Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Super-Lentar 35mm vs Soligor KA Koyei clone


lost cat

Recommended Posts

In our collective neverending quest for yet more UV capable lenses I present to you a photo comparison of a Super-Lentar 35mmm f/3.5 lens vs a Soligor KA Kuri clone

 

Soligor KA Lens:

post-90-0-23935700-1454784053.jpg post-90-0-53104500-1454784043.jpg

http://m42lens.com/m...5mm-f-3-5-22-v2

 

(Galaxy version)

http://m42lens.com/m...y-35mm-f-3-5-22

 

Super Lentar:

post-90-0-06641800-1454784022.jpgpost-90-0-85359300-1454784032.jpg

http://m42lens.com/m...f-3-5-22-preset

 

(This Super Lentar appears to be a rebranded Hanimar as it appears nearly identical to the Hanimar 35mm f/3.5-22 (preset) shown in the M42 database.)

 

There is also a Prinzgalaxy version:

http://m42lens.com/m...y-35mm-f-3-5-22

 

 

Camera: Unmodified Nikon D40.

 

Lens Configuration: Macro configuration with an additional helicoid and/or short extension tubes to try to normalize the subject to camera distance as much as possible.

 

White balance: All photos were white balanced against a slightly defocused PFTE tape wrapped block of wood with at least three layers of tape. Visible shots with an exposure of 1/30s UV shots with an exposure of 1/8 sec. Note - the WB was performed using the in-camera "use photo" function. although no error message was generated it does not appear to have worked properly.

 

Illumination: Visible images taken with two 25W incandescent bulbs with reflectors 22 and 26cm distance from subject +/- 45 degrees from camera-to-subject plane. UV images as above but with incandescent bulbs replaced with two 26W CFL blacklight blue bulbs.

 

ISO: 400 for all imaging

 

Aperture: f/8 for all imaging

 

Shutter speed(s): 1/30s for Vis images, 1/8s-30s for UV

 

Distance to subject: 15 cm for Soligor, 16cm for Super Lentar (flower to camera body)

 

UV Filter: Front mounted Astrodon "U" 1.25"

 

Mounts: Both lenses have a T mount

 

Filters: Super-Lentar uses a 52mm filter Soligor uses a 46mm filter

Left/Top: Super Lentar Right/Bottom: Soligor

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



Visible 1/30s:

post-90-0-07836300-1454786260.jpgpost-90-0-35847600-1454786222.jpg

 

UV 1/8s:

post-90-0-01777600-1454786374.jpgpost-90-0-38401900-1454786528.jpg

 

UV 1/4s:

post-90-0-28331500-1454786386.jpgpost-90-0-35616800-1454786538.jpg

 

UV 1/2s:

post-90-0-20377900-1454786396.jpgpost-90-0-51500200-1454786545.jpg

 

UV 1s:

post-90-0-76661000-1454786408.jpgpost-90-0-61435500-1454786552.jpg

 

UV 2s:

post-90-0-07837600-1454786427.jpgpost-90-0-15184100-1454786561.jpg

 

UV 4s:

post-90-0-49084400-1454786443.jpgpost-90-0-80012300-1454786573.jpg

 

UV 8s:

post-90-0-66762200-1454786455.jpgpost-90-0-28159000-1454786582.jpg

 

UV 15s:

post-90-0-48090800-1454786491.jpgpost-90-0-63656400-1454786590.jpg

 

UV 30s:

post-90-0-33453200-1454786507.jpgpost-90-0-97228400-1454786598.jpg

 

To my eyes the performance - at least under my testing methodology - are very similar. I think this is another lens for the list :D

Link to comment

This Super Lentar appears to be a rebranded Hanimar as it appears nearly identical to the Hanimar 35mm f/3.5-22 (preset) shown in the M42 database.

 

Hanimar was not a lens maker, just another name used by importer or reseller.

"H" in the serial number is sometimes associated with Hoya, who made lenses in the past.

Many "Lentar" and "Super Lentar" lenses were made by Tokina.

Link to comment

White balance: All photos were white balanced against a slightly defocused PFTE tape-wrapped block of wood with at least three layers of tape.

Visible shots with an exposure of 1/30s. UV shots with an exposure of 1/8 sec.

 

I need to better understand your white balance step with the D40 for UV.

Did you add the Astrodon filter and perform an in-camera white balance through it? And that worked for the D40?? And you got this red look? Something does not make sense. If the D40 was actually white balanced thru the Astrodon filter, then all the red should go away.

