp and evenly rendered images.

 

- Excellent contrast.

 

- Well-controlled flaring, given the highly-recessed front element (although I'd still use a hood, regardless).

 

- Its own focusing helicoid / focusing barrel design (not the case, with a simple enlarger).

 

- Dual aperture ring (click-stop and click-less) design. Which means, set your minimum aperture limit with the click-stop ring, and then use the click-less ring to quickly move between your wide-open focusing aperture setting, and your stopped-down picture-taking setting. (This dual-ring pre-set aperture design becomes even more useful, when shooting video, as not to introduce the persistent noise of aperture "clicks" into the video's recorded audio track).

 

- Highly-adaptable M42 (or even MORE adaptable T-mount) designs.

 

- Transmission down to 320 nm. That's still a pretty nice commodity (for the low price), arguably. And that means much richer and more saturated "UV-A colors" (after white-balancing to UV-grey / neutral target.) It also means shorter exposure times, too.

 

- A wide-angle lens with a full-frame image circle, to boot! Which means, usable on any sensor format (short of medium format. But who converts medium-format digital cameras to full-spectrum? Bill Gates, maybe. Haha).

 

And all of these advantages, without breaking the bank with a thousand-dollar lens. What's not to love? :)

 

(Although I'll probably end up breaking my bank, by buying up a thousand copies. Hah!)

Link to comment

What an awesome and highly-insightful / useful field test that you did above, by the way. Thank you immensely, for that!

 

(Of course, I am not shocked with the conclusions.)

Link to comment

Andrea,

 

You have got me trying hard to recalibrate my eyes! So when you said:

Yet all 8 lenses gave the identical Rudbeckia UV-signature using the UV-Baader filter in bright sunlight.

 

You know I went straight away for a look and I have to say think I am seeing differences in the UV photos.

 

Your two quartz/fluorite lenses seem to be showing a more distinctly dark signature with the enlarger lenses running a respectable second. The Noflexars and the Soligor appear comparable, notwithstanding that odd aberration what ever it is, with just a dusting of some faint yellow/green in the transition from dark center to false UV-yellow. The Lentar has a bit more of this with a hints creeping into the grass, but the Vivitar has again rendered grass in pale UV-green.

 

You are of course judging the original files whereas I am limited to the web postings and likely also a lower quality monitor. Perhaps if you took just the UV images and lined them up together differences I have imagined might be more or less so.

 

Sounds like a wine tasting....

"Floral notes with hints of grassiness with a smooth granite finish."

Perhaps a lowland singlemalt rather than a wine? Yuck, I prefer Islay or Speyside!

 

Working hard to train these old eyes! One thing this summer of UV-photography school has taught me, I need new glasses!

Link to comment

Thanks, Igor. I wanted to be practical and use the lenses basically like I would when shooting documentary UV-signatures.

 

You covered the pros & cons well above.

 

I think that #2 above does argue the case for a dedicated UV-lens. In a well-corrected, dedicated UV-lens you do find the resolution/sharpness, lack of aberrations/distortions and image eveness across the field without big center/edge differences. Also in a lens such as the UV-Nikkor (or similar) you would have the benefit of being able to shoot deeper into the UV if desired or if needed (assuming appropriate filters could be found.) With fluorite/quartz elements a more complex construction is possible which, again as you noted above, can provide a better image quality.

 

If you look at the other test (F-mount, Infinity, Vis/IR/UV), it is clear that the UV-Nikkor holds up better in the landscapes than do the other lenses. There is a lot more variation amongst the landscape UV photos than there is in the close-up UV photos. So we could add that to the arguments in favor of a dedicated UV lens - that it would provide good Image quality from near to far.

 

I still will have to think all this over some more.

 

******

(if I am not mistaken, UV floral patterns can even be discernible with a lens that barely transmits down to as little as 390 nm or so. No?)

I think you need to be able to go a little lower, maybe 375nm?

 

I'm not sure that deeper transmission implies shorter exposure times?? Certainly fluorite/quartz elements give slightly shorter exposure times as compared to a normal set of elements in lenses of the same focal length. But there has not been a wide variation in exposure times in either of the two tests I just completed.

Link to comment

Your two quartz/fluorite lenses seem to be showing a more distinctly dark signature with the enlarger lenses running a respectable second

 

I'm not sure I that this observation should be interpreted as being meaningful because:

  • The light varied a bit during the shoot and shadows got longer as the shoot progressed. So, for example, the UV-Planar set, shot last, was definitely more contrasty/darker in the later afternoon light.
  • The distance from subject varies across the test set. So you are going to naturally see some photos as being brighter because they have more background ("space") around the subject.
  • The perspective does vary across the test set. So you are going to see some images with more shadows than others.

