Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Seen on Ebay [Thread includes some lens tests.]


Andrea B.

Recommended Posts

Some lenses which might be useful for UV work?

 

$159 A. Schacht Ulm R Travenar 135/3.5

 

Lots of Petris - here are just a few.

$46.02 Petri Breechlock 135/3.5

$26.05 Petri Pentax K 135/3.5

$35.34 Petri Pentax K 135/3.5

$10 Petri Mount Unknown 135/3.5

 

Also some 35/3.5 stuff.

Start Bid $15 Taylor Taylon EL 35/3.5 An EL if you are into helicoid adaptations. "-)

Current bid $135 A. Schacht Ulm Travegon 35/3.5 M39

 

How about a tele?

$132.31 Sankyo Kohki Komura 200/3.5 M39 Has some minor scratches.

Link to comment

Col,

 

I have both the CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 and the CZJ Tessar 50/3.5. Both are very decent UV-capture lenses.

 

Below are images taken with both types. all images taken with Panasonic GF1, ISO 400, f8.0. The only illumination is two halogen lamps, hence the long exposure times. Incamera WB, single click WB, and reduced file width from 4000px to 1200px.

 

The first is a visible image taken with the Tessar 50/2.8 (Exakta mount zebra)

 

post-19-0-30389300-1423933648.jpg

 

Now the 50/2.8 with a CopperU 3.0 filter, 1.6 seconds

post-19-0-39142400-1423933650.jpg

 

and the 50/3.5 with a CopperU 3.0 filter, 1.6 seconds

post-19-0-24306200-1423933652.jpg

 

Both are good, IMO, UV lenses.

Link to comment
Oh wow Col !!! I hope they work out. Please do post a "lens test" - or just some photos made with the new acquisitions. :lol:
Link to comment

I zoomed thru these posts. :lol:

 

Oh wow, Bill !!! I hope it works out. Do us a lens test and/or post some fotos !! :blink:

 

I have a Hanimar and a Kaligar on the way to experiment with. Or maybe it is a Hanigar and a Kalimar. They are f/3.5s, one 35mm and one 135mm.

Link to comment

I recently purchased an Enna Werks Lithagon, 35/4.5 with Argus C4 Geiss-modified mount. Ten minutes to convert it to an LTM (L39) mount. It shoots infinity and displays a nice contrast. I didn't test its depth in UV yet, but it registered the usual amount with the inadequate lighting I have. Tomorrow I'll open a window and let the light shine in.

 

BTW, the Argus C-44 has a nice triplet lens, the Cintagon, 100/3.5, made by Steinheil (Germany) that is funky looking - very '60s - but is very well made, performs well in UV, and is dirt-cheap.

Link to comment
Reed, did that L39 mount underlie the C4 mount? Or did you add something on? I'm not familiar with a C4 mount.
Link to comment

Andrea, the Argus C4 was a good camera, but it didn't take interchangeable lenses. So, Geiss stepped in and started modifying the C4s with a better mount and set of lenses.

Despite its popularity, the C-4 lacked one important feature for the serious amateur photographer: interchangeable lenses. The Chicago firm of Geiss set out to remedy that, modifying C-4's to take a series of four German lenses made by Enna: 35/4.5 Lithagon, the rare and impressive 45/1.9 Lithagon, 100/4.5 Lithagon and 135/2.8 Lithagon, plus the American made 50/2.8 Cintar. Apparently these conversions were only done for about two years, from 1954 to 1956, until the new C-44 came out. These Geiss modified C4's and C4R's are hard to find today, the lenses are even harder. Unusual for Argus, the failure of the Geiss C-4 seems to be marketing. It was not heavily promoted like the later C-44/R.

see https://www.cameraqu...om/arggeiss.htm

 

I glued a 39-42mm ring to the inner section ( a nice tight fit). I then screwed on a 39-42mm step-up ring and screwed that into the LTM/M43 adapter for my GF1. Voila, it just hit the registry of the Argus (pure luck). If I had had a 39mm LTM filter ring on hand I would have used it, but no luck. So I used http://www.ebay.com/...=item43d4dc2479 and http://www.ebay.com/...=item35c118ba4d

 

The mount looks like this with the 39-42 ring glued on (I should remove the excess cyanoacytate glue):

 

post-19-0-77597700-1424281530.jpg

 

then the 39-42 step up is added

 

post-19-0-75530600-1424281528.jpg

 

then the M43 adapter is screwed on (what a lucky fit!)

