Mystery Lens vs EL-Nikkor 80/5.6 [metal]

[SteveCampbell]

Not a match for resolution, but a curiosity none the less...

 

Shot seconds apart on a 5D mark II with UG-11 + BG-40. Focused on roof tiling.

 

EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6 @ f/5.6, 1/15th

 

Mystery Lens @ 80mm, f/2.8, 1/60th

 

Full Image EL-Nikkor 5.6/80

 

Full Image Mystery Lens

[Cadmium]

Mystery mystery... the crowd begins to murmur.

[Jim Lloyd]

I find with my el Nikkor 80 (old metal style) I tend to get a lot of haze, rather like what you have. I am never sure if this is just a consequence if it’s good uv transmission or something else. I tend to get improvements if I made a long shield to shade the lens from any indirect light hitting the lens. It seems a particular issue for landscape where there is bright sky above. I don’t get this effect as much with other lenses that also have quite good uv transmission (35 mm f/3.5 optimax for e.g) - any thoughts on that anyone ?

[dabateman]

Based on your @80mm comment, I am guessing a zoom. Also the image looks like either the sun came out or that it is a stop faster than the excellent EL80. So my guess is a Sigma zoom.

 

@Jim,

The haze is due to scattering of uv light. A telephoto will also pick this up more due to the angle of light entering the camera. That is the field of view is much narrower.

In normal 400-700, you can also see this effect at extreme telephoto. Just look at the sample video of the new Nikon p1000 camera. You can see haze due to heat, and other atmospheric dispersion. I don't think I explained that well, but hopefully you get the idea.

[Andrea B.]

That overall hazy look is veiling flare caused by shooting into the light either directly or at an angle. Veiling flare in some lenses is aided by stopping down. As an example, the old manual Nikon 50/1.2 has veiling flare @ f/1.2 which disappears by stopping down. And of course a lens hood can also help. Some lenses are more prone to veiliing flare than others.

 

Veiling flare has nothing to do with UV. It can happen with any light.

 

Veiling flare is not the same thing as the haze caused by scattering when shooting over long distances. Veiling happens because light enters the lens at an angle to the lens axis [Preceding sentenced corrected for clarity. I hope.] and it reflects between the glass elements. Sometimes using a filter over a lens exacerbates the problem because it is another layer of glass. Using a stacked filter requires using a lens hood. But lens hoods should be used always, IMHO.

 

 

The diagonal line of oval or round "blobs" of flare when shooting towards the light probably also have a name, but those are what I know as "flare" as opposed to "veiling flare".

 

 

You are looking at a path which goes uphill just off my deck. There are some steps defined by pieces of wood. No edits have been made.

On the left is an example of veiling flare in my EL-80/5.6 (metal).

On the right is the same view when a lens hood is used on the EL.

D610 + EL-Nikkor 80/5.6 + SEU Gen2 + Sun

 

Done 2018.07.28 09:14 EDT

[Andrea B.]

Found a reference for you: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm

[Andrea B.]

In Steve's photos above, the EL-80 seems to reveal details better in spite of the veiling flare. But there is quite a lot of color noise in both photos which gets in the way a bit when looking at details. And of course we cannot judge sharpness based on one photo because we don't know if there might have been a little vibration or slight variation in focus point.

Still 1/60" at f/2.8 is really fast.

[Jim Lloyd]

Thanks Andrea - I guess the EL will be susceptible to flare as we are using them in a way they were not designed for.

[Andrea B.]

Do you have lens hoods?

[SteveCampbell]

- I can repeat the photos under different conditions with hoods, but the contrast difference was representative

- ISO was 6400 which explains the noise

- Lighting conditions were identical (no sun difference)

- I took multiple photos, switching the lenses several times - the 2 stop exposure difference was very consistent at 2.8 vs 5.6, and the sharpness representative (focussed at 10x liveview on a tripod with 2-second shutter delay)

- @80 was to not give anything away ;) I'm convinced that someone is still going to be able to figure it out however

[Jim Lloyd]

Do you have lens hoods?