If I had controlled the variables of perspective and distance and if I had only compared lenses of the same focal length, then we maybe could make some meaningful observation about the tones in the photos. You noted that the Soligar/Noflexar/Vivitar images were rather similar (ignoring the weird Vivitar green grass). Well those images were similar because the focal lengths were the same and the distance/perspective had much less variation.

 

****

 

Even with all variables controlled, there will always be some differences between lenses. But when it came down to recording the Rudbeckia's dark central bullseye, all the lenses got it.

 

****

 

I note for the record that even with all the camera profiling and shooting of standards, getting the UV white balance (i.e. colours) to be the same across a set of photos made with the same camera and the same lens is nigh unto impossible. There is always a tiny bit of variation. Not surprising really when you consider all the variables (listed in some other post somewhere so I won't relist here) which can affect false colour.

 

Ah, the joys of being a UV-nerd!!

 

"Floral notes with hints of grassiness with a smooth granite finish."

:D

Link to comment

Morning :D

 

I am aware that this is the less-transmitting version of the lens, but since my filter is a Hoya U-360+BG40 I don't really need deeper transmission. As long it transmits better than my Sigma 30mm f2.8 then I am happy... if it does not then I can still re-sell the lens for similar price.

Link to comment

Glad that you are aware of the problem. Yes, this is one of the "worst" legacy 35 mm f/3.5 that I tested on my web site, but almost certainly better than the modern Sigma 30 mm f/2.8. The 35 mm lenses I tested are not that different from each other at 370 to 400 nm, the differences become much higher at shorter wavelengths.

 

One of the tricks to tell these lenses is the diameter of the front element. Big like this one = poor UV transmission at 350 nm and lower.

Link to comment

One of the tricks to tell these lenses is the diameter of the front element. Big like this one = poor UV transmission at 350 nm and lower.

 

After purchasing and testing hundreds more lenses outside of the specific and better-known models being mentioned here, I can tell you that this element-diameter notion no longer holds true ... IF considering lenses across a more diversified field of searching. It only applies, when trying to very specifically spot the Kyoei / Kawakami Seiki (joint-design venture) of the 23mm-element-diameter model against these later Cosinon-made Photax / Sonagar / Titar / Telesar re-badges.

 

However, outside of these very specific model identifications, I've found other UV-transmitting lenses that transmit quite deeply, and some of their front element diameters are enormous by comparison.

 

Thus, not always true. (Although I am not at liberty, yet, to reveal which other lenses I am talking about. :D I will eventually, though, after this monstrous lens-comparison project that I've undertaken for the past few years. Ech.)

 

However, I will admit that the joint Kyoei / Kawakami Seiki-designed model, in particular (including the identical / clone 'Soligor' 'Optomax', 'Galaxy', etc., re-badges), is my "first pick", in any UV-transmitting lens search on the used market. Only because I really like the design. It's easy to service, disassemble, replace parts / swap glass, and it's quite an attractive and compact package to begin with.

 

(Note: The "KA" letters preceding the numerical characters in the serial numbers of these earlier Kyoei / Kawakami-made re-seller / re-badged lenses may stand for "Kyoei Acall", but they may also stand for "Kawakami", too. Only because both companies teamed up, in a joint-venture, to design this line of lenses in various focal lengths. One company fabricated the metal parts, rings, barrel extrusion, etc. The other company sourced the glass. Or so, my sleuthing and research has been uncovering, it seems. Ahhh, the mysterious plot and associated but now defunct corporate paper trail thickens. 'Kyoei Optical Co. Ltd.', as you already know, soon became absorbed into 'Petri Co.', while 'Kawakami Seiki Seisakusho Ltd.' eventually reorganized into 'Kawanon' in order to create a more easily-recognizable naming presence, worldwide - which also eventually became their own, in-house, lens-branding identity in general. "Kawakami Seiki Seisakusho" just doesn't roll off the tongue very easily, for the western-speaking world. But "Kawanon" does. Oh, those busy Japanese executives and their endless acquisitions and mergers in the 50's and 60's, long before the practice became more aggressive and commonplace in the Western world.)

Link to comment

Transmission down to 320 nm.

Statements like this need a reference !!

 

Although I am not at liberty, yet, to reveal which other lenses I am talking about.

Huh??

None of this lens thing is exactly a "secret" !! So I don't know who or what is preventing you from talking about what is already fairly well known. :D Give or take a few obscure brands. :D :)

Link to comment

Not so much a "secret", Andrea ... but rather an "unknown."

 

("Unknown", because there is no mention - anywhere - of anyone finding some of the lenses that I have found for UV work. A Google search reveals nothing, on some of the models that I've discovered. That makes them "unknown" to the UV community - for the time being, anyway.) No, the lenses I am alluding to are NOT "well known" for UV capabilities, since no one has ever mentioned them, anywhere, thus far. Again, searches across the world-wide-web turn up nothing. Nor are they referenced anywhere in your 'UV Lens Sticky.' (Although I hope to eventually change that, and have you add it in, of course.)