 

post-19-0-61405900-1424281526.jpg

 

side view

 

post-19-0-22011700-1424281532.jpg

 

and an Argus C44 Cintagon 100/3.5 made by Steinheil. Simply glue a 42-43mm step up on and use a 42mm adapter

 

post-19-0-57155900-1424281524.jpg

Link to comment
Bill De Jager

Oh wow, Bill !!! I hope it works out. Do us a lens test and/or post some fotos !! B)

 

 

Andrea, I'd like to, and like I said long ago I have a bunch of other old lenses I'd like to test. I have done a few quick checks and found a lot of variation among some of them. My old cheap, compact standby the GN-Nikkor 45/2.8 turns out to be absolutely lousy in terms of UV transmission quantity, even if it goes fairly far into UV for a non-dedicated lens.

 

On the bad side, I have done almost zilch in photography of any sort for the past year other than snapshots now and then. Very bad year in terms of exhaustion, with my limited free time spent vegging out in recovery mode. I'm now recovered but have a lot of backlogged stuff I owe my wife. I'm also about to experience a tsunami at work which may last for months and take a lot of my free time, just like last year. Uggghhh...

 

On the good side, I now have a UV-converted Canon 600D that works quite nicely. The Lifepixel filter doesn't go as deep as the UV-Nikkor does but should be fine for regular old lenses. The built-in filter means I don't have to mess with filter adaptations, especially for lenses taking filters well over 52mm. The shorter register distance means I can test various SLR lenses like my Pentax screwmounts that wouldn't go to infinity on a Nikon. I also have a broadband-converted Sony A6000 which I can use to test my rangefinder lenses, including Leica, Canon, etc. I need to rig up a way to put filters on my old non-threaded Leica lenses, which means learning about the old adapters and finding them. Just holding the filter in front of the lens doesn't cut it.

 

What I really want to do for now (as long as I'm not getting a vacation where I could immerse myself in creative photography once again) is to start doing standardized tests that will really be useful in comparing lenses. I don't have a spectrometer but I do have a UV-Nikkor I can use as a reference lens. When I'm ready I want to develop a protocol that will allow the following:

 

-Compare UV transmission to that of the UV-Nikkor (stops of difference).

-Rough estimate of apparent depth of transmission into UV territory.

-Compare photo quality with the two lenses.

 

I'll probably do a trial run and ask for advice on my results, then adjust.

 

If the lens is just terrible in UV then I'll do an abbreviated test. One thing we need around here is a list of lenses that might sound promising but which have been determined to not be worthwhile for UV photography, period. Perhaps we could also have a list of cheap lenses with a rather low level of UV transmission (meaning long exposures) but with decent quality - last or temporary resorts as it were, if a better lens is not available.

 

But to get going on this I really should first dig into UV color management so I can present my photos in standard UV color rendition instead of monochrome. I have the color checker and the standards, and Bjørn's post on taking UV photos. Sounds like Photo Ninja would be the software to use. I have a nice wide-gamut NEC monitor I still need to hook up and calibrate after I just clear some clutter from my desk. Again, I'll want to post a trial effort and seek feedback.

 

Phew! Maybe I can provide some more immediate gratification by just posting photos of the lens and a few taken with it, once it's in hand. It's coming from Germany so it'll be a while yet. This year I'm determined to not drop down into a zombie state, and that means taking better care of myself and having some fun when I can. :blink:

Link to comment

Hi Bill

A quick & dirty test I am finding works, is to shine a MTE U301 365nm UV flashlight into the lens & see how much fluorescence or fogging there is.....clear is a good lens, milky cloudy is in the bin !

A cheap eBay UVP J221 LW UV radiometer (doesn't need to be calibrated, just working) is a very useful tool to compare the loss of intensity of UV flashlight, passing through the lens.

