Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

The Enna München Ennalyt clones


igoriginal

Recommended Posts

Given my response to a related thread in which a particular re-branded "clone" of this lens came up, according to our member Reed F. Curry (see: A new favorite 35mm lens for UV), I felt compelled to make a separate post in order to "officialize" the entire clone series, for further reference.

 

I've known about the UV suitability of these 'Enna München Ennalyt' 35mm F/3.5 "clones" for quite some time (for a few years, now). There are at least 8 other "clones" under various re-branding / re-seller names. Some examples are: Revue, Macro-Revuenon, Porst, Porst Weitwinkel, Reflexogon, Photavit, Universa, Universar (with an "r"), and of course there is the Edixa Eximar Weitwinkel which Mr. Reed gained ownership of. I suspect there may even be a handful of others out there, under additional re-brander / re-seller names.

 

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:

 

http://ultravioletphotography.com/content/uploads/monthly_12_2015/post-34-0-62677200-1449682395.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:

 

http://ultravioletphotography.com/content/uploads/monthly_12_2015/post-34-0-01716800-1449683718.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:

 

post-34-0-05865900-1449694507.jpg

Link to comment

I should also add that our member, Alex. H, brought up some good questions and points (in the originally-referenced thread), as quoted below:

 

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.

 

My response was:

 

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 again for longer periods). :)

Link to comment

Now, here are some front-facing images of some of these clones, as I have referenced. Special credit goes to M42lens.com for some of these, where noted as by the watermarks.

 

post-34-0-83072000-1449711289.jpg

 

post-34-0-41680700-1449711298.jpg

 

post-34-0-68565100-1449711305.jpg

 

post-34-0-21062300-1449711314.jpg

 

post-34-0-50354400-1449711326.jpg

 

post-34-0-67400500-1449711560.jpg

Link to comment

UPDATE: 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 others 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 and also provide some sample images, herein, as soon as time permits me to. (As if I don't have enough on the back burner. Haha.)

Link to comment

Thank you for the nice report on the Ennalyt 35/3.5 and its friends. :)

 

IIRC, the couple of measurements I saw (Klaus' blog?) showed 320nm for some Ennalyt version. The only reason I remember this is that I had listed a few lenses to search for a couple of years ago and an Ennalyt was on the list as having a bit of reach into the UV.

Link to comment

Thanks Alex. I'm sure I have this link somewhere. :D

wow - 50 lenses on there !! I should look to see if I have them all in the Stickiness.

If not, I'll add it to the list of things I never can get caught up on. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Just ordered a Revue "Ennalyt". Thanks for the tip :)

 

i did notice there is a difference in the number of aperture blades (8 vs 5) on the clones pictured. Is this going to significantly affect anything?

Link to comment

Just ordered a Revue "Ennalyt". Thanks for the tip :)

 

i did notice there is a difference in the number of aperture blades (8 vs 5) on the clones pictured. Is this going to significantly affect anything?

 

Good eye. Yes, I am aware of such "variations" amid the clones. (There are a few other variations amid the clones, too.) But none of these variations in design affect the UV transmission in any way. Meaning, my tests have shown me that all of the Ennalyt clones (within that era's generational series) perform identically with regard to UV transmission.

 

Thus, you're good to go. :D

 

I also wanted to add, Lost Cat, that your Ennalyt clone will especially be a good mating with your newly-acquired Pentax *iST DL, given that it have its infinity-focus preserved (M42 mount and Pentax-K mount have the same FFD), and you won't even need to add a bellows or a macro-helicoid for most work, given the fact that the lens focuses to about 1:2 macro from its own focus-throw range.

 

Therefore, the pairing of those two would be a great match, indeed.

 

(I have permanently kept my 'Porst'-branded Ennalyt 35mm F/3.5 clone on my full-spectrum-modified Pentax K-01 body, for the same exact reason. The lens rarely gets removed or swapped for another, because the pairing is just so good. It has certainly replaced the Kyoei 35mm F/3.5, because it can do everything the Kyoei can do, plus focus much closer than the Kyoei.)

 

Just remember to get an M42-to-Pentax K adapter, however. As Andrea already noted (In some different post? I forget which one) ... the M42-to-Pentax K adapter sits flush-mounted inside of the lip of the Pentax camera mount. There is no protrusion at all, so infinity-focus is preserved on all M42 lenses.

 

Edited by igoriginal, 21 December 2015 - 20:38.

Link to comment
Thats good to hear, especially since I also got a Revue Weitwinkel 35/3.5 shortly after my last post. Plus an adapter. I'm really looking forward to trying this Pentax/Revue combo out!
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

My Revues finally arrived. They look identical save for slightly different screwmounts. The one on the left uses a metal M42 screwmount rather than bakelite; however, a close inspection shows the same four screws under the revised screwmount. Note the extra screw in the knurled ring on the left lens - this is not present on the right lens.

 

post-90-0-78524600-1452213464.jpg

post-90-0-31299300-1452213471.jpg

post-90-0-20443300-1452213478.jpg

 

Just after snapping these pics I found the discoloration on the bakelite just rubbed right off. that's the good news. The bad news is I can see some fine lines (dust?) and a fine scratch in the rear element on the metal screwmount lens. Not sure how much of a problem this will be. The all bakelite lens is optically much cleaner.

