Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Revue 135/3.5 Review


lost cat

Recommended Posts

Here is a comparison of my newly acquired Revue 135mm/3.5 lens. According to M42Lens this is a re-badged Enna Munchen Tele Ennalyt 135/3.5

 

http://www.m42lens.c...-135mm-f-3-5-22

 

As with the 35mm Enna clones discussed elsewhere on this forum there is a T-mount beneath the M42 screwmount and no serial number is available.

 

Testing Protocol:

 

Camera Unmodified Nikon D40 with freshly cleaned sensor which immediately got dirty again when I put the lenses on :angry:

Camera body to target: 28"

ISO: 400

Apertures: f/8

EV: 0.0

(Edit) WB Tungsten Incandescent

Visible lighting: 2x25W incandescent on tripods and aluminum lamp covers 20" distant, 45 degrees to camera

UV lighting :2x 26W CFL BLB on tripods and aluminum lamp covers 20" distant, 20" distant at 45 degrees to camera

Visible filer: None

UV filter: 1.25" Astrodon Sloan 'U

 

El Nikkor was mounted as a macro with two 17-31mm helicoids and a 7mm tube. Revue was mounted as a macro with a 28mm tube only. Focus was very difficult so the images are a *bit* fuzzy as this was the best I could achieve with my limited experience and no liveview..

 

For all images Left is El Nikkor 105/5.6 while right is Revue 135/3.5

 

First a visible shot to reference. 1/20s exposure:

post-90-0-16396500-1453840244.jpgpost-90-0-03453400-1453840250.jpg

 

Next is UV. 1/4s exposure:

post-90-0-92422800-1453841020.jpgpost-90-0-57953400-1453841030.jpg

 

UV. 1/2s exposure:

post-90-0-38202500-1453841120.jpgpost-90-0-05403600-1453841129.jpg

 

UV. 1s exposure:

post-90-0-90158100-1453841203.jpgpost-90-0-84720100-1453841211.jpg

 

UV. 2s exposure:

post-90-0-56541600-1453841280.jpgpost-90-0-86391100-1453841290.jpg

 

UV. 4s exposure:

post-90-0-89904900-1453841379.jpgpost-90-0-23888500-1453841399.jpg

 

UV. 8s exposure:

post-90-0-49365400-1453841468.jpgpost-90-0-22443700-1453841476.jpg

 

UV. 15s exposure:

post-90-0-59369200-1453841563.jpgpost-90-0-76352200-1453841571.jpg

 

It looks to me that the Revue is a bit darker overall both in visible and UV than the El-Nikkor. Not sure why, anyone have an idea?

 

I hope to be posting more such tests so comments and suggestions for improvement are appreciated!

Link to comment

Looks great to (relatively untutored) me, anyway! What about white balancing?

 

The dandelion looks different than the ones we have around here, both in visible light and in the UV. Here are what mine look like:

post-94-0-20313500-1453850087.jpgpost-94-0-81430100-1453850102.jpg

Link to comment

Looks great to (relatively untutored) me, anyway! What about white balancing?

 

The dandelion looks different than the ones we have around here, both in visible light and in the UV. Here are what mine look like:

post-94-0-20313500-1453850087.jpgpost-94-0-81430100-1453850102.jpg

 

No white balancing. I think it best the data to be as raw as possible to make the playing field even between lenses and eventually between camera bodies.

 

Edit: Sorry, this is not correct. I meant no custom WB optimized for UV. I did use the camera's "tungsten" incandescent WB to optimize for the visible and to keep this factor consistent between the lenses in the UV. I thought this a fairer test than making a custom WB which would favor the lenses used to create it.

 

I think the dandelions are the same. I picked mine kinds of early in the morning so I don't think it had opened all the way.

 

What did you use for illumination in your photo? Filter?

 

EDIT

 

"18mm 330WB70 filter from Omega Optical"

 

Never mind, found this in your intro. :D

 

Have you checked this filter for IR leaks?

Link to comment

I have yet to see a blue dandelion in UV false colours when the UV w/b is set against a UV-neutral standard. Something is amiss here. Either there is heavy IR/visible band leakage, or the w/b and subsequent processing is "unusual".

 

While it *is* true dandelions can vary quite a bit in their UV appearance (no doubt due to the apomictic reproduction leading to countless microspecies), this photo is far off expectations in terms of colour palette. I have shot UV dandelions hundreds of times so this is a species group I'm highly familiar with.

 

On the other hand, the visible record of the dandelion, while a bit on the pale yellow side, should be well within the overall variation. Do note there actually are dandelions with white or almost white flower heads. At the other end of the colour scale, some microspecies are so deep orange they almost turn dark red or brownish. Most are some kind of deep yellow though.

