List Lenses for Testing or for Adding to Lens Sticky

[Andrea B.]

from the Editor:

• Post to this thread to list lenses which you would like to see tested by a UVP member, OR
  which you are going to test yourself.
  

• Post to this thread lenses which you have tested that should be added to the Lens Sticky.
  Please provide a link to the test topic for that lens.
  Don't forget to tag your topic with the UV Lens tag!!
  

[lost cat]

Here are some lenses I have but have yet to test:

 

Helios 44-2: Older 00xxxx Zebra model, M39 mount. Internal elements observed to fluoresce under UV but is "clone" of Carl Zeiss Biotar which is a "good" lens. Older models should be more UV friendly

 

Industar 50/2.8 Another Russian copy of a Carl Zeiss lens this time the Tessar, also a "good" for UV lens.

 

Soligor Wide 35/3.5 T2 mount. Already listed on the sticky but with Soligors more information is needed to pick the right ones.

 

Carenar 50/2.8 automatic M42 mount. Included in a package deal. Why not?

 

Hanimar 35mm/2.8 automatic. I'm not super confident in this one but a negative result is educational in itself.

 

At this point I will ask if anyone has used these lenses with good or bad results please add your comments. I know the Helios has been tried with poor results but that was a later model perhaps with multi coating.

[Andrea B.]

Maybe we should not add too many comments here about how good the lenses are, else this topic will get all jumbled and lengthy. And also be very difficult for referencing. Specific comments about specific lenses should go into a separate topic for each lens and then the lens will be easy to reference with a link.

 

******************************

 

I have five 135/3.5 lenses which I will test.

They are:

• Lentar 135/3.5 (T-mount) 5664XX
  
• Hanimar 135/3.5 (T-mount) 351XX
  

• Asahi 135/3.5 Takumar (M42) 3972XX
  
• Kuribayashi 135/3.5 Petri Orikkor (M42) 362XX [or is it Petri Orikkor 135/3.5 Kuribayashi??]
  
• Kyoei 135/3.5 Super-Acall (Petri Breechlock) 716XX [needs adapter for M42]
  

[lost cat]

Agreed. I only added images to clarify which lenses I planned to test. It would be better to have the specifics for each lens with an individual thread and just hyperlink there from here.

 

A few more that have UV potential. These are based on this document which shows the basic optical diagrams of the lenses.

http://www.abload.de..._tri_v5ev1i.png

 

(Cooke) Triplet Lenses 3/3

Zeiss Mikorotar 45/4.5

Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8

Asahi Takumar 100/3.5

Feinmess Bonotar 105/4.5

Nikkor-T 105/4

Sears (Sigma) 135/3.5

 

Fujinon-type Unar 4/4

Fujinon 55/2.2

 

Tessar 4/3

Zeiss Tessar 40/4.5

Zeiss Tessar (C/Y) 40/4.5

Zeiss Tessar 80/2.8

Industar 61 50/2.8

Meyer Primotar 85/3.5

Meyer Primotar 135/3.5

Voitlander Color Skopar 50/3.5

Asahi Macro-Takumars 50/4 (all)

Asahi Kogau Takumar 50/3.5

Wrayflex Lustar 53/3.5

Leitz Elmar 90/4

 

Elmar 4/3

Leitz Elmar 50/3.5

 

Orthoscope 4/3

Wrayflex Lustar 90/4

Isco Westanar 50/2.8?

Meyer Primotar 180/3.5

 

Tair 4/3

Tair 11 133/2.8

Tair 11-2 133/2.8

Tair 11A 135/2.8

 

Hektor 4/3

Leitz Hektor 135/4.5

 

Ernostar 4/4

Meyer Helioplan 40/4.5

Wrayflex Unilux 50/2.8

Asahi Takumar (pre set) 105/2.8

Asahi Auto Takumar 105/2.8

Pentax (A and K) 135/3.5

Zeiss Sonnar (M42/QBM) 85/2.8

Zeiss Sonnar (QBM) 135/2.8

Mamiya Rolleinar (QBM) 85/2.8

Mamiya Rolleinar (QBM) 105/2.8

Mamiya Rolleinar (QBM) 135/2.8

Fujinon 135/3.5

Fujinon Soft 85/4

Tamron Adaptall-2 (03B) 135/2.5

Nikon E 135/2.8

Nikkor Q 135/2.8

Konica Hexanon 135/2.5

Konica Hexanon 135/3.5

Angenieux 90/2.5

Angenieux P2 135/2.5

 

Enhanced Ernostar 5/4

Asahi Auto Takumar 85/1.8

Asahi Super Takumar 85/1.9

Asahi Super Takumar 85/1.9

Asahi Takumar (pre set) 135/3.5 http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/585-informal-test-of-two-taks-on-a-k5-13535-and-8545/page__hl__%2Bsuper+%2Bpentax__fromsearch__1