Link to comment

My Revues finally arrived. They look identical save for slightly different screwmounts. The one on the left uses a metal M42 screwmount rather than bakelite; however, a close inspection shows the same four screws under the revised screwmount. Note the extra screw in the knurled ring on the left lens - this is not present on the right lens.

 

The "mount" on the left lens is actually a T-mount adapter. That's why it's made of metal, and also has an additional screw along the side of the knurling. (That screw is there for a good reason: Loosening that screw allows you to realign and then re-tighten the adapter-lens coupling orientation so that any measurement distance scales printed on some lenses will end up properly orientated towards the top view of the lens, once the lens-adapter combo is screwed into a camera body.)

 

Some of my Ennalyt clones also came this way (with a T-mount adapter). It's really not an issue at all, either way (although I do like the added feeling of "strength" / "stability" with an all-metal mount, even if in reality it may not actually matter with a lens that is so light as this one.)

 

In any case, this "updated mount" (which is actually a T-mount adapter) is not really an OEM part, with respect to the original lens design / manufacture. But for all intents and purposes, the end result essentially works the same as the "fixed" mount earlier design of the lens on the right. Just be aware to not assume that solely relying on the focusing-distance scale printed on one lens will precisely correspond with the focusing-distance scale on the other lens, given these slight differences in mounting schemes. (Even a millimeter difference in the thickness of two mounts of otherwise the same screw-thread can cause a slight shift in focusing positions between the two lenses.) Hence, use actual viewfinder and/or LCD inspection, to confirm proper focusing on each of the two lenses (if using them side by side, and on two camera bodies at the same time).

 

Just after snapping these pics I found the discoloration on the bakelite just rubbed right off. that's the good news. The bad news is I can see some fine lines (dust?) and a fine scratch in the rear element on the metal screwmount lens. Not sure how much of a problem this will be. The all bakelite lens is optically much cleaner.

 

I wouldn't get too hung up over finer scratches, scuffs, and minor internal dust. In fact, I have a few Ennalyt clones that came with rear elements that were scuffed up really bad. Even in those cases, I noticed no significant degradation of image quality (aside from a reduction in contrast.)

 

Granted, the worst place to have flaws on a lens glass is on the outside surface of the rear-most element (since this will be closest to the sensor, than any other glass comprising the optical construction). On the other hand, as one approaches increasingly closer towards the front of the lens, any flaws in subsequent glass elements will contribute less and less towards image degradation. (This is a general rule of thumb, for me, but it's probably not absolute in all cases.) Therefore, the "best" place to end up with flaws on a lens, is on the outer surface of the front-most element (in my opinion), because this is the least likeliest to ever show up in an image.

 

Still, fine surface scratches are the least of one's worries, regardless of which element they are found on.

 

The real image killers are internal haze, fog, and exceptionally-thick debris. (Advanced-stage mold growth may put a damper on things, too. HAH! I just made a pun. Mold; damper. Get it? :D)

 

Another factor that can determine if any flaws within the optical path will notably degrade image results is how much you plan to stop down the aperture, when using the lens. Typically, surface scratches and scuffs will not show up, if stopping down to no smaller than around F/8 to F/11. But, from F/16 and onward, they may become increasingly more visible in the resulting image. (Though, again, this also depends on each lens's unique optical construction, too.)

 

Worst case scenario (if you really feel irked by any internal dust and other smaller / inconsequential particulates): The rear element of these Ennalyt lenses are very easy to remove (for internal cleaning), using a basic lens-spanner wrench that can be had for a song.

 

Here's an example of what this ubiquitous tool looks like:

 

http://www.ebay.com/...b8AAOSwBahVK5l5

 

Furthermore, the front lens optical-block / assembly can also be easily unscrewed (if you need to gain access to cleaning out any of the space between the front elements, too.)

 

Speaking of various forms of flaws/obstructions in the optical path, this article is a must-read (link below) for those who ever wondered how various types of flaws and obstructions effect image quality, and to what degree.

 

This will blow you mind, because it will make you realize just how severe the glass damage has to be, in order to drastically effect image quality. It's quite an eye-opener (especially when the test moved on to using a lens which had its front element completely shattered with a hammer!)

 

http://kurtmunger.co...rticleid35.html

Link to comment

With the more severe damage tests, yes, they don't look like "prize-winning photos." Haha. Of course. :D

 

But the point is that ... relatively speaking ... with finer forms of flaws / obstructions, one would be hard-pressed to notice image degradation (if any).

 

Ask yourself honestly: With less severe cases (minor scratches / finer internal obstructions), would you even be aware of how they might have insignificantly affected the image, if no one pointed out the differences to you? (Or even made you aware that there were any suspected differences to search for?) I highly doubt it. Because I sure wouldn't. And this is coming from a guy (myself) with perfect 20/20 vision, by the way. (Knock on wood.)

Link to comment

Igor, you missed the point. There is no way to observe anything from those tiny online photos.