Link to comment

I have yet to see a blue dandelion in UV false colours when the UV w/b is set against a UV-neutral standard. Something is amiss here. Either there is heavy IR/visible band leakage, or the w/b and subsequent processing is "unusual".

My UV w/b is NOT set at all there, it's whatever the camera auto settings gave me. And my processing is certainly unusual by the standards of this website, which I had not joined when I took the image in question! My photo should be viewed as essentially monochrome. I've actually never gotten any significant UV false color with that camera no matter how I white balanced it, so after a while I just gave up and treated the images as monochrome. The processing was just to duplicate the blue channel into the (empty) green channel.

 

I'm reasonably sure the filter doesn't have IR leaks, or at least not significant ones, and in any case I took that pic using a cheap 365nm UV flashlight (Tuofeng brand, if that educates you?) in the dark. There could in principle be visible leakage, since I know that flashlight puts out some visible, but my filter supposedly gets rid of that. Here is the manufacturer's spectrum for the 330WB70:

post-94-0-09861900-1453870506_thumb.gif

 

At a guess, my lens is blocking everything below the high 300's out, so the image may be something like 380-360nm.

 

But in any case, I thought maybe the dandelion was just a different sub-species. It doesn't look the same to me in the visible light either.

Link to comment

Jim asks: It looks to me that the Revue is a bit darker overall both in visible and UV than the El-Nikkor. Not sure why, anyone have an idea?

 

The camera is 28" from the subject. But the two lenses have different fields of view at this distance. So they are looking at different fields of light. Also lenses can vary in contrast or micro-contrast due coatings or glass types used for the elements. And at f/8 one lens may pass a little more light than the other does at f/8. (Look up "t stop".) And finally you had the lenses mounted on helicoids and tubes which can affect light transmission.

So it could be any one or more of those factors. (There may be other reasons which didn't happen to come to mind as I wrote this.)

 

Jim: No white balancing. I think it best the data to be as raw as possible to make the playing field even between lenses and eventually between camera bodies.

 

The raw file does not make it out of the camera without being tagged with a white balance. Whether that WB tag is seen or not during conversion depends on the converter you used. If the converter ignores the camera WB, then it usually applies its own default WB.

 

You did not say what converter you used, but your UV photos appear to have the typical look of a Daylight white balance which is neither raw nor optimal for display of UV photos.

 

The reason we rave on & on here on UVP about white balance is precisely for the reason that applying a standardized white balance to the raw UV file permits your desired "even playing field" and gives a uniform "look" to UV photographs across various platforms. It's the only way we know how to compare documentary botanical fotos, for example. And is also useful for others wishing to make comparisons. We don't insist on it for any non-botanical posts. But we do want to make everyone aware of its usefulness.

 

I'll illustrate with a sunflower foto. And kindly forgive me if I'm writing things you already know. I don't always know what people know or don't know.

The first foto shows what I shot straight-out-of-the-camera using an in-camera preset white balance.

The 2nd & 3rd fotos show Daylight & Incandescent WB.

The 4th foto has been white balanced in Capture NX2 for a standardized look. Usually this look features yellows, blues, blacks, whites and grays. The blues can drift a bit towards purple or the yellows towards green depending on what converter and what white balance algorithm is applied.

Expand browser to 1200 px width for best view.

helianthusAnnuus_uvBaadSB14_20153008saltLakeCityUT_39437asRecorded.jpghelianthusAnnuus_uvBaadSB14_20153008saltLakeCityUT_39437daylight01.jpghelianthusAnnuus_uvBaadSB14_20153008saltLakeCityUT_39437incan.jpghelianthusAnnuus_uvBaadSB14_20153008saltLakeCityUT_39437wb.jpg

 

 

Now -- here is the actual raw look of my sunflower foto when it is still in its linear stage.

Demosaicing has been done, but there has been no scaling of the histogram

or application of a gamma curve to delinearize the tones.

No, it is not underexposed, it is just really raw.

You'll need a good monitor to see much in this linear view!

helianthusAnnuus_uvBaadSB14_20153008saltLakeCityUT_39437rawCompOnly01.jpg

 

If we next apply the gamma curve to lift the midtones, we can see the raw colours much better.

These are the colours from the Bayer filter tags applied during the demosaic

with no application of the white balance tag in the raw file.

helianthusAnnuus_uvBaadSB14_20153008saltLakeCityUT_39437rawCompGamma01.jpg

 

A little adjustment of the white & black points brightens up the contrasts, but keeps the raw colours.

This is the fairest representation of the actual raw file prior to WB which can be posted

subject to the constraint of stuffing the data into a jpeg box and an sRGB space for web viewing.

ADDED LATER: Raw DIgger calls this step Autoscaling.

helianthusAnnuus_uvBaadSB14_20153008saltLakeCityUT_39437rawCompAutoGamma01.jpg

Link to comment

Jim, I enjoyed the comparison of the Revue 135/3.5 lens to the "known" EL Nikkor 135/5.6. Looks like the Revue can hold its own in the UV arena. Shall we add it to the Lens Sticky?? Give me a yea or nay on whether you would recommend it to others.

