• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

A new favorite 35mm lens for UV

UV Lens
9 replies to this topic

#1 Reed F. Curry

    Member

  • Members
  • 333 posts
  • Location: New Hampshire, USA

Posted 27 March 2015 - 19:39

I acquired a new (old) 35/3.5 lens recently. I am very pleased with it, both in terms of functionality and performance. The lens is an Edixa Eximar Weitwinkel 3.5/35mm made by Enna in W. Germany for the Edixa M42 mount. It appears to be four groups of glass. Weitwinkel is German for "wide angle", and it is. It focuses as close as 0.26m or 10.5"!

There is very little focus shift on close subjects, the color rendition is excellent, and it seems to get deep into the UV.
Below is a UV image taken in solar light through a window. Lumix GF1, Eximar 35/3.5, f8.0, ISO 400, 10/32 s, CopperU. Only an in-camera white balance, no PP except reducing to 1000px width.

Attached Image: CU Edixa Eximar 1000px 974.jpg

Next is the same in visible light. No refocusing. Lumix GF1, Eximar 35/3.5, f8.0, ISO 400, 1/2000s, S8612 filter. Only an in-camera white balance, no PP except reducing to 1000px width.

Attached Image: Vis Edixa Eximar 1000px 978.jpg

Then 100 percent cuts of each, taken from the more distant part of the images.
UV
Attached Image: CU Edixa Eximar 100pct.jpg

Vis
Attached Image: Vis Edixa Eximar 100pct.jpg

As you can see, there was some focus shift in the Vis, but it was slight.
IMO, another lens for the stickie. :)
Best regards,
Reed
http://www.uvroptics.com

#2 Alex H

    Oleksandr Holovachov

  • Members
  • 682 posts
  • Location: Sweden

Posted 27 March 2015 - 20:26

It cold be the same as Ennalyt 3.5/35, which is listed in the stickies.

#3 Reed F. Curry

    Member

  • Members
  • 333 posts
  • Location: New Hampshire, USA

Posted 27 March 2015 - 22:03

It closely resembles in appearance and min focus distance the Enna München MC Macro-Ennalyt 1:2.8/35mm. The only difference I can see is the 2.8 vs 3.5 max aperture.
Best regards,
Reed
http://www.uvroptics.com

#4 Alex H

    Oleksandr Holovachov

  • Members
  • 682 posts
  • Location: Sweden

Posted 28 March 2015 - 05:35

I meant optical similarity, not mechanical.

#5 igoriginal

    Iggy

  • Members(+)
  • 582 posts
  • Location: Jackson, Mississippi

Posted 09 December 2015 - 18:04

Reed, I've known about the UV suitability of these 'Enna München Ennalyt' "clones" for quite some time (for a few years, now). There are at least 8 other "clones" under various re-branding / re-seller names, not just Edixa. Some examples are: Revue, Macro-Revuenon, Porst, Porst Weitwinkel, Reflexogon, Photavit, Universa, Universar (with an "r"), and of course the Edixa Eximar Weitwinkel which you now have possession of.

I can confirm that all of these are exact optical clones (four elements / four groups) of the parent Enna München Ennalyt design of the same series / model era. (I have personally taken them all apart, to confirm this).

M42lens.com can further confirm the optical formula (see: Enna Munchen Ennalyt 35mm f/3.5-16).


How to spot all of these clones?

1. Bakelite all-plastic build.

This makes them ridiculously light; lighter than any other 35mm F/3.5 prime lens I have ever came across! I suspect this has something to do with the economic shortage of lens-making supplies, shortly after the USA-occupied West Germany, in a temporary take-over of this territory after WWII. Look for "LENS MADE IN W. GERMANY" in all-caps yellow lettering along the side of the lens, for additional confirmation.

See example below of what this looks like:

Attached Image: Photavit - 35mm F35 - Enna Munchen Ennalyt clone - M42 Mount - 0001.jpg


2. Capable of roughly 1:2 macro focusing capability (somewhere between 12" to 9" from subject, based on the clones that I have tested).

Furthermore, UV transmission is about on par with the Kyoei / Kuribayashi 35mm F/3.5 clones (after doing comparison shots of my own, and also narrow-bandpass filter array testing). Thus, it can be argued that this lens could be more superior to both - the Kyoei / Kuribayashi and Novoflex Noflexar lenses - in terms of overall versatility, since it represents the "best of both worlds" (the deep transmission of Kyoei / Kuribayashi, and the close-focusing attributes of the Novoflex Noflexar, all rolled up into one lens).


3. Look for the 35mm F/3.5 preset-aperture models, as there are later-series releases that may no longer be as UV-suitable.

In other words, be wary of the "Auto", "MC" (multi-coating), and "F/2.8" versions that came later. They may or may not behave the same way, when it comes to UV transmission. I have not tested these.


4. Comes in either permanent mounts (usually M42 or Exakta, as the most common), or T-mount (in some of the later-released stock).

But even the earlier "permanent" mount versions are easy to modify (not really permanent at all), as they are held down by four simple screws for fastening them into place. Easily unscrewing these will reveal a cylindrical "lock-down" plate underneath, allowing mounts from all of these Enna clones to be swapped out and screwed back in.