 

No one is "preventing" me from talking about it, or revealing it. It has more to do with making sure to get all of my data / facts / info compiled, before finally releasing the master database. I do want to make sure that I have everything correct, confirmed, and usefully presented. I owe that much to the UV community.

 

And as for reference to the Kyoei transmitting down to as low as 320 / 325 nm, it is already readily out there and available. Enrico Savazzi and Dr. Klaus Schmitt (among other individuals) have both confirmed this transmission depth. Through both, Steve Smeed's more basic and easily-accessible "Spartical Bandpass" test, and Dr. Klaus Schmitt's more extensive spectrometer tests. In all cases, the results in both methodologies support each other quite well.

 

My own tests have revealed, confirmed, and repeated the same peer concensus made by others in the field. So, I never thought that there was anything provocative about stating that the Kyoei 35mm F/3.5 transmits down to 320 / 325 nm. It's common knowledge, now. (Unless someone has obtained results that dispute this?)

Link to comment

It has more to do with making sure to get all of my data / facts / info compiled, before finally releasing the master database.

Gotcha. :D

 

"unknown" to the UV community

It is a fairly small community, so it makes sense that many UV-capable lenses are indeed unknown. I'm more into the photography than the lenses, so until just very recently I had only the UV-Nikkor and a couple of other lenses. Last winter (long & cold & boring) a dip into the 'Bay proved irrestible and now I have more 35/3.5s than any one person could possibly ever need.

Whatever am I going to do with all of them?? :D :) :D

 

There's common knowledge and then there's scientific references. I'll go dig out this Kyoei measurement somewhere. But unless the methodology and equipment is described, then how do we know if it is valid? Every paper in scientific journals provides full disclosure of experimental set up. There's forum results and then there's peer-reviewed published material. I fear we will never see the latter w.r.t. lens UV transmission capability.

 

However I do appreciate all the interesting, creative and clever approaches to determining a lens UV-transmission in lieu of actual spectroscopy.

Link to comment

Last winter (long & cold & boring) a dip into the 'Bay proved irresistible and now I have more 35/3.5s than any one person could possibly ever need.

Whatever am I going to do with all of them?? :) :D :D

 

You can always open your own Ebay store, and make some $$$ back. ;)

 

There's common knowledge and then there's scientific references. I'll go dig out this Kyoei measurement somewhere.

 

Here. I found an example of at least on reference. Although I believe there are at least a handful of other references out there.

 

http://photographyof...-reflected.html

 

Of course, it would be interesting to see how other spectrometer tests conducted by others would compare with Dr. Schmitt's results.

 

About the existing problems (and hence, confusions) with "model variations" occurring under the same brand names:

 

I should mention, though, that one of the more unfortunate things concerning Dr. Schmitt's outstanding blog on these lens tests, is that he has not included photos and / or serial numbers of the associated specimens which were tested. (Although, understandably, he may be too preoccupied to do so). Regardless, sadly, this can potentially lead to some confusion, in some cases. This is because there are so many model / variant "evolutions" which are evident under any given lens brand name.

 

For example, in the reference link which I have supplied above, concerning spectrometer testing of the Kyoei / Kuribayashi 35mm F/3.5, Dr. Schmitt also compares side-by-side spectrometer tests of a "PrinzGalaxy" 35mm F/3.5. But which one? There are many generational variants out there, even within the era of the "preset" design, alone!

 

Now, while I do have a good idea of which model he likely tested (only because I have managed to obtain many model variants for my own comparisons), many other visitors to his blog - who are new to the UV community and may not be aware of these model variations - could mistakenly then be led to buy the wrong lens (just by going on the stamped name on the lens, alone).

 

Here are some photos that I have posted, below, to illustrate this issue (while also showing you an example of a 'PrinzGalaxy' model variant that is a true "Kyoei clone" and transmits similarly down to about 320 nm, versus a later model variation under the very same 'PrinzGalaxy' re-seller name, but in this case was designed by an entirely different optical company and hence transmit UV down to 365 nm, instead).

 

SPECIMEN #1;

Classification: PrinzGalaxy - Preset-Aperture - 35mm F/3.5 - "Generation 1" Model Variant - Serial # Series 3xxxx - T-mount

 

post-34-0-83927400-1411006354_thumb.png

 

SPECIMEN #2;

Classification: PrinzGalaxy - Preset-Aperture - 35mm F/3.5 - "Generation 2" Model Variant - Serial # Series 7xxxx - T-mount

 

post-34-0-11283300-1411006365_thumb.png

 

Specimen #1 is a an actual Kyoei blank ("clone") ... which was acquired in bulk, slightly cosmetically modified, then re-badged and marketed under the PrinzGalaxy re-seller. It transmits somewhat similar to its Kyoei origins (down to about 320 / 325 nm or so), but with modified coatings which somewhat alter the entire transmission curve otherwise, compared to the earlier and less heavily-coated original Kyoei / Kuribayashi native model.