Steinheil Quinar 135/2.8

Steinheil Quinar 200/2.8

Steinheil Quinar 200/4.5

Zeiss Sonnar (C/Y) 85/2.8

Zeiss Sonnar (CG) 90/2.8

Zeiss Sonnar (C/Y) 105/2.8

Zeiss Sonnar (C/Y) 135/2.8

Pentax (M) 85/2.0

Pentax (K) 120/2.8

Fujinon 100/2.8

 

Primoplan 5/4

Meyer Primoplan 75/1.9

Meyer Primoplan ("Night") 80/1.9

Meyer Orestor / Pentacon 100/2.8

Meyer Orestor / Pentacon 135/2.8

Nikkor (P) 180/2.8

Nikkor (Ai) 180/2.8

Komura 105/2.0

Fujinon 135/2.5

Kaleinar-5N 100/2.8

Soligor 135/2.8

 

Sonnar (simplified ) 4/3

Meyer Teleogar 90/3.5

Zeiss Sonnar 135/4

Zeiss Sonnar 135/3.5

Jupiter 11 135/4

Jupiter 37 135/3.5

Steinheil Quinnar 100/3.5

Nikkor Q 135/3.5

ISCO Iscaron 135/2.8

[Andrea B.]

Never heard of a Tair before !!

[lost cat]

Never heard of a Tair before !!

 

They're Russian.

 

If you like lots of aperture blades you'll like the Tair 11. It has 20!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tair_(lens)

[Andy Perrin]

What does 20 aperture blades get you? Is the idea to make the point sources of light look more circular?

[Andrea B.]

It supposedly gets you nice smooth backgrounds when shooting wide open. Good "bokeh", as they say.

[Alex H]

It supposedly gets you nice smooth backgrounds when shooting wide open. Good "bokeh", as they say.

 

When shooting wide open, aperture blades do not interact with light rays passing through the lens, and hence do not affect anything. It is stopped down when it matters.

[Andrea B.]

I got that wrong for sure !!! Thanks, Alex, for the elucidation (pun?) :D

I was just thinking about those smooth blurred backgrounds I've seen and assumed wide open.

Don't use that much in my close-up work.

[Alex H]

A few more that have UV potential. These are based on this document which shows the basic optical diagrams of the lenses.

http://www.abload.de..._tri_v5ev1i.png

 

What is the purpose of this long list, if I may ask? Some lenses on this list have already been tested for UV. Besides, it is not explicit at all, and shows only limited number of lenses that fit each design specification. Simple list of "triplet" and "tessar" lenses can take many pages.

[lost cat]

 

 

What is the purpose of this long list, if I may ask? Some lenses on this list have already been tested for UV. Besides, it is not explicit at all, and shows only limited number of lenses that fit each design specification. Simple list of "triplet" and "tessar" lenses can take many pages.

 

The purpose is to add to a centralized database of various lenses potential for UV transmission. At this point the only evidence for their suitability of the lenses listed above is their optical setup. it's not much but gotta start somewhere. As more information is discovered it can be added in.

 

The bigger picture is to expand the list of good lenses and document those found to be unsuitable.

The more lenses that are certified as useable for UV (and their performance documented) the more choices are made available. There is an argument to be made that there are many lenses already on the sticky. That's true but many are so hard to find and or expensive they may as well not exist for those with a limited budget. Also the sticky has lots of 35mm lenses but few with a wider view.

 

 

If you notice a lens on my list that has already been vetted please let me know.

[Alex H]

You are not the first to try this. There are reasons why some focal length are missing from the Lens Sticky. There are about 5 or 6 lenses in your list that have been tested for UV photography - the information is freely available on the internet, including this forum.

[Cadmium]

The Kuribayashi set should all be included in the sticky as deep transmitting UV lenses, the 35mm, 105mm, 135mm, 180mm, and the 500mm (with rear UV blocking glass removed for the 500mm).

The Kuribayashi 50mm should not be included, it does not transmit UV deeply, it is a poor lens for UV, it is not made by Kyoei either. The 50mm is pictured in the second and third photo.

 

 

 

 

There should be a delineation between the Kuribayashi lenses and the Petri lenses.

Also, although the Kuri group is made by Kyoei, be warned that not all Kyoei lenses are good for UV.

One that especially comes to mind is the Kyoei 35mm f/3.5 which looks like the Kyoei/Acall brochure photo below.

This Kyoei Lens, is quite poor for UV:

 

Kuribayashi (and Kyoei with no silver on the focus ring), great for UV:

 

Of the Petri lenses, the only one I find worth mentioning is the 35mm breech lock bayonet mount (Bjorn/nfoto), it transmits UV the same as the Kuri 35mm, but I have not compared the focal shift.

The longer Petri lenses 135mm, 200mm, 400mm are identical in most ways (other that the mount) to the common Lentar lenses in those same focal lengths of that era. A Lentar with M42 mount can be much easier to work with. These don't transmit UV quite as strongly as the Kuribayashi group above, but do transmit about the same depth.

