Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Coastal Optics 105mm f4.5 UV-Micro-APO


JMC

Recommended Posts

Coastal Optics 105mm f4.5 UV-Micro-APO

 

Aperture: 4.5/5.6/8/11/16/22/32

Elements: 6 elements, 5 groups

Mount: Nikon F

Filter: 52mm diameter

Spectral range: 250-650mm (but I think this is just the range for APO correction, will test later).

 

This turned up today, so thought I would share with the group. First impressions have been tainted by the mount - it's a sloppy fit when compared to the Rayfact 105mm and other normal Nikon lenses. Not sure whether this is normal for these, as there aren't that many about to compare, but it doesn't look obviously damaged or modified. I get the feeling it is just not made to as a tight a tolerance as the Nikon ones, and will definitely need addressing.

 

Anyway, aside from the mount I look forward to comparing it with the 105mm Rayfact at some point.

 

post-148-0-76138500-1534591047.jpg

 

post-148-0-91835900-1534591065.jpg

 

post-148-0-95736200-1534591073.jpg

 

post-148-0-47926200-1534591125.jpg

Link to comment

Strange that the lens is specified as 105mm f/4, while the aperture scale on the barrel ends at f/4.5 ???

 

The mount looks OK but hard to tell if they have used original parts here. My 60 mm f/4 APO mounts very securely on my Nikons, though, so having a sloppy 105 comes as a