See example below of what these screws look like:

Attached Image: Photavit - 35mm F35 - Enna Munchen Ennalyt clone - M42 Mount - 0002.jpg

5. Very easy to disassemble and remove elements for cleaning, from both - the rear and the front.

The front optical assembly can be removed even without tools, by hand-grasping the focus-moving part of the front barrel, and turning it counter-clockwise. That's it. Completely tool-less removable. Whereas, the rear optical assembly can be removed with a simple lens-spanner wrench, as it has two notches for these.


6. Some of the major downsides to this lens, is that being made almost entirely of Bakelite plastic (aside from the mount itself), the lens shell can easily be cracked if handled roughly, dropped, or impacted in some way. Additionally, the preset-aperture "limiting / locking button" can easily be broken (or the return-spring underneath it knocked out of alignment), if handled by force. (In fact, at least 1/4 of the clones that I have acquired for testing have had these buttons broken in some way and/or non-functional). So, it is recommended to look for this, and also ask the seller questions about this before buying.

See example below of what this preset-aperture "limiting / locking button" looks like:

Attached Image: Photavit - 35mm F35 - Enna Munchen Ennalyt clone - M42 Mount - 0003.jpg

Edited by igoriginal, 10 December 2015 - 02:05.

Igor Butorsky

#6 Alex H

    Oleksandr Holovachov

  • Members
  • 682 posts
  • Location: Sweden

Posted 09 December 2015 - 18:24

What about sharpness across the field of view? Chromatic aberration?

These plastic Enna-made lenses are often criticized for bad focusing, either loose, or stiff, or uneven. I had one of the 24mm lenses and its focusing was uneven and stiff - something that seriously bothered me, as it impeded precise focusing.

#7 igoriginal

    Iggy

  • Members(+)
  • 582 posts
  • Location: Jackson, Mississippi

Posted 09 December 2015 - 18:37

All good questions, Alex.

I haven't seen any notable anomalies and/or poor imaging effects from this lens. But then, it's been a while since I tested mine. I suppose I'll go back, do some shots against a brick wall or wooden fence, to test for edge-sharpness and distortions. Then, I will report back and post the photos in here.

(I should also do these tests side by side with the Kyoei 35, for a better idea).

Thanks for bringing these valid concerns up, Alex. Looks like I will we doing some photo work, this upcoming weekend (when I get my free time to be outdoors for long periods). :)

Edited by igoriginal, 09 December 2015 - 18:38.

Igor Butorsky

#8 igoriginal

    Iggy

  • Members(+)
  • 582 posts
  • Location: Jackson, Mississippi

Posted 10 December 2015 - 01:47

View PostAlex H, on 09 December 2015 - 18:24, said:

What about sharpness across the field of view?

Here you go, Alex. Note in this link to the M42lens.com database (see Universar 35mm f/3.5-16, which is among the clones), it is reviewed that these Enna clones exhibit "Nice image quality, better than the later 35/3.5 Enna with 26cm MFD. Good extreme corner sharpness on a full frame."

Not that I am saying that this review, alone, proves anything. But just for you to see that I am not the only one who has been left with very favorable impressions of these, from my prior testing.

Still, I promise to re-test, as you have implied.

Edited by igoriginal, 10 December 2015 - 01:49.

Igor Butorsky

#9 lost cat

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 201 posts

Posted 22 December 2015 - 19:55

View PostReed F. Curry, on 27 March 2015 - 22:03, said:

It closely resembles in appearance and min focus distance the Enna München MC Macro-Ennalyt 1:2.8/35mm. The only difference I can see is the 2.8 vs 3.5 max aperture.

Which brings up a question I've had, namely how different optically are two lenses from the same manufacturer, both 35mm but one is f/3.5 while the other is is f/2.8? Is it a general rule that they are mutually e exclusive as far as UV performance goes or is it likely they will share at least the same glass?

#10 igoriginal

    Iggy

  • Members(+)
  • 582 posts
  • Location: Jackson, Mississippi

Posted 23 December 2015 - 19:20

View Postlost cat, on 22 December 2015 - 19:55, said:

Which brings up a question I've had, namely how different optically are two lenses from the same manufacturer, both 35mm but one is f/3.5 while the other is is f/2.8? Is it a general rule that they are mutually e exclusive as far as UV performance goes or is it likely they will share at least the same glass?

They probably share some of the same glass (at least in part). However, even if the actual optical formula of the F/2.8 version is UV-viable, the addition of the "MC" (multi coating) would likely render its final UV performance unsatisfactory, regardless.

Thus, a no-go.

NOTE, however, that there may be some earlier versions of the Enna 35mm F/2.8 design with no "MC." But, until I test them, I cannot imply their UV viability, one way or the other. I also noticed some 28mm F/2.8 Enna types out there, too. Again, still untested territory for me, thus far. But I plan to eventually cover the testing of those versions, too.

(However, I have already found some good UV performers in the 28mm F/2.8 ranges.)

It's been a very expensive task, to do this over the years, because not all of the lenses I buy can be sold back for break-even prices if they turn out to be a UV no-go. Thus, I often take a financial loss (to some extent), when I end up with tons of UV-incapable lenses on my hands. That's the price I pay, to keep building a knowledge-database of what works, and what doesn't.
Igor Butorsky