 

Not sure if that was a question to me or Steve, but I have a hood which is for a 28mm lens and I guess I should get something more suitable for a longer focal length. I have found that a makeshift extension to the hood using card helps

[OlDoinyo]

Veiling can also be due to fluorescence in the optical train, which topic has been discussed elsewhere on this forum. In SLR cameras, light leaking in from the viewfinder can also be a problem if the viewfinder is not covered during shooting.

 

If the mystery lens is a zoom, it has surprising bandpass for such.

[Andrea B.]

The viewfinder leaks and top LCD leaks which I have seen do not typically cover the entire frame as does the kind of lens veiling flare shown above. Of course flare does not care to conform to our expectations of what it looks like. :D

[Andrea B.]

Steve, is the mystery lens a Tamron of some type ?? I really have no idea what this could be.

[SteveCampbell]

Steve, is the mystery lens a Tamron of some type ?? I really have no idea what this could be.

 

Nope!

 

Hint: not a zoom

[JMC]

Medium format, Zeiss 80mm f2.8, or something similar?

[SteveCampbell]

Medium format, Zeiss 80mm f2.8, or something similar?

 

Nope! More glass = worse transmittance

On an unrelated note, I did indeed recently buy an 80mm biometar

[Jim Lloyd]

Meopta cinema lens ?

[SteveCampbell]

Meopta cinema lens ?

 

Ah, I like the lateral thinking, you're on the right track

[dabateman]

Well I have the pentacon 6 80mm f2.8 and it is not better than the EL80.

I am not sure if its the Hasselblad Zeiss 80mm f2.8, that one has 4 elements in 3 groups.

But you did say not a medium format lens.

 

The Nikon Af 80mm f2.8 is old, but 6 elements in 4 groups, I wouldn't expect it to do well.

 

Those are all the 80mm lenses I know. Its an odd focal length.

[OlDoinyo]

A cinema lens such as Kern or Angenieux for a 35mm movie camera?

[dabateman]

I think I got it. You say @80mm and you're using a Canon. So its actually a 50mm lens and your in the Dx mode. 50 x 1.6 is 80mm.

So did you buy a Steinheil 50mm f2.8?

 

Oddly I just fixed the aperture on my Steinheil Munchen EDIXA 50mm f2.8 in M42 mount today. I set the internal focus off and will need to readjust it. It has two pins inside for the 80cm stop and the infinity stop. But the lens can actually focus much much closer than 80cm. Once I figure out the correct slot, I may remove the second pin for closer focusing.

[SteveCampbell]

Well I have the pentacon 6 80mm f2.8 and it is not better than the EL80.

I am not sure if its the Hasselblad Zeiss 80mm f2.8, that one has 4 elements in 3 groups.

But you did say not a medium format lens.

 

The Nikon Af 80mm f2.8 is old, but 6 elements in 4 groups, I wouldn't expect it to do well.

 

Those are all the 80mm lenses I know. Its an odd focal length.

 

Nope, more lateral...

 

Out of curiosity, how did the Pentagon 6 2.8/80 fare in UV? Anywhere near usable?

[SteveCampbell]

I think I got it. You say @80mm and you're using a Canon. So its actually a 50mm lens and your in the Dx mode. 50 x 1.6 is 80mm.

So did you buy a Steinheil 50mm f2.8?

 

Oddly I just fixed the aperture on my Steinheil Munchen EDIXA 50mm f2.8 in M42 mount today. I set the internal focus off and will need to readjust it. It has two pins inside for the 80cm stop and the infinity stop. But the lens can actually focus much much closer than 80cm. Once I figure out the correct slot, I may remove the second pin for closer focusing.

 

Nope, 5Dmk2 is a FF camera, and using a crop-factor conversion doesn't represent the true focal length! The Steinheil 2.8/50 is great, however

[SteveCampbell]

A cinema lens such as Kern or Angenieux for a 35mm movie camera?

 

Afraid not! They tend to have many elements, with aggressive coatings and cemented elements - all of which are bad for UV