• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Got my Baader...first results and requesting advice! ;D

15 replies to this topic

#1 DeerCrow

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts
  • Location: The Netherlands

Posted 28 June 2017 - 19:05

Hello!

Today I received my Baader U/venus filter and started testing my sensor!
Fuji XT-1
Baader U/Venus
Helios 44-2 and Helios 44-M (copies of CZJ Biotar)

It was a cloudy day. I had to push ISO to 6400 and shoot wide open.
I am not sure (yet) if these lenses are less UV-capable than for example the Carl Zeiss Biotar...OR...my sensor is the limiting factor. But the good news of today is that my sensor has at least some level of UV sensitivity!

The results are included. I added some structure, vignet and blur in post production because I aim to achieve that lovely wetplate look.

So now I started looking at 35mm UV-capable lenses and I found these:
-ISCO Optics 35mm/f2.8 Westron
-Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Orestegon 29mm/f2.8
Prices are about the same.

Any ideas, opinions, advice, experience to help me choose?

Kind regards,
LauraAttached Image: WPL-_DSF6769-bewerkt-1.JPGAttached Image: WPL-_DSF6793-bewerkt-2-bewerkt-1.JPG

#2 Alex H

    Oleksandr Holovachov

  • Members
  • 651 posts
  • Location: Sweden

Posted 28 June 2017 - 20:30

58mm Helios lenses, especially the later ones are similar to Biotar in the fact that they use similar lens design. But glass and coating are definitely different, so UV transmission of Helios lenses is likely to be different.

35mm F/2.8 Westron is not a good performer in UV. I do not know about Orestegon.

I would recommend you to look at the UV Lens Sticky for the list of lenses known to be good for UV. There is not need to spend time and money searching for "undiscovered" UV-lenses unless you have a specific requirement that can not be currently fulfilled with the lenses in the Sticky. Also, some of us here have more UV lenses than we use (me included), so if you look for some particular lens, it might be worth asking members here if they have a spare.

#3 nfoto

    Fierce Bear of the North

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 1,860 posts
  • Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted 28 June 2017 - 20:48

The f/2.8 designs tend to be much less suitable for UV work than their corresponding (and older) f/3.5 models.
Bjørn Birna Rørslett

#4 JCDowdy

    JCDowdy

  • Members
  • 1,012 posts
  • Location: Arlington, TN

Posted 28 June 2017 - 21:23

A decent T2 to Fuji X adapter and one of the UV capable lenses from the UV Lens Sticky with an underlying T-mount is a good point of entry into UV.

If you change camera bodies later you keep the lens and just get a new T2 adapter.

#5 Øivind Tøien

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts
  • Location: Fairbanks, Alaska

Posted 29 June 2017 - 07:36

Technicalities aside, the first one is a lovely portrait, just made more charming by the UV rendition.
The background in the second one is a bit distracting at the upper right.
Øivind

#6 DeerCrow

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts
  • Location: The Netherlands

Posted 29 June 2017 - 10:52

View Postnfoto, on 28 June 2017 - 20:48, said:

The f/2.8 designs tend to be much less suitable for UV work than their corresponding (and older) f/3.5 models.

Can you explain that to me? Is the difference the result of the larger aperture or is it the age of the lens (different coating/different glass in older models?)
I am a sucker for shallow DOF en bokeh so that is why I first started looking for lenses on the STICKY that I would normaly consider

#7 DeerCrow

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts
  • Location: The Netherlands

Posted 29 June 2017 - 10:55

View PostØivind Tøien, on 29 June 2017 - 07:36, said:

Technicalities aside, the first one is a lovely portrait, just made more charming by the UV rendition.
The background in the second one is a bit distracting at the upper right.

Thanks! I didn't really overthink these two shots...I got the package from Baader Planetarium, screwed it on as fast as I could and dragged my daughter and dad into the backyard, haha!! They were complaining about coffee getting cold and all I wanted was to see if my camera could go with me on this UV journey! ;D

#8 DeerCrow

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts
  • Location: The Netherlands

Posted 29 June 2017 - 11:04

View PostAlex H, on 28 June 2017 - 20:30, said:

58mm Helios lenses, especially the later ones are similar to Biotar in the fact that they use similar lens design. But glass and coating are definitely different, so UV transmission of Helios lenses is likely to be different.

35mm F/2.8 Westron is not a good performer in UV. I do not know about Orestegon.

I would recommend you to look at the UV Lens Sticky for the list of lenses known to be good for UV. There is not need to spend time and money searching for "undiscovered" UV-lenses unless you have a specific requirement that can not be currently fulfilled with the lenses in the Sticky. Also, some of us here have more UV lenses than we use (me included), so if you look for some particular lens, it might be worth asking members here if they have a spare.

Pitty about the Westron, although it is on the Lens-STICKY. I started from that list and selected lenses I would normally feel attracted to so that's why I ended op with the two I mentioned, because of the larger apertures and classic reputation, bokeh etc. Anyway, I will look further into the Meyer Optik then!

