Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Revue 35mm f/3.5 vs Soligor 35mm f/3.5 KA Kuri 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 Revuer 35mm f/3.5 lens vs a Soligor KA Kuri clone

 

Soligor KA Lens:

post-90-0-71086500-1454798810.jpgpost-90-0-12000100-1454798817.jpg

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

 

Revue: (rebranded Enna Munchen Ennaylt)

post-90-0-06200500-1454798704.jpgpost-90-0-82912500-1454798711.jpg

http://m42lens.com/m...m-f-3-5-16-enna

 

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: Soligor Visible images taken with two 25W incandescent bulbs with reflectors 22 and 26cm distance from subject +/- 45 degrees from camera-to-subject plane. Revue Visible images taken with two 25W incandescent bulbs with reflectors 35 and 38cm 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, 27cm for Super Lentar (flower to camera body)

 

UV Filter: Front mounted Astrodon "U" 1.25"

 

Mounts: Both lenses have a T mount (Revue's is hidden under the M42 adapter)

 

Filter Sizes: Revue uses a 52mm filter, Soligor uses a 46mm filter

Left/Top: Revue Right/Bottom: Soligor

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



Visible 1/30s:

post-90-0-59989100-1454798722.jpgpost-90-0-24333900-1454798833.jpg

 

UV 1/8s:

post-90-0-57049600-1454798732.jpgpost-90-0-51942100-1454798840.jpg

 

UV 1/4s:

post-90-0-75672700-1454798740.jpgpost-90-0-85906000-1454798847.jpg

 

UV 1/2s:

post-90-0-06183900-1454798748.jpgpost-90-0-36707100-1454798855.jpg

 

UV 1s:

post-90-0-37120000-1454798754.jpgpost-90-0-30461400-1454798863.jpg

 

UV 2s:

post-90-0-87993300-1454798761.jpgpost-90-0-34944400-1454798873.jpg

 

UV 4s:

post-90-0-23254500-1454798769.jpgpost-90-0-25346500-1454798880.jpg

 

UV 8s:

post-90-0-38535200-1454798776.jpgpost-90-0-34457900-1454798887.jpg

 

UV 15s:

post-90-0-39100000-1454798783.jpgpost-90-0-91433500-1454798893.jpg

 

UV 30s:

post-90-0-80733700-1454798789.jpgpost-90-0-49623400-1454798903.jpg

 

To my eyes the performance - at least under my testing methodology - the Revue looks to have 1-2 stops less sensitivity than the Soligor KA lens. This result is a bit strange to me since the Enna Munchen 35mm f/3.5 has been shown elseware to have very good UV performance. This may be a problem with this particular test - I had a difficult time getting a macro setup with this lens so the flower to camera distance was about double that of the Soligor. In retrospect the distance between the lamps and the flower changed as well so this may well be the cause of the apparent lower sensitivity in the Revue images. The illumination should follow the inverse square law (e.g. doubling the distance between the lamps and the flowers would result in ~1/4 the light on the flowers) which would be seen as 1-2 stops lower sensitivity.

 

I will try to re shoot this test soon under more equivalent lighting conditions - stay tuned!

Link to comment
I assume you carefully cleaned all your lenses before testing? If there is anything on the glass surfaces, like oil from the aperture mechanism or focusing helicoid, remains of the cleaning liquid, etc, the UV transmission of the lens can suffer greatly.
Link to comment

The Revue could be a design clone, but might have slightly different glass or coatings?

Also, see my comment in the Soligor Wide thread about the necessity of uniformity of background without backlighting.

Link to comment

I assume you carefully cleaned all your lenses before testing? If there is anything on the glass surfaces, like oil from the aperture mechanism or focusing helicoid, remains of the cleaning liquid, etc, the UV transmission of the lens can suffer greatly.

 

Just the front and back surfaces. Visual inspection with a flashlight didn't reveal anything internal other than "dust" which I suspect are micro bubbles that can't be removed. I did not see any oil on any of the aperture blades either. There are tiny specs on the rear elements on some lenses that doesn't come off with a cleaning.

 

That said I have since taken the lenses apart for a more thorough cleaning. I didn't find anything amiss on the internal optics but the Super-Lentar had sand in the mechanics! I'm guessing a previous owner lived near a beach. The sand was making the stop down mechanism a little gritty, but not so much as to make the mechanism bind up - or for that matter even make me suspect anything was wrong other than 40 years of wear. The optics were well isolated so the sand did not get in there.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...