And we are all aware of the potential effects or not of scratches, dust, fungus, etc. Sometimes that stuff can affect a photo although mostly not. No way to tell until after testing.

Link to comment

Igor, you missed the point. There is no way to observe anything from those tiny online photos.

And we are all aware of the potential effects or not of scratches, dust, fungus, etc. Sometimes that stuff can affect a photo although mostly not. No way to tell until after testing.

 

That's true. I didn't miss your own point. I do get what you're saying. (Ultimately, it comes down to trying the lens, anyway, just to make sure.) So, I concur with you, there.

 

Still .. there's a lesson to be learned, here; that about the senseless OCD of getting hung up over the most relatively insignificant of issues. Meaning, the light-path of a lens is far more resilient and forgiving of finer / minor issues, than many people assume or even irrationally fear.

 

And I should know, because I suffer from OCD, myself. Heheh. (In fact, I have gone through the painstaking process of disassembling and cleaning out nearly all of the lenses within my vast and growing collection - irrespective of internal conditions, minor or otherwise. So, I offer a full disclosure that I am a nitpicker, of the worst kind. I clean out lenses, anyway. Because I can. :P)

 

That's also the reason for why I gave Lost Cat a link to the same lens-spanner wrench which I use, in case he insists on cleaning out his newly-acquired lenses, too.

 

NOTE: The author of this article did mention checking the photos at full-crop, and still no detectable issues ... with the more finer / minor issues being tested. (Quote: "Even though the image I'm showing you here is small, when enlarged, there are no signs of image degradation attributed to the scratches.")

 

Thus, to take him at his word - innocent until proven guilty - though, we are to be ever-skeptical of any claim, if we are to remain faithful to the scientific process (even to a fault). Agreed on that account.

 

Starting to get off-subject here, anyway, I am afraid. Sorry about that.

 

Keep me posted with your UV adventure, Lost Cat! I look forward to seeing where this takes you!

 

Edited by igoriginal, Today, 00:47.

Link to comment

That's also the reason for why I gave Lost Cat a link to the same lens-spanner wrench which I use, in case he insists on cleaning out his newly-acquired lenses, too.

 

 

Thanks, already have one:

 

post-90-0-17233700-1452240951.jpg

Link to comment
I notice that your lens spanner lacks the slotted extensions, in addition to the pointed extensions. Or are they hidden away inside the tool, on the other end of the pointed extensions? (Reversible attachment?)
Link to comment

I notice that your lens spanner lacks the slotted extensions, in addition to the pointed extensions. Or are they hidden away inside the tool, on the other end of the pointed extensions? (Reversible attachment?)

 

 

Reversible attachment. And the pointy bits are quite sharp.

Link to comment

Reversible attachment. And the pointy bits are quite sharp.

 

Yes, they sure are ... as I have been the unfortunate recipient of that "business end", quite a few times, when frantically working to pry a lens loose. (Especially a particularly stubborn lens.) Oh, the price one pays, for being a bit too impatient sometimes. Ouch.

 

I'm considering investing in a tabletop-mounted vice, speaking of which. It would allow me to lock the lens spanner wrench in place, and then just focus on grasping the lens barrel itself, then apply more turning force solely against the lens (rather than also the wrench).

 

Edited by igoriginal, 56 minutes ago.

Link to comment

 

 

Yes, they sure are ... as I have been the unfortunate recipient of that "business end", quite a few times, when frantically working to pry a lens loose. (Especially a particularly stubborn lens.) Oh, the price one pays, for being a bit too impatient sometimes. Ouch.

 

I'm considering investing in a tabletop-mounted vice, speaking of which. It would allow me to lock the lens spanner wrench in place, and then just focus on grasping the lens barrel itself, then apply more turning force solely against the lens (rather than also the wrench).

 

Edited by igoriginal, 56 minutes ago.

 

I would have safety concerns with a setup like that. One slip and those pointy bits rigidly mounted could do serious damage.

Link to comment

I would have safety concerns with a setup like that. One slip and those pointy bits rigidly mounted could do serious damage.

 

Yes, that crossed my mind, too. Haha.

 

However, I would put a lot of thought into the mounting position; which way the sharp points of the lens spanner is facing (facing down, or away from the user would be a good idea), as well as attaching a special "ribbon"-type large-mouth wrench to the lens, itself, in order to gain more leverage ... rather than trying to forcefully turn the lens by hand.

 

What I mean to say, is that an oil-filter wrench would work very good in grasping and turning a lens (though, with a cloth placed between the wrench surface and the lens surface, to eliminate risk of scraping / scratching.)

Link to comment

VERY NICE link, Lost Cat! A highly useful find, and an excellent addition to this post! Thank you!

 

By the way: Do note that the T-mount (short for "Tamron mount", also known as "Taisei Kogaku" by its prior name) versions of this lens came much later. The T-mount didn't even exist, at the time of the initial launching of this lens design. So, it was a later design evolution. Consequently, then, not all Ennalyt clones will have underlying T-mounts. Some will, some won't. Thus, what the buyer of such a lens gets will often be random (unless the buyer specifically asks the seller, beforehand, and contingent on whether the seller knows what to look for.)

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...