Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Short UV transmission test of some lenses


Andreas

Recommended Posts

I did a comparison of some lenses for UV photography.

 

Until now I don't have a good pinhole and additionally the sensor size of micro four third cameras is in general very small for good pinhole photography. Therefore I have used two lenses with good UV transmission to take photos of other lenses. For all photos I have used a full spectrum converted Olympus E-PL1 and a Baader U filter.

 

 

First image shows Olympus 2.8/17mm, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 2.8/50mm, Zenit Helios 2/58mm.

Image was taken with Soligor 3.5/35mm.

The UV transmission of Olympus 2.8/17mm is not really bad, however very interesting is the yellow color inside the lens. Most probably this is the reason for the low contrast of UV images taken with this Olympus lens.

The Tessar has a really low UV transmission. The Helios is not the best lens for UV, however surprisingly good for the relativ complex lens design with 6 lens elements.

 

post-147-0-87003400-1491683579.jpg

 

 

 

Second image shows Enna München Ennalyt 3.5/35mm, Steinheil Cassar 2.8/45mm, Hama Semi-Fish-Eye Converter.

Image was taken with Soligor 3.5/35mm.

The Semi-Fish-Eye shows no color which indicates a very good UV transmission. The Ennalyt is not completely colorless. The Cassar is nearly colorless.

The filter adapter on the Steinheil lens is permanently fixed with a two-component adhesive due to the reason that I couldn't find an adapter with correct size. I have used this method also for some enlarging lenses with no filter thread.

 

post-147-0-75942500-1491683599.jpg

 

 

 

 

Third image shows Hama Semi-Fish-Eye Converter, Enna München Ennalyt 3.5/35mm, Soligor 3.5/35mm.

Image was taken with Steinheil Cassar 2.8/45mm.

This image shows no color for Soligor but a slight color for the Ennalyt. Additionally I have observed that UV image quality with Soligor is somewhat better than with Ennalyt even though it is different for the visible and infrared spectral range.

 

post-147-0-01557800-1491683607.jpg

Link to comment

There are likely some transmission differences based on model variations and/or batch variations within the Soligor 35/3.5 lenses.

 

The listings in the Lens Sticky can only be considered approximations because we don't know what kind of gear or what methods were used to derive those wavelength estimates.

 

In the ideal world we would have a transmission chart for each of our lenses. Wouldn't that be nice?? :D

 

You've got yourself a nice collection there! Which one of these lenses do you like the best?

Link to comment

I own the Soligor 3.5/35mm lens since about one or two weeks, however I prefer this lens due to slightly better UV image quality than the Ennalyt 35mm.

Before I have bought the Soligor I have used mostly the Ennalyt 35mm. I have also a "Porst Superweitwinkel" 28mm which is also made by Enna München, however I have observed this dichroic efect ( http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/2194-the-tree/ ) in combination with Baader U filter in front, therefore I prefer the 35mm lenses.

The focal length of lenses with 45/50mm is often too long for using with Micro four third camera.

For hand held images I like also the semi fish eye converter in combination with 35mm lens, however this combination has a huge distortion and good sharpness only in center. The focus to infinity of this lens combination is possible with MFT to M42 adapter with variable length of about 20...30mm.

 

Yes, of course it would be really nice to have transmission charts of all lenses!

Link to comment

Today I observed the dichroic effect also with a 35mm lens:

 

post-147-0-32961900-1491766377.jpg

 

Image was taken with Soligor 3.5/35mm and Baader U filter in front. Maybe I should try it with a lens hood? I'm sure I have also images with this lens combination without this effect.

Link to comment
Have you considered putting the Baader at the *rear* of the lens? This is the manner in which I deploy it for my m43 cameras. It just sits inside the adapter. Haven't observed any dichroic effects.
Link to comment
I'm using a pretty standard F>m43 adapter for my Panasonic cameras, No problem getting the Baader U inside there.
Link to comment

Do you put only the glass of the Baader U inside the adapter or the filter including filter mount?

 

I have such an universal adapter:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Universal-Mount-Adapter-for-Any-Lens-to-Micro-Four-Thirds-m4-3-MFT-camera-/291636195702?hash=item43e6df3176:g:eskAAOSwcOFWaegQ

It is possible to remove the m42 mount ring and put the glass of the Baader U inside. However in this case the M42 mount ring fits not perfect and in the case of some wideangle lenses the rear lens element would touches the filter.

 

I have also two other m43 to m42 adapter but no idea how to disassemble these adapters to put a filter inside.

Link to comment
Depending on the actual adapter, both approaches might be feasible. Sometimes the smaller 1.25" is better suited. I use the 2" filter sans mount in my F>m43 adapter for the Panasonic.
Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...