Link to comment

White balance: All photos were white balanced against a slightly defocused PFTE tape-wrapped block of wood with at least three layers of tape.

Visible shots with an exposure of 1/30s. UV shots with an exposure of 1/8 sec.

 

I need to better understand your white balance step with the D40 for UV.

Did you add the Astrodon filter and perform an in-camera white balance through it?

 

That is exactly what I did. I put the tape coated wood where the flowers had been and took a picture with the UV lamps and the Astrodon filter in place. The block filled the entire image. I then used the "use picture" option to set the white balance making sure to select the correct picture of the block.

 

And that worked for the D40?? And you got this red look?

The camera did not give an error so I assumed it took. It did give an error when I tried taking the WB directly.

 

Something does not make sense. If the D40 was actually white balanced thru the Astrodon filter, then all the red should go away.

I agree the red is odd but I figured this is the best in-camera UV WB a D40 can do, at least under these conditions. Perhaps performing the WB at a faster shutter speed would help.

Link to comment

That is exactly what I did. I put the tape coated wood where the flowers had been and took a picture with the UV lamps and the Astrodon filter in place. The block filled the entire image. I then used the "use picture" option to set the white balance making sure to select the correct picture of the block.

 

OK, now I understand what you did.

So, what you did was not setting a white balance.

 

The photo you took of the PTFE under the UV lighting and through the Astrodon filter has a white balance tag set to whatever your camera WB was set to when you took that shot. Was it Auto? Or Daylight? So when you selected this photo to use for white balance, its WB tag is read and assigned to any subsequent photos. Thus they all have Auto or Daylight white balance too.

 

The camera does not know that the PTFE is supposed to be white when you select "use picture". Instead, you have to do the measurement step against the PTFE - i.e., take the WB directly. But, sadly, for a Nikon camera you can't do this. It can only be done when converting the raw photo in a supportive converter/editor.

Link to comment

Was the picture too bright (one channel -usually the red one- beyond the limit)? Then the camera can not do a WB.

 

You might try a "fake WB", which is not 100% correct, but helps to get a better exposure measurements. Instead of doing the WB with UV you might try to do a WB in IR and use it for UV. I have tried this for some cameras and it comes surprisingly close. :)

Link to comment

That is exactly what I did. I put the tape coated wood where the flowers had been and took a picture with the UV lamps and the Astrodon filter in place. The block filled the entire image. I then used the "use picture" option to set the white balance making sure to select the correct picture of the block.

 

OK, now I understand what you did.

So, what you did was not setting a white balance.

 

The photo you took of the PTFE under the UV lighting and through the Astrodon filter has a white balance tag set to whatever your camera WB was set to when you took that shot. Was it Auto? Or Daylight? So when you selected this photo to use for white balance, its WB tag is read and assigned to any subsequent photos. Thus they all have Auto or Daylight white balance too.

 

The camera does not know that the PTFE is supposed to be white when you select "use picture". Instead, you have to do the measurement step against the PTFE - i.e., take the WB directly. But, sadly, for a Nikon camera you can't do this. It can only be done when converting the raw photo in a supportive converter/editor.

 

Ugh, I was afraid of that! So I guess I need to include a WB reference in future works after all.

Link to comment

Here is a list of likely clones to this Super Lentar Lens:

 

Weltblick 35mm f/3.5-22 (v2)

http://m42lens.com/m42-lens-database/214-weltblick-35mm-f-3-5-22-v2

 

Hanimar 35mm f/3.5-22 (preset) (as mentioned above)

http://m42lens.com/m42-lens-database/892-hanimar-35mm-f-3-5-22-preset

 

Prinzgalaxy 35mm f/3.5-22 (as mentioned above)

http://m42lens.com/m42-lens-database/1236-prinzgalaxy-35mm-f-3-5-22

 

Vivitar 35mm f/3.5-22

http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-t-mount-preset-35mm-f35.html

 

Catalog with lens info (vivitar version):

http://boggys.myzen.co.uk/pdfmaster/Vivitar_T-Mount_Preset_Lenses_DS_400dpi.pdf

 

5 elements in 5 groups. 12 aperture blades vs 8 on the KA.

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...

Update. I have purchased a Vivitar lens which appears very similar to the Super Lentar tested here but has 10 blades (not 12) vs 8, a 52mm filter vs 42, a slightly longer body and larger rear element. The four rearmost elements (post aperture) appear to have been cemented into two groups. S/N starts with 22. It looks identical to the V2 one listed here:

 

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Vivitar_35mm_f/3.5_Compatible_T_System

 

It also looks identical to the one listed in the P&B catalog linked to below; however it does not match the description (10 vs 12 blades, 52mm vs 46 mm accessory, doublets(?) vs none).