I am happy you gave me a good reason to chase after that Biotar now! (my Non Hodgkin could be cured, but my GAS-syndrome is more difficult to treat it seems, haha!)

#9 A.S.

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Location: Germany

Posted 29 June 2017 - 16:41

I like the first portrait of your daughter!
How long was your exposure time?

I am sure that Meyer Optik 2.8/29 Orestegon is not good for UV, because our lens list suggests UV transmission only down to 375nm which is to long using Baader-U filter.
In my opinion the Helios 2.0/58mm lens should be clearly better than 2.8/29 Orestegon.


You should look to 3.5/35mm lenses. There are some very good old Soligor clones, see the web page from Enrico Savazzi:
http://www.savazzi.n...phy/35mmuv.html

It is also easy to find Ennalyt 3.5/35mm (clone) on Ebay for about 40€ in good condition. The Soligor 3.5/35mm is slightly better in UV transmission than Ennalyt 3.5/35mm, however the Ennalyt has short minimum focus distance and the old Soligors are more difficult to find.
In both cases it is a good idea to use apertures of about 8. Aperture 3.5 produces soft images.

Edited by A.S., 29 June 2017 - 16:43.


#10 Alex H

    Oleksandr Holovachov

  • Members
  • 651 posts
  • Location: Sweden

Posted 29 June 2017 - 16:44

If you want good subject separation and shallow (relatively) DOF, look into Enna 135mm F/2.8 lens.

In short, lenses with larger aperture require 1) bigger and thicker lens elements to pass more light and 2) more lens elements or elements made from glass with high refractive index or both to correct for aberrations. All these factors have negative effect on UV transmission.

#11 DeerCrow

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts
  • Location: The Netherlands

Posted 30 June 2017 - 19:34

View PostAlex H, on 29 June 2017 - 16:44, said:

If you want good subject separation and shallow (relatively) DOF, look into Enna 135mm F/2.8 lens.

In short, lenses with larger aperture require 1) bigger and thicker lens elements to pass more light and 2) more lens elements or elements made from glass with high refractive index or both to correct for aberrations. All these factors have negative effect on UV transmission.

Ok...thanks for explaining that! I am more 'artsy' then 'technical' but eager to learn! I will look into that Enna you mentioned!

#12 DeerCrow

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts
  • Location: The Netherlands

Posted 30 June 2017 - 20:04

View PostA.S., on 29 June 2017 - 16:41, said:

I like the first portrait of your daughter!
How long was your exposure time?

I am sure that Meyer Optik 2.8/29 Orestegon is not good for UV, because our lens list suggests UV transmission only down to 375nm which is to long using Baader-U filter.
In my opinion the Helios 2.0/58mm lens should be clearly better than 2.8/29 Orestegon.


You should look to 3.5/35mm lenses. There are some very good old Soligor clones, see the web page from Enrico Savazzi:
http://www.savazzi.n...phy/35mmuv.html

It is also easy to find Ennalyt 3.5/35mm (clone) on Ebay for about 40€ in good condition. The Soligor 3.5/35mm is slightly better in UV transmission than Ennalyt 3.5/35mm, however the Ennalyt has short minimum focus distance and the old Soligors are more difficult to find.
In both cases it is a good idea to use apertures of about 8. Aperture 3.5 produces soft images.

Hi there! The portrait of my daughter was handheld in a hurry at 1/60s.
I will do some 35mm exploring over the weekend, thanks for the tips!

I have interpreted the transmission-number in the sticky all wrong it seems...I thought the number was the transmission peak within UV, but in fact it is the shortest transmitted wavelength, is that right? So 375 means light is transmitted starting from 375nm?

It is very clear I have A LOT to learn yet!

#13 Alex H

    Oleksandr Holovachov

  • Members
  • 651 posts
  • Location: Sweden

Posted 01 July 2017 - 08:02

View PostDeerCrow, on 30 June 2017 - 19:34, said:

Ok...thanks for explaining that! I am more 'artsy' then 'technical' but eager to learn! I will look into that Enna you mentioned!

Look for the lens like this: http://www.ultraviol...lens-dissection
With all.metal barrel. Focusing and aperture rings can be with wider ridges.

#14 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 5,094 posts
  • Location: USA

Posted 01 July 2017 - 15:36

I just wanted to stop by and say that I'm enjoying your posted UV portraits and quite like their interesting conversions to mimic a wetplate look. Very cool!! I got interested in UV photography initially from a botanical point of view, so I've never done much portraiture in UV -- or in Visible either. Seeing the beautiful portrait work of our member Don Pilou and others has always been fascinating because I know so little about making a good portrait.

*****

You are using a BaaderU filter which has a transmission peak at 365 nm. So you will want to try to find a lens which can transmit something starting from about 350 - 360 nm, at least. If you use the BaaderU with a lens transmitting from 375nm, you will certainly capture a UV photo. However, the problem is that the exposure time will be long at a low ISO. Or the ISO will need to be set very high, thus inducing digital noise. The good part is, while you take some time to figure out the best lens, you can still be practicing and working in UV under the time or ISO constraint.

