Kuribayashi 35mm vs Focotar-2 50mm - UV Transmission Test

[Cadmium]

Kuribayashi 35mm vs Focotar-2 50mm - Sparticle UV Transmission Test.

 

[nfoto]

Interesting find, Steve.

 

I remember giving Andrea one of those Focotars. Wonder if she ever came around to using it?

[Andrea B.]

Only informally, Bjørn.

It's nice and sharp.

[Cadmium]

The Focotar-2 is definitely not my find. I can't remember who exactly found it, maybe Alex, I think.

There are differences in UV transmission between Focotar's and Focotar-2's, something to ask Alex about, he knows them well.

[Andrea B.]

The Focotar-2 is the better for UV, if I'm recalling correctly.

 

It's between Klaus, Bjørn and Alex as to who said what about which Focotar whenever on some website somewhere. :D :D :D

 

But there are so very many UV capable lenses to know about that I have long since completely lost track of who might have been the first person to 'tag' a particular lens as being good for UV. Besides which there are a lot of independent discoveries of these lenses which we never hear about.

 

I think Bjørn has had Focotars long before any of the rest of us because Bjørn has had almost every good UV capable lens since before digital. Although I do exclude Steve's discovery of Kuris & Petris from that statement. B)

 

I first heard about Focotars from Klaus about 6 or 7 years ago - maybe longer - when I had to turn down the purchase of one due to temporary lack of funds.

[Cadmium]

Of the lenses I own the Kuribayashi 35mm is kind of my 'gold standard' for UV lens transmission, so it works good for me to compare other lenses to the Kuri 35mm.

I have heard that the Focotar-2 50mm is suppose to transmit UV slightly deeper than the Kuri 35mm, but I see no difference in these shots.

It is possible that it might depend on the UV depth limit of the flash in this situation, that is the only other factor I can think of here.

These newer tests with the rear flash are more uniform and consistent comparison tests.

I have also heard that the Focotar-2 is sharp (which I have not compared directly so far).

 

The first UV tests I ever saw using the Focotar-2 were from Alex, in late 2012.

I don't know who or where or when the first person showed UV shots using the Focotar-2 online. Maybe on here, maybe Alex, or maybe some other person, but I personally credit my knowledge of this lens to Alex,

and his UV tests and shots using it, here and before.

[enricosavazzi]

Darn, yet another lens to buy on eBay. I will oblige. It makes an interesting travel lens because of the small size.

 

I actually had one (Focotar I, if I remember correctly) on a Leitz "autofocus" enlarger. Gave enlarger with lens away as a present to a friend some 15 years ago, after I converted to digital and dismantled my darkroom. Also gave him a Nikon 35 mm SCSI film scanner. He might still use them.

[nfoto]

At least the film scanner might still be an useful item? Actually I did keep a range of film scanner so if the nostalgic urge overwhelms me in the future, I'm ready to scan anything up to 4x5".

 

If you build your own PCs, no problem incorporating SCSI port(s) and run the scanner either from a native OS with SCSI support, or from a virtual machine with an older OS supporting SCSI scanners.

[Alex H]

The Focotar-2 is definitely not my find. I can't remember who exactly found it, maybe Alex, I think.

There are differences in UV transmission between Focotar's and Focotar-2's, something to ask Alex about, he knows them well.

 

Not me, Klaus on NikonGear posted about it years ago.

[enricosavazzi]

At least the film scanner might still be an useful item? Actually I did keep a range of film scanner so if the nostalgic urge overwhelms me in the future, I'm ready to scan anything up to 4x5".

 

If you build your own PCs, no problem incorporating SCSI port(s) and run the scanner either from a native OS with SCSI support, or from a virtual machine with an older OS supporting SCSI scanners.

It was an early Coolscan and it took something like a minute of rattling back and forth to scan one slide, plus it needed manually pushing the film /slide holder to load the second slide, and pulling out and reversing the holder to load the next two. I don't miss that.

 

These days, I use the Olympus 60 mm macro and an extremely cheap slide duplicator without optics attached at the front of the lens, and shoot with the Olympus E-M1 Mark II. I mount the setup on a video rig with 12 mm rails (handy to keep all parts of the setup in the exact reciprocal positions) and a LED panel illuminates the slide diffuser. The slide holder only holds two slides, but I can digitize a box of 36 slides in less than 10 minutes. AF instantly locks onto the film grain regardless of thickness of slide frame, and automatic exposure nails the right exposure to exactly duplicate the slide appearance even with over- or underexposed slides (don't ask me how).

 

I still have a 2,400 dpi Epson flatbed scanner with transparency illuminator in the cover, which I never use with film because it takes too long to operate and often fails to locate the black bar separating the individual frames in film strips.