Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Helios 44 - opinions?


lost cat

Recommended Posts

I'm looking at getting a Helios44 of some type. I see the Carl Zeiss Biotar 58/2 on which the Helios 44 is modeled as listed on the UV lens sticky and that a couple of members have reported the Helios 44 does transmit at least some UV.

 

I'd like to know whether the Helios 44 was tested and was excluded from the list due to some performance shortcoming or is not on the list because it has simply not yet been tested rigorously enough. If it has been excluded is the exclusion considered global (e.g. all Helios 44 are no good for UV) or perhaps just some models poor performers (e.g. the newer multicoated versions)?

Link to comment

A general answer to your question is that in no way can all lenses be tested for UV response. So like elsewhere in science, missing/no data carries no significance.

 

Fast lenses often have thick glass or elements with high refractive index, both not conducive for their UV response.

Link to comment

A general answer to your question is that in no way can all lenses be tested for UV response. So like elsewhere in science, missing/no data carries no significance.

 

Fast lenses often have thick glass or elements with high refractive index, both not conducive for their UV response.

 

I wouldn't expect all lenses to be tested. Too many lenses our there for that. In this case however the Biotar 58/2 "doner" lens was tested and rated good enough for the list with bonus points for minimal focal shift.

 

The Helios 44 is cheaper and has wider availability than the Biotar so if it's also good for UV it would be a nice starter lens.

Link to comment
Please remember that only lenses marked with "БТК" (BioTar Krasnogorski) may have been assembled from Zeiss optical elements and are optically similar to Biotar. Later lenses were re-calculated for Soviet glass, used different coatings, and are definitely different from German Biotar. How big are those differences is another question. Besides, there were many different variants of Helios-44 so you have to be specific.
Link to comment

Remember that almost any lens will transmit some UV if exposures are long enough.

 

Good UV transmission is another story. As mentioned in the Sticky look for simple 3 element lenses. The Helios 44 (at least some of them) have 6 elements in 4 groups.

 

The typical procedure is buy the lens, test the lens and if it is not a good UV transmitter, sell the lens. Done a lot of that meself.

 

Sorry we don't have a reference.

 

ADDED:

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=58859&view=previous

This says Helios44 showed haze under strong UV light.

But it does not say which H44 was tested.

Link to comment

Please remember that only lenses marked with "БТК" (BioTar Krasnogorski) may have been assembled from Zeiss optical elements and are optically similar to Biotar. Later lenses were re-calculated for Soviet glass, used different coatings, and are definitely different from German Biotar. How big are those differences is another question. Besides, there were many different variants of Helios-44 so you have to be specific.

This is the type of advice I am looking for, thank you! I'm looking for the Helios with preferably the best proven UV performance or at least the best potential for UV compatibility.

 

Remember that almost any lens will transmit some UV if exposures are long enough.

 

Good UV transmission is another story. As mentioned in the Sticky look for simple 3 element lenses. The Helios 44 (at least some of them) have 6 elements in 4 groups.

 

The typical procedure is buy the lens, test the lens and if it is not a good UV transmitter, sell the lens. Done a lot of that meself. <smile>

 

Sorry we don't have a reference.

 

ADDED:

http://forum.mflense...9&view=previous

This says Helios44 showed haze under strong UV light.

But it does not say which H44 was tested.

 

Yes, thank you I saw that post. The author mentioned 44-2 which does narrow it down a bit. Still these lenses are known for developing oil on the apeture blades. If a little of this oil transferred to the optics it could show up as a haze under UV yet otherwise look OK could it not? Is it safe to assume the author took this into account?

 

Plus my favorite lens, the older metal bodied El Nikkor 80/5.6, is a double gauss 6-4 design and its great in the UV :D.

Link to comment

El-Nikkor is a plasmat design with maximum aperture of 5.6

Biotar/Helios is a double-gauss design with maximum aperture of 2.0

Obviously, they use different type of glass.

 

Just look at this from this point of view:

 

El-Nikkor is designed to project image on black-and-white photographic paper (original metal bodied ones).

Biotar/Helios is designed to project visible image on film (black-and-white or color, depending on the version).

 

Are there any particular differences in their function that can be related to UV-photography?

 

Another question: why exactly do you want to use Helios? For its F/2.0 aperture? For its bokeh?

Link to comment

El-Nikkor is a plasmat design with maximum aperture of 5.6

Biotar/Helios is a double-gauss design with maximum aperture of 2.0

Obviously, they use different type of glass.