Another filter to consider is the StraightEdgeU which has a transmission peak around 380 nm. This filter works better with lenses transmitting from 370 nm onward. And the range 370-400 nm is certainly enough to capture good UV portraiture. One does not really have to "go deep" into the UV to make a UV photograph. All you need to do is get nicely under 400 nm by 15-30 nm. Of course, opinions may vary on that statement! But the proof is in the photo.

A question about your Fuji camera: has that Fuji been converted to have the internal UV/IR-blocking filter removed? We have found so far that converted Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus and Sony cameras are all excellent for UV. Bjørn and I have used older converted Fuji models quite successfully for UV. But for the newer Fuji XT models, I have no knowledge about their UV performance. I certainly have no reason to expect its sensor to behave any differently than the others. And your first photos prove that. Nevertheless, it is important to convert the camera for the best performance in UV work.

********

Helpful hint for testing a camera+lens+filter combination for UV worthiness: photograph Sunflowers, Dandelions or Rudbeckia.
A Sunflower shoot-out in UV

Those three flowers have a well-known dark central "bull's-eye" pattern. If you can capture that pattern with your gear when shooting in good sunlight and if the pattern appears nicely dark as compared to the surrounding brighter UV-reflective areas of the petals, then your combination of gear works well for basic UV photography.
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#15 DeerCrow

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts
  • Location: The Netherlands

Posted 03 July 2017 - 13:16

View PostAndrea B., on 01 July 2017 - 15:36, said:

I just wanted to stop by and say that I'm enjoying your posted UV portraits and quite like their interesting conversions to mimic a wetplate look. Very cool!! I got interested in UV photography initially from a botanical point of view, so I've never done much portraiture in UV -- or in Visible either. Seeing the beautiful portrait work of our member Don Pilou and others has always been fascinating because I know so little about making a good portrait.

*****

You are using a BaaderU filter which has a transmission peak at 365 nm. So you will want to try to find a lens which can transmit something starting from about 350 - 360 nm, at least. If you use the BaaderU with a lens transmitting from 375nm, you will certainly capture a UV photo. However, the problem is that the exposure time will be long at a low ISO. Or the ISO will need to be set very high, thus inducing digital noise. The good part is, while you take some time to figure out the best lens, you can still be practicing and working in UV under the time or ISO constraint.

Another filter to consider is the StraightEdgeU which has a transmission peak around 380 nm. This filter works better with lenses transmitting from 370 nm onward. And the range 370-400 nm is certainly enough to capture good UV portraiture. One does not really have to "go deep" into the UV to make a UV photograph. All you need to do is get nicely under 400 nm by 15-30 nm. Of course, opinions may vary on that statement! But the proof is in the photo.

A question about your Fuji camera: has that Fuji been converted to have the internal UV/IR-blocking filter removed? We have found so far that converted Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus and Sony cameras are all excellent for UV. Bjørn and I have used older converted Fuji models quite successfully for UV. But for the newer Fuji XT models, I have no knowledge about their UV performance. I certainly have no reason to expect its sensor to behave any differently than the others. And your first photos prove that. Nevertheless, it is important to convert the camera for the best performance in UV work.

********

Helpful hint for testing a camera+lens+filter combination for UV worthiness: photograph Sunflowers, Dandelions or Rudbeckia.
A Sunflower shoot-out in UV

Those three flowers have a well-known dark central "bull's-eye" pattern. If you can capture that pattern with your gear when shooting in good sunlight and if the pattern appears nicely dark as compared to the surrounding brighter UV-reflective areas of the petals, then your combination of gear works well for basic UV photography.

Thanks Andrea for your reply and various tips! I had my Fuji XT-1 converted to full spectrum, all internal filters are out. The camera performs briliantly in infrared and I am starting to hope for a similar performance in UV. Yesterday I tested the Baader-Helios combination in bright sunlight and that was just fine. ISO down to 1600, shutterspeed up to 1/100s. In fact I added some grain in post-production to get that vintage look because they came out to clean.

However, Fuji announced a new sensor, which in itself will only be sensitive to the visible spectrum and require no more internal filters...I guess all this 'improvement' will make UV and/or IR photography even more difficult to do in the near future.

I will continue searching for a better UV-capable portrait-lens and a nice wide-angle. As soon as I can get a hold of an S8612 in the right filtersize I can combine that with a blue shortpass filter I already own (SP510/midopt). That stack will give me more or less the same sensitivity as silver nitrate. To be continued!

I plan to do a test with one of the flowers you mentioned this week! Excited already!

I will take this journey one step at a time. Many questions come up, e.g. about indoor shooting, flashes etc. But I will save those for later and only bother you and Don Pilou when I am ready to digest the answers! Have a nice day!

#16 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 5,094 posts
  • Location: USA

Posted 03 July 2017 - 16:48

It's never a bother to ask questions on a forum because everyone benefits from the exchange. We are all always learning.

I'm happy you are enjoying this new pursuit. :D
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.