Col

Link to comment

Bill, it was great to hear from you with such a nice newsy post. Reading between the lines, it sounds as though you were not quite well. So I hope that you are feeling lots better now. Do take care of yourself, now, OK?

 

It is often difficult to find the time to do any serious UV testing of lenses & cameras. All I can suggest is to keep everything handy in a nice easy-access kit and when you find a spare 5 minutes, shoot something (anything!) in UV. Your suggested protocol would be good, but we welcome informal tests too. I myself am terrible at formal testing, but usually can find the time to test-shoot informally. Remember that the grocery store or florist usually has a Sunflower for sale which makes a great testing subject. :D

 

I am particularly eager to see a photo made with your LifePixel UV-conversion.

 

**********

 

Just holding the filter in front of the lens doesn't cut it.

 

Tell me about it!!! There are some threads recently about this. I tested a screw-on filter holder. And John Dowdy showed a rear-filter solution. Sometimes a step-ring can be glued or screwed onto the front of the lens.

 

One thing we need around here is a list of lenses that might sound promising but which have been determined to not be worthwhile for UV photography, period.

 

As Bjørn has observed, you can force UV through almost every lens if the illumination is bright enough and if the exposure is long enough. Given the vast amount of lenses in the world, we have chosen to list UV-capable lenses only. So the assumption is, for now, that any lens which is not listed in the Lens Sticky is probably not as good or useful as a lens which *is* listed in the Lens Sticky. :D

 

But to get going on this I really should first dig into UV color management so I can present my photos in standard UV color rendition instead of monochrome. I have the color checker and the standards, and Bjørn's post on taking UV photos. Sounds like Photo Ninja would be the software to use.

 

If using your UV-converted camera, you just need to shoot a neutral reflective standard (white or light grey) at the beginning of each shoot under the UV illumination which will be used. The in any editor, perform a white balance step on the white/gray area. Save it as a preset to use on the UV photos from the shoot. This is also useful for setting the tones in a monochrome photo.

 

Photo Ninja is nice if you are using a broadband camera, because Visible colour profiles can be make to restore proper Vis colours which go a bit awry after removal of the internal filters. External UV/IR cut filters do not always restore the original camera colours. Nor is in-camera white balance always enough to restore the original camera colours.

Link to comment
If you are into taking apart lenses and cleaning them up, then maybe. I'm not and avoid anything which mentions haze or fungus!!
Link to comment

If you are into taking apart lenses and cleaning them up, then maybe. I'm not and avoid anything which mentions haze or fungus!!

1 vote Paperweight

Link to comment

When selecting lenses for UV I use a few simple criteria:

  • Number of glass elements - prefer three
  • Number of groups - definitely prefer three or a simple Tessar
  • Crown (preferred) or crown and flint glass
  • Pre-1971 (multi-coating)
  • No rare earth glass (to avoid the inhibiting yellow of some Zeiss and Takumars)
  • low cost :D

Below are some examples of those lenses. The photos were taken with only halogen illumination at ISO 400 and f8.0, hence the long exposure times. The lenses were each set to f8, with incamera WB, and one-click WB, then cropped and image size reduced to 400px width. The camera was a Panasonic GF1, the UV bandpass filter was a CopperU 3.0.

 

A Ludwig Peronar 50/2.9 (a simple triplet and the fastest at 1.0s exposure)

post-19-0-92339800-1424462449.jpg

 

An Exaktar 35/2.8 -- 2.5s

post-19-0-46510000-1424462451.jpg

 

A Schneider-Krueznach Jsogon 40/4.5 -- 2.5s

post-19-0-70477200-1424462452.jpg

 

A Super-Lentar 28/2.8 -- 2.5s

post-19-0-64003600-1424462453.jpg

 

A CZJ Tessar 50/3.5 -- 2.5s

post-19-0-53662100-1424462455.jpg

 

A Meyer-Gorlitz Primagon 35/4.5 -- the slowest at 3.2s

post-19-0-69802900-1424462454.jpg

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...