 

Just look at this from this point of view:

 

El-Nikkor is designed to project image on black-and-white photographic paper (original metal bodied ones).

Biotar/Helios is designed to project visible image on film (black-and-white or color, depending on the version).

 

Are there any particular differences in their function that can be related to UV-photography?

 

Another question: why exactly do you want to use Helios? For its F/2.0 aperture? For its bokeh?

 

According to Klaus's blog the 80 the 105 are both double Gauss 6-4 designs:

 

http://photographyof...5mm-for-uv.html

 

I'm interested in the Helios because it is a much lower cost clone of a known "good" lens with minimal focus shift. All else being equal I'd rather get a Helios and have something left over for a good filter than spend everything on a Zeiss Biotar. But only if all else is equal or reasonably so. If there are compelling performance or ergonomic reasons to go with the Zeiss over the Helios I'm all ears.

 

And yes, the f/2.0 and interesting bokah are also have their appeal.

 

There was also this post which lead me to consider the Helios may have potential:

 

http://www.ultraviol...ch__1#entry7106

 

The one in question here was a 44M-4 which I think is multicoated. You did have some doubt as to the results and if there was a followup I'm curious to know how it worked out.

Link to comment

Hi Jim

The Helios, 44M-4, f2 / 58mm, metal body, rated #3 on my test bed, but it was a poor third, for UV transmittance of 365nm.

This lens has proven to be a poor UV performer & the cement fluoresces.

Having said that, I haven't used it for a while & I have now got a Bayer CFA camera, Panasonic G3 that is full spectrum.

It has a minimum focus of 0.5m, & the filter thread is 52mm.

Mine has a logo, that is a trapezoid with a stylized birds wings like this....http://jonasraskphotography.com/2013/05/17/helios-44m-4-58mm-f2-review/

Maybe I should revisit it again :D

Col

Link to comment

@ Lost Cat,

 

If you are specifically interested in a lens within the 50's range of focal-lengths, and a relatively "faster" aperture (brighter than F/3.5), then may I suggest scouring around Ebay for a Weltblick 55mm F/2.8?

 

It transmits UV down to 320nm!

 

This lens looks like this: Weltblick 55mm f/2.8-22

 

So, in effect, even though this lens may be just a pinch slower than the Helios with the F/2 aperture (on paper), if you factor in that the Weltblick transmits so much deeper than the Helios, then the resulting "speed" of the F/2.8 will actually turn out to be faster than the F/2 on the Helios, when shooting in UV. Think about what I just said here. :D (More UV-throughput contributes to "faster" results, too.)

 

I also discovered a "clone" of this same lens, under the brand Beroflex. This clone looks like this: Beroflex 55mm f/2.8-22

 

Indeed, the Weltblick and Beroflex, as discussed here, are 100% identical in functionality, build, and optical formula.

 

These are fairly rare, but they pop up on the German Ebay site on an average frequency of about 2 per month, and prices are often quite reasonable (below $50 USD). It took me about a year or so, to build up a stockpile of 9 copies of my own (7 Weltblicks, and 2 Beroflex's).

 

Vigilant Ebay searches, day-in and day-out, without ever taking a single day off from ongoing searching. Not only Ebay USA, but also Ebay Canada, Ebay Germany, Ebay Austria, Ebay UK, Ebay Italy, Ebay Spain, Ebay France, and Ebay Australia. Yes, one has to search each country's dedicated Ebay url, separately, because changing the "world-wide" search options in your OWN native country's Ebay search parameters doesn't always bring up all of the available items. This is due to sellers who do not list properly, but there could be other reasons, such as shipping-range preference restrictions by the seller ... although some can be coerced to make exceptions, if you are persistent (and polite). I don't mess around, as you can see.

 

Or, if focal length within the 50's is not so important, but rather the "swirley-bokeh" that you covet so much as well as super-fast aperture, then may I suggest the Wollensak Velostigmat 1" (25mm) F/1.5 Cine lens? (This will fully cover a Micro-4/3 camera sensor with absolutely no vignetting). It transmits UV quite deeply, as well. Down to about 325 to 330nm, or so.