 

I've picked up a few 135/3.5s over the last few months and should really try to get a test going. We had some early blooming dandelions due to the El Niño warmth, but now they have disappeared under 2 feet of snow.

Link to comment

Thank you Andrea. You are correct, there was a WB used which I neglected to add into my protocol. I have now edited it in. I used the "tungsten" Incandescent WB setting for all images. I did not make my intention clear earlier. My goal was to not use a single custom WB as I thought doing so would favor the lens used to make it over the other. In my mind a single standard WB was the fairest way to compare lenses even if not optimized for UV.

 

In hindsight perhaps a custom WB for each lens would be the way to go forward.

 

Would I recommend the Revue 135/3.5 and by proxy the other Enna clones for UV work? Yes.

Link to comment

You are all welcome. :D

 

I wanted to illustrate what Raw really looks like in its non-linear demosaiced-only format. Surprised me the first time I saw this, I'll say!!

 

You can also look at the actual Raw with the free RawDC DCRaw app which operates from the command line. DCRaw? I have to look this name up. DCRaw Link.

This opensource app is run in the Terminal window from the command line.

 

For the technically inclined photographer I do recommend Raw Digger for analyzing exposures. Very interesting to me anyway. And useful for figuring out what we really record in UV. Very well supported app too.

 

White Balance in UV photography remains a matter of personal preference. I do not wish to push anyone towards a particular "look" in their UV work - most especially with artistic UV work. But for comparisons (or botanical work) with the typical Bayer filtered digicams, we can make a case for using WB to provide a uniform look to the UV photographs. Does make it easier to compare across platforms. But we are happy to see any and all reviews or comparisons of lenses and filters no matter what WB is applied.

 

Anyway, hope to see more lens comparisons from Jim and our other members. And someone tell Andrea to get busy herself and go shoot some lens review photos. (Let's see, where did I put that Sunflower anyway???)

Link to comment

To what Andrea already has elaborated well: the optical designs of the two lenses differ. The 135 is a telephoto design and thus is much more likely to alter its effective aperture when extension is added to it than the EL-Nikkor. Thus, the 135 photos being darker all other settings equal is just what would be expected. The difference in detail magnification also leads to similar results, but my hunch is the optics themselves carry most of the weight.

 

To illustrate, on my view camera I often used a Nikkor-T ED 270 mm f/6.3 and had to make a correction table for it in order to get exposures correct from readings on my hand-held meter (with 4x5" sheet film you don't do much bracketing of your exposures unless your pockets be lined with gold). At full extension the correction amounted to 2.7 EV. Still, not anything near 1:1.

 

Fortunately, Nikon published all the technical data to allow me to calculate the changes in effective aperture as a function of extension. I made a spreadsheet for each 1/3 EV stop adjustment and its corresponding extension, printed it and had it with me in the field. Then getting perfectly exposed captures with the rig was easy as I just read the extension off the view camera carrier and consulted the table to make the required exposure correction.

Link to comment

JIm, I'll add the Revue 135/3.5 to the Lens Sticky. And Thank You !!!

I will need the Mount type and the Front Filter Size, please.

 

I'm sure you will figure out how you want to work the WB thing.

 

BTW, Bjørn and I do not use a single custom WB. We make a WB for each camera+lens+filter+light. It is the procedure which is standardized, not the WB. The interesting part is that so far, we get this uniform look no matter what platform is in use subject to the camera being Bayer-filtered.

 

One thing I may not have mentioned is that using the Daylight or Incandescent (Tungsten) WB, is that the red channels tend to oversaturate which hides details. Use a neutral picture control to hold back contrast and saturation during the initial stage of the conversion. Sat and contrast can always be restored later.

 

An interesting exercise: Take one of your UV photographs. Convert it to a B&W photograph. Edit it properly. This means reining in highlights, possibly pushing shadows a tad, and fiddling the the ends of the histogram to set black and white points. Then apply the correct amount of sharpening.

Link to comment

with 4x5" sheet film you don't do much bracketing of your exposures unless your pockets be lined with gold

 

:D :D :D

Link to comment

JIm, I'll add the Revue 135/3.5 to the Lens Sticky. And Thank You !!!

I will need the Mount type and the Front Filter Size, please.

 

 

52mm front filter, T mount hidden under M42.

 

Silly question; M42lens says the Enna Munchen version of this lens has 5 elements in 5 groups.

 

http://www.m42lens.com/m42-lens-database/1106-enna-munchen-tele-ennalyt-135mm-f3-5-22-t2

 

Am I to take this as this lens has no cemented elements?

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...