 

Specimen #2 is NOT built upon a Kyoei blank, but was rather manufactured by an entirely different optical company (Nikō / Cosina, perhaps), yet was nevertheless acquired in bulk, slightly cosmetically modified, then re-badged and marketed under the PrinzGalaxy re-seller. It transmits down to about 365 / 370nm or so. (Note: This model variant is the same exact one that Enrico Savazzi discovered under the 'Photax' re-seller name. Other re-seller names using this very same model variant design are: Titar, Telesar, Kalimar, Aubell, Bower, Sonagar, Paragon, Terragon, Access SQ, Accura, Surveillance XY, Optomax, and others. It should also be noted that there are even F/2.8 aperture variants out there, on top of this, but otherwise employ the same exact model variant construction / design.)

 

---------------------

 

In conclusion:

 

This is why I am hard at work, in an arduous attempt to compile a very detailed "master database" of all of these "model variants", occurring even under the same stamped names / re-sellers.

 

Because not only do we have to have a thorough and reliable scientific testing method / analysis of a lens's UV performance, itself, but we also have to make sure that we're all on the same page concerning WHICH model variation.

 

(Is your head spinning, yet? Mine is. :D In fact, it's more than spinning, right now. It hurts.)

 

(Ex: To simply list "PrinzGalaxy 35mm F/3.5 lens" as the test subject of a spectrometer test is a grossly lacking description! Because guess what? I have already found no less than at least 7 different model variations, thus far, under the "PrinzGalaxy" re-seller name, alone! Not to mention the countless hoard of model variation lenses under many other re-seller name brands.)

 

So, back to my tedious 'master cataloging' project, I go. Ech.

 

My long-term goal is to piece together a giant "UV Lens Bible", with pictures of every model variant, and from all angles. Too ambitious, perhaps? We shall see, I guess. But I say this much: I will definitely need a spectrometer expert to team up with, in this project. Because I have hundreds - no, make that on my way to acquiring a thousand or more - of model variations to test and catalogue. And all of my pages upon pages of photos and cataloging will amount to little use, if they are not accompanied with transmission curves for each specimen. This master catalog, by the way, will not be just limited to specimens in the 35mm focal-length range. As I am now finding "accidental" UV-capable lenses in the 21mm, 23mm, 25mm, 28mm, and 30mm focal-length range, as well. Among others. But, here, I am just referring to the wide-angle ranges.

 

And, of course, it would be a good thing to integrate such a "UV lens Bible" into the UVP site, when all is said and done. A searchable master database, if you will. Pending that this is something that the moderators would ever be interested in, of course, as such an integration would probably eat up some serious HD space. :)

 

In the meantime ... off I go.

 

@ JCDowdy: You live closest to me. So, perhaps you are the spectrometer expert that I need to team up with, for this massive undertaking? ;)

Link to comment

If it helps, I have a couple, including possibly the first specimen of Kyoei Acall in its series that left the production line (though likely not the first version of this lens) :

http://savazzi.net/photography/35kyoei.html

 

I did my tests a couple of years ago, then stopped because I had more of these lenses than I was going to use. These 35 mm f/3.5 lenses are pretty much equally good in practical use in UV photography (lab tests no doubt would show small differences, but what good would they do to us if we cannot see a difference in our pictures?). The other 35 mm f/3.5 lenses that perform less well are discussed elsewhere on my site.

Link to comment

Igor, do you actually have a lens labelled Kyoei Acall or Kuribayashi?

 

Yes, I have some of the "Zebra" originals, in several focal lengths ... including in 35mm.

Link to comment

If it helps, I have a couple, including possibly the first specimen of Kyoei Acall in its series that left the production line (though likely not the first version of this lens) :

http://savazzi.net/photography/35kyoei.html

 

Thanks, Enrico.

 

Yes, I have read and digested just about all of your pages / notes on these lenses on your entire sight. :D In fact, I started reading your content on UV-capable lenses from over 2 years back, and thus, you were one of the first people to inspire me (and point me in the right direction) of my now current undertaking. So, I thank you immensely for that!

Link to comment

I have a Kyoei W.Acall 35/3.5.

 

....did my tests a couple of years ago, then stopped because I had more of these lenses than I was going to use.

I quickly reached that point myself, Enrico !!

Yet the subject remains fascinating to the gear-head side of my brain.

 

Igor, let's at least see a photo of your pile of lenses !! It would be cool.

Link to comment

Yes, I have some of the "Zebra" originals, in several focal lengths ... including in 35mm.

 

I have no idea what you mean by "Zebra originals". I am asking explicitly about the lenses labelled Kyoei W. Acall or Kuribayashi.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...