 

I was the one to actually discover this gem's incredible UV-suitability ... and this makes it a killer combination, given its very fast aperture and relatively wider-angle focal length. Some of my discussion of this lens can be found here: http://www.ultraviol...ch__1#entry4048

 

The only downside of this lens is that it CAN fetch a fairly sizable price, even used. (Ebay sellers these days seem to demand anywhere from $100 to $350 for it. I almost regret reporting on this lens for UV suitability, because prices for this lens were usually around the $50 to $75 range, before I went public with this information on this lens's "accidental" UV-capabiltiies. Coincidence? I'm not so sure. ;))

 

Oh, that double-edged sword which comes with releasing knowledge to the public, but also sometimes paying dearly for it in the process. :( (But then, we should blame the price-gougers for this, and no one else.) I'm also glad that I've used those few years time, after my discovery (but before my post concerning this lens) to buy up 6 copies of it.

 

There's also a "little brother" to the F/1.5 model - the Wollensak Velostigmat 1" (25mm) F/1.9 - of which I have two copies of, and will soon be testing for UV-suitability as well. I call it the "little brother" (to the F/1.5 version), only because of its slightly slower aperture. Otherwise, they both look identical in size and cosmetics, externally.

 

And, I have a hunch that my testing will reveal that the F/1.9 variant will be just as UV-capable as the F/1.5, all other factors remaining accounted for.

 

If that turns out to be the case, then the F/1.9 offering could be a more cost-effective alternative to the F/1.5 (Well, until someone decides to start price-gouging those as well. Yikes.)

Link to comment

Hi Jim

The Helios, 44M-4, f2 / 58mm, metal body, rated #3 on my test bed, but it was a poor third, for UV transmittance of 365nm.

This lens has proven to be a poor UV performer & the cement fluoresces.

Having said that, I haven't used it for a while & I have now got a Bayer CFA camera, Panasonic G3 that is full spectrum.

It has a minimum focus of 0.5m, & the filter thread is 52mm.

Mine has a logo, that is a trapezoid with a stylized birds wings like this....http://jonasraskphotography.com/2013/05/17/helios-44m-4-58mm-f2-review/

Maybe I should revisit it again :D

Col

 

Thank you Col, that is helpful. You seem to have a more modern version of the lens. The fluorescing lens cement is a bit worrisome but as we discussed on another thread it is likely possible to remove the cement and use a more UV friendly substitute if so desired. I'm not sure what adhesive those crazy commies used but its my understanding Canadian Balsam tends to yellow with age to become UV opaque but some time under a strong UV light will bleach it back to transparency. Might be worth a shot anyway if you like the lens and want to see how far you can take it.

 

 

@ Lost Cat,

 

If you are specifically interested in a lens within the 50's range of focal-lengths, and a relatively "faster" aperture (brighter than F/3.5), then may I suggest scouring around Ebay for a Weltblick 55mm F/2.8?

 

It transmits UV down to 320nm!

 

This lens looks like this: Weltblick 55mm f/2.8-22

 

So, in effect, even though this lens may be just a pinch slower than the Helios with the F/2 aperture (on paper), if you factor in that the Weltblick transmits so much deeper than the Helios, then the resulting "speed" of the F/2.8 will actually turn out to be faster than the F/2 on the Helios, when shooting in UV. Think about what I just said here. :D (More UV-throughput contributes to "faster" results, too.)

 

I also discovered a "clone" of this same lens, under the brand Beroflex. This clone looks like this: Beroflex 55mm f/2.8-22

 

Indeed, the Weltlick and Beroflex, as discussed here, are 100% identical in functionality, build, and optical formula.

 

These are fairly rare, but they pop up on the German Ebay site on an average frequency of about 2 per month, and prices are often quite reasonable (below $50 USD).

 

Or, if focal length within the 50's is not so important, but rather the "swirley-bokeh" that you covet so much as well as super-fast aperture, then may I suggest the Wollensak Velostigmat 1" (25mm) F/1.5 Cine lens? (This will fully cover a Micro-4/3 camera sensor with absolutely no vignetting). It transmits UV quite deeply, as well. Down to about 325 to 330nm, or so.

 

I was the one to actually discover this gem's incredible UV-suitability ... and this makes it a killer combination, given its very fast aperture and relatively wider-angle focal length. Some of my discussion of this lens can be found here: http://www.ultraviol...ch__1#entry4048

 

The only downside of this lens is that it CAN fetch a fairly sizable price, even used. (Ebay sellers these days seem to demand anywhere from $100 to $350 for it. I almost regret reporting on this lens for UV suitability, because prices for this lens were usually around the $50 to $75 range, before I went public with this information on this lens's "accidental" UV-capabiltiies. Coincidence? I'm not so sure. ;))

 

Oh, that double-edged sword which comes with releasing knowledge to the public, but also sometimes paying dearly for it in the process. :( (But then, we should blame the price-gougers for this, and no one else.) I'm also glad that I've used those few years time, after my discovery (but before my post concerning this lens) to buy up 6 copies of it.

 

There's also a "little brother" to the F/1.5 model - the Wollensak Velostigmat 1" (25mm) F/1.9 - of which I have two copies of, and will soon be testing for UV-suitability as well. I call it the "little brother" (to the F/1.5 version), only because of its slightly slower aperture. Otherwise, they both look identical in size and cosmetics, externally.

 

And, I have a hunch that my testing will reveal that the F/1.9 variant will be just as UV-capable as the F/1.5, all other factors remaining accounted for.

 

If that turns out to be the case, then the F/1.9 offering could be a more cost-effective alternative to the F/1.5 (Well, until someone decides to start price-gouging those as well.Yikes.)

 

Aaaand off to Ebay I go! Thank you Igor!

 

Keep the suggestions coming please :)

Link to comment

Aaaand off to Ebay I go! Thank you Igor!

 

Keep the suggestions coming please :)

 

Your prior quote of my post shows me that you just missed my updated edit to my post. I added some vital information to it, but here it is below (so that you do not have to scour through the entire post, again):

 

Vigilant Ebay searches, day-in and day-out, without ever taking a single day off from ongoing searching. Not only Ebay USA, but also Ebay Canada, Ebay Germany, Ebay Austria, Ebay UK, Ebay Italy, Ebay Spain, Ebay France, and Ebay Australia. Yes, one has to search each country's dedicated Ebay url, separately, because changing the "world-wide" search options in your OWN native country's Ebay search parameters doesn't always bring up all of the available items. This is due to sellers who do not list properly, but there could be other reasons, such as shipping-range preference restrictions by the seller ... although some can be coerced to make exceptions, if you are persistent (and polite). I don't mess around, as you can see.

Link to comment

Also, Lost Cat, if you do take a stab at the Wollensak Velostigmat 1" (25mm) Cine lens (you would not regret it), please be aware of what you have to look for (as explained in my referenced link, above). This is because some later models may be heavily coated, and this could change their UV-capability.

 

So, for simplicity, here is that information below (cut and pasting of the other external post), for your convenience:

 

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

 

I also wanted to mention that there is more than one variation on the Wollensak Velostigmat 25mm F/1.5 cine lens.

 

The later versions (all chrome colored), particularly the 'Raptar' versions, tend to use more suppressive coatings, and therefore are not UV-capable like the earlier variant which I have referred to. If you spot a logo or stamp anywhere on the lens , marked with a small "w" inside of a large "C" (which means "coated Wollensak"), then this is a dead giveaway that this is NOT the one which I have found to be UV-satisfactory.

 

(In fact, this early Wollensak Velostigmat has no coatings at all! It is bare glass. But flare is still well-controlled, given the fact that the front element is deeply recessed inside the hood-like front barrel.)

 

The earlier variant has a dark copper-colored front hood component, in contrast to the remaining chrome body. And, it has the statements "WOLLENSAK 1 INCH f/1.5 CINE VELOSTIGMAT" stamped all around the perimeter of that front, dark copper-colored segment.

 

Also, it uses a 25mm thread. Thus, a 25mm to 52mm (or otherwise) step-up ring is mandatory for using filters on it.

 

Finally, given its relatively small image circle, it will only fully cover the sensor of the Micro-4/3 camera format (Panasonic / Olympus), or any crop sensors even smaller than that. But not so sure about most APS-C cameras (except perhaps Sony NEX / E-series mirrorless? I haven't tried yet), and DEFINITELY not for DSLR APS-C bodies or Full-Frame (unless you like that "porthole" look. Hah.)

 

(I also recommend that if you were to find one at a reasonable price, make sure to also buy a "C-mount macro ring set", in addition to a C-mount to Micro-4/3 adapter. This is important, because the lens doesn't focus very close. Thus, if you want to use it for floral UV photography, you will need a few macro rings between the lens mount and the camera adapter to focus closer and fill up the entire frame with the flower. Here is an example of the proper C-mount macro set: http://www.ebay.com/...=item56686200dc ).

 

An example, below, on what the proper variant looks like:

 

http://ultravioletphotography.com/content/uploads/post-34-0-09848100-1408338836.png

Edited by igoriginal, 18 August 2014 - 07:46.

Link to comment

And according to optical schemes of El-Nikkors: 75mm F/4 is tessar and 80mm F/5.6 and 105mm F/5.6 are plasmat: http://www.marcocavi...nses/00_pag.htm

 

Well now that IS interesting. I even opened up my 105 to confirm and yes, the non-cemented elements are in the center, not on the outside as they would be in a DB setup.

 

I stand corrected, thank you.

 

El-Nikkor is a plasmat design with maximum aperture of 5.6 Biotar/Helios is a double-gauss design with maximum aperture of 2.0 Obviously, they use different type of glass.

 

When you say they use different glass do you mean where in order in the optical path the glass is used or using a different glass formula entirely? Is there some advantage to using UV opaque glass over UV transmissible?

 

Link to comment

Please understand that I am not criticizing. I am a scientist, and I would not trust anything written on the web without checking it myself.

 

I also spent a lot of time searching for particular kind of UV-capable lenses (ultra-wide angle is one of them), and learning basic optics can save a lot of money.

It helps to select and target particular lenses, instead of testing "all" of them. Especially when one is limited in time and resources.

That is why I asked you this question: "Why exactly do you want to use Helios? For its F/2.0 aperture? For its bokeh?"

 

If you get a list of features that you want to have in your lens, it would be much easier for anyone to recommend you anything, instead of just sending you to read UV Stickies again.

Link to comment

Please understand that I am not criticizing. I am a scientist, and I would not trust anything written on the web without checking it myself.

 

I also spent a lot of time searching for particular kind of UV-capable lenses (ultra-wide angle is one of them), and learning basic optics can save a lot of money.

It helps to select and target particular lenses, instead of testing "all" of them. Especially when one is limited in time and resources.

That is why I asked you this question: "Why exactly do you want to use Helios? For its F/2.0 aperture? For its bokeh?"

 

If you get a list of features that you want to have in your lens, it would be much easier for anyone to recommend you anything, instead of just sending you to read UV Stickies again.

 

No worries, I'm a scientist myself. Given the information came from Klauses blog I thought it reliable.

 

As to what I am looking for I have a dual D40 setup so I am looking for a pair of identical lenses that will focus to infinity. I'd also like the lenses to eventually work on my G5 for UV video. I'm flexible on the FL. Cost is a factor though, as cheap as possible. I already have a set of 50/4, 74/4, 80/5.6 and ,105/5.6 El Nikkors. I have a couple of Soligors from the sticky which unfortunately are not a matched pairs as well as a few other unpaired lenses.

 

My interest in the Helios 44 is in its low cost, high availability of matched pairs, its FL, its speed and its being a copy of the Biotar, a lens known for its UV performance and minimal focus shift. The Bokah is an interesting feature as well.

Link to comment

Well, since you do not have preferred criteria for your next UV-capable lens, I can not offer any help.

I can not comment on Helios lenses as I have not tested them.

 

Note that Canada Balsam fluoresces under UV light.

Link to comment

Well, since you do not have preferred criteria for your next UV-capable lens, I can not offer any help.

I can not comment on Helios lenses as I have not tested them.

 

Note that Canada Balsam fluoresces under UV light.

 

What type of criteria would you suggest? I'm still new to photography so I may not be looking for the right criteria.

 

As to Canadian Balsam's performance in the UV this is the reason I suggested in another thread it may be worthwhile to replace it in an otherwise suitable lens with a more stable and UV transparent adhesive

 

http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/1587-optimizing-a-lens-for-uv-transmission/page__hl__norland__st__20

Link to comment

What type of criteria would you suggest? I'm still new to photography so I may not be looking for the right criteria.

 

Focal length and maximum aperture would be first criteria that I would use.

 

As to Canadian Balsam's performance in the UV this is the reason I suggested in another thread it may be worthwhile to replace it in an otherwise suitable lens with a more stable and UV transparent adhesive

 

Things will be different, depending where you put your UV-pass filter, in front or behind the lens...

Link to comment

Focal length and maximum aperture would be first criteria that I would use.

 

Well a FL that isn't already covered by my El-Nikkors would be the place to start then. Ideally something 35mm or below so it can still work OK on the micro 4/3 without being too much of a zoom crop factor. Maximum aperture 2.8 or below, however as Igor pointed out a lens with more UV transparency is a better choice than just one that lets in more light. I liked his suggestions but unfortunately they are also hard to find. I need to find two identical lenses for this to work.