 

Strange lens.

Link to comment
That is strange. My Vivitar 35/3.5 'Wide Angle' T has the 12 blades. Also has serial number 2204XX.
Link to comment

That is strange. My Vivitar 35/3.5 'Wide Angle' T has the 12 blades. Also has serial number 2204XX.

 

How's it's UV performance? Does it look like the pictures in the Wiki article? Do you know if it has any cemented elelements?

Link to comment

My Vivitar 35/3.5 looks like the photos in the Wiki article. I don't know if it has any cemented elements. Do I have to take it apart to determine that?

 

It's UV performance is so-so I guess. I don't think the Viv 35/3.5 passes all that much UV but you can get a UV photo with it. Here is a link for a landscape-at-infinity test series with some discussion about the various edge changes of the tested lenses:

http://www.ultraviol...finity-visiruv/

Link to comment

My Vivitar 35/3.5 looks like the photos in the Wiki article. I don't know if it has any cemented elements. Do I have to take it apart to determine that?

 

 

Yes but it's very easy. Just unscrew the back element with the lenses bottom side up. Once it's loose carefully turn the lens over and the rear element(s) will slide out. Be sure to note which way they were originally - its very easy to put them back in reversed.

 

I assume you know what a doublet looks like but if not it will look something like this:

 

http://www.stockoptics.com/vis-ar-achromatic-doublet-lens.html

Link to comment

Hey I'll give it a shot! Why not? What could possibly go wrong??

 

:D :D :D Well.....I do have to remind everyone that I don't have a good track record with taking lenses apart. I'm great with cams (most of the time), not so good with lenses. Tried to check something on my old 17-35/2.8 AFS one time and a little spring sprang into the air and lost itself in the carpet somewhere. I never did find it. Could be that a cat paw came into the scene on that one. Anyway, in went the 17-35 for repair. Tried to "fix" one of my 35/3.5s and all the aperture blades fell out. I really really dislike resetting aperture blades. Did that same thing again on a Novoflex. And so it goes.

 

The Viv should be OK though if it is just a one-element removal. ;) B) :rolleyes:

I have a couple pair of those nifty caliper gadgets which should make it easy.

Link to comment

Hey I'll give it a shot! Why not? What could possibly go wrong??

 

:D :D :D Well.....I do have to remind everyone that I don't have a good track record with taking lenses apart. I'm great with cams (most of the time), not so good with lenses. Tried to check something on my old 17-35/2.8 AFS one time and a little spring sprang into the air and lost itself in the carpet somewhere. I never did find it. Could be that a cat paw came into the scene on that one. Anyway, in went the 17-35 for repair. Tried to "fix" one of my 35/3.5s and all the aperture blades fell out. I really really dislike resetting aperture blades. Did that same thing again on a Novoflex. And so it goes.

 

The Viv should be OK though if it is just a one-element removal. ;) B) :rolleyes:

I have a couple pair of those nifty caliper gadgets which should make it easy.

 

No tools should be needed unless the ring is VERY tight. Even then I don't think there are any notches to fit such a tool to.

Link to comment

Yes, you are correct - no notches on the rear of this Viv 35/3.5. But also as mentioned it was a piece o' cake to unscrew and examine the back element which is indeed a doublet. :D So my copy seems to be the common one.

 

For the record, I did not get any IR hotspots in my initial field test with this Vivitar. I didn't perform an entire IR hotspot series at all apertures, but looks promising for IR.

Link to comment

Yes, you are correct - no notches on the rear of this Viv 35/3.5. But also as mentioned it was a piece o' cake to unscrew and examine the back element which is indeed a doublet. :D So my copy seems to be the common one.

 

For the record, I did not get any IR hotspots in my initial field test with this Vivitar. I didn't perform an entire IR hotspot series at all apertures, but looks promising for IR.

 

Well I suppose thats something. The presence of doublets is strange given Vivitars own literature claims a 5/5 arrangement.

 

Maybe ours are later models with an updated setup?

Link to comment

Could be. We would need a much larger sample size to determine anything. :D

Ask the manual lens forum perhaps? I often go there for info myself.

*****

 

BTW, FWIW.......I was thinking about the discussion (somewhere) about using the word 'clone'. In other areas, the word 'type' is often used. So, for example, your title here would read Super-Lentar 35mm vs. Soligor KA (a Kyoei 35/3.5 Type).

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...