 

And lets not forget about that cute little 35mm f/3.5 Aico enlarger lens (also Prinz).

(of course you will need some method of focusing enlarger lenses, like a helicoid)

 

The D.O. Industries 50mm f/4.5 enlarger lens is already listed in the sticky, but how can you beat this price for a deep transmitting UV lens?

http://www.surplussh...Category=Lenses

[nfoto]

I have myself fallen into the trap of thinking the 35/3.5 Kyoei Acall would be excellent for UV and convenient with the M39 mount. The latter is of course true, but the first assumption definitively is not.

 

I have compared Petri and Kuri versions of the 35/3.5 (both in Petri mount) and found no clear difference between them in terms of UV capability. Their UV focus shift is modest. The Kuri might be slightly better built, though, but neither qualify for a workmanship prize.

[Cadmium]

Two have the same name, so just so no one gets confused about which lenses are which, here are all four lenses together.

The two Kyoei lenses are easy to get confused about if going by the name, but the one on the far left end is not good for UV.

Some have made the mistake of purchasing that lens for UV.

The lens on the far right end is the Petri lens with the breach lock mount.

The two lenses in the center are identical other than branding and focus ring pattern style.

 

 

[Andy Perrin]

What would you use the 500mm Kuribayashi lens for? Taking UV pics of the moon? I was thinking birds, but it's f/8 so wouldn't that mean you'd have to use a pretty long exposure to get much of anything? You're taking light in over such a narrow range of angles, so that has to decrease the intensity, doesn't it? (Forgive me if I'm confused about some of this — I'm still getting the relationship between exposure time, aperture, and ISO straight in my head, at least in a practical sense.)

[nfoto]

A long lens can used for whatever purpose the long lens is good at ... UV landscapes come to mind. I have done some UV work with a 1000 mm lens.

 

Exposure as such as nothing to do with the angle of view of the lens.

[lost cat]

You are not the first to try this. There are reasons why some focal length are missing from the Lens Sticky. There are about 5 or 6 lenses in your list that have been tested for UV photography - the information is freely available on the internet, including this forum.

 

Are you referring to the list I linked to or my edited version? I did make an effort to exclude lenses already on the sticky. If I listed some already tested please let me know which ones they are and I will highlight them as already tested with a link to the data. From there they can be added to the sticky.

 

The D.O. Industries 50mm f/4.5 enlarger lens is already listed in the sticky, but how can you beat this price for a deep transmitting UV lens?

http://www.surplussh...Category=Lenses

 

How's $10 for an El Nikkor 50/2.8?

[Cadmium]

How's $10 for an El Nikkor 50/2.8?

 

Hi Lost Cat, The El-Nikkor 50mm is a good UV lens, especially the older metal versions (center in photo) but even @ f/4.5 the D.O. Industries 50mm (right in photo) transmits UV stronger and deeper than the older El-Nikkor 50mm @ F2.8, and the newer plastic version of the El-Nikkor 50mm (left in photo) doesn't transmit UV as deep or strong as the older version.

By the way, all three of these lenses have the same mount (M39) and filter threads (40.5mm).

 

[Andrea B.]

The Lens Sticky tends to lag behind our posts about UV-capable lenses. I do work on it as I have time. :)

 

This winter I did get most of the UV Lens tags in place so that now I can run a Tag Search and more easily add info.

I also added a reference to this Tag Search in the Lens Sticky.

When I get back from this current Field Trip I will have some time to work on more updates.

 

I would also like to add more detailed info from Steve's post about the Kuri & Kyoei lenses.

[Cadmium]

Not to worry Andrea, enjoy the moment where you are now. :-)

[lost cat]

 

 

Hi Lost Cat, The El-Nikkor 50mm is a good UV lens, especially the older metal versions (center in photo) but even @ f/4.5 the D.O. Industries 50mm (right in photo) transmits UV stronger and deeper than the older El-Nikkor 50mm @ F2.8, and the newer plastic version of the El-Nikkor 50mm (left in photo) doesn't transmit UV as deep or strong as the older version.

By the way, all three of these lenses have the same mount (M39) and filter threads (40.5mm).

 

 

Does it now? How would that translate to exposure times between the 50/4.5 and the 50/2.8? How's the image quality compare?

 

[Alex H]

Larger nominal aperture (F/2.8) means thicker glass, which means stronger attenuation in UV, which means longer exposure when both lenses are used at the same aperture setting.

[Cadmium]

Does it now? How would that translate to exposure times between the 50/4.5 and the 50/2.8? How's the image quality compare?

 

Yes it does. :) I don't have any direct exposure or image comparisons between those lenses.

Some have tested and compared it much more than me. You may want to ask Alex, he knows lenses much better than I, and he may have more experience with the D.O.I. 50mm.