 

The Exaktar 35mm/2.8 is one possibility if they can be mounted to a Nikon and a micro 4/3 and keep infinite focus. I noticed a few pop on Ebay recently. Its on the sticky and if you have any experience with the Exaktar I'd love to hear it.

 

Things will be different, depending where you put your UV-pass filter, in front or behind the lens...

 

Also on how much light is absorbed to make that fluorescence. Some of those QYs are very low.

Link to comment

Exacta mount (FFD = 44.7mm) lenses will not reach infinity on a Nikon body (FFD = 46.5mm). Although there are adaptors with an added lens which could give focus to infinity but then the added piece of glass would cut down on UV transmission.

 

Exacta mount lenses will focus to infinity over an m4/3 sensor with a glassless adapter.

 

Portraits are typically made with longer lenses than 35mm to avoid facial distortion. There are a lot of 135/3.5s out there which would be reasonably UV-capable and give a nice portrait length. I just gathered up my 5 that I have never fully tested and am getting ready to try them out: Hanimar, Lentar, Kyoei Super-Acall, Kuribayashi Petri Orikkor and Asahi Takumar. (The latter has been tested but not together with other 135/3.5 lenses.) Its always a chore getting the lenses kitted up with adaptors and step-rings.

 

My particular copies of these 135/3.5s come in an M42-mount (Asahi & Kuri), T-mount (Hanimar & Lentar) and what I think is an M39 for the Kuri (perhaps already adapted at some point??) I like the Fotodiox T-to-F adaptor for using T-mounts on Nikons. T-mount has an FFD of 55mm, so adapts nicely to Nikons.

 

A 135 will give a crop effect on a smaller sensor (NOT a "zoom" effect), so it is possible that they would not work well for you unless you can back up a bit in your studio room.

 

GOOD LINK illustrating effect of focal length on portraits:

http://johncarnessal...hotography/4433

 

And another - scroll sideways.

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

Link to comment

Exacta mount (FFD = 44.7mm) lenses will not reach infinity on a Nikon body (FFD = 46.5mm). Although there are adaptors with an added lens which could give focus to infinity but then the added piece of glass would cut down on UV transmission.

 

Exacta mount lenses will focus to infinity over an m4/3 sensor with a glassless adapter.

 

Lost Cat was actually talking about a lens branded with Exaktar on it, not lenses with Exakta mounts. In other words, Exaktar is a brand, not a mount. (Whereas Exakta, without the r, is the mount).

 

I have that very same 35mmm F/2.8 lens. Mine comes in M42 mount, with the auto-aperture pin and the A / M switch. Looks like a 1970's build.

 

(Also, as an aside note, M42 lenses do not reach infinity on Nikon DSLR bodies either, of course. But T-mount lenses do, thankfully.)

 

Anyway, the Exaktar [Auto] 35mm F/2.8 is not the worst UV performer. But far the best of the bunch. Just barely a mediocre UV performer, I'd say, since my own tests reveal it to transmit around 360nm to 370nm or so (give or take). A bit too UV-opaque for my tastes, though, because I like to have ample UV bandwidth with my lenses to keep exposure times down and also render the maximum saturation of UV-colors (after UV-neutral white balancing). So, this lens would be a no-go for me, because it's a bit too "UV bland" for my tastes.

 

But maybe for less demanding people (those who want just enough UV transmission curves to see the UV-pattern nectar guides on flowers, but are not worried about much else), I suppose it will just barely get by on those merits.

 

Personally, I'd look elsewhere. but that's just me.

 

For reference, below is what my copy looks like (just in case someone may get a hold of a different variant with the same brand name and focal / aperture specs, in which case the UV performance may not be alike if there is an alternate version of this lens from a different manufacturing era). This is why identification photos are so important to go along with test results.

 

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/rkUAAOSwhcJWKSyV/s-l1600.jpg

 

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/FB8AAOSwl9BWKSyh/s-l1600.jpg

 

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/pWUAAOSwT5tWKSyy/s-l1600.jpg

Link to comment

UPDATE: Oops. I just realized that my copy is the 28mm F/3.5 version, not the 35mm F/2.8 version.

 

So, essentially, everything which I've said above about UV-performance is moot, pertaining to the 35mm F/2.8 version.

 

(Feeling embarrassed for this confusion).

 

I hope I am not turning into a lens-spec dyslexic (reading the specs backwards). Haha.

 

Sorry. :wacko: :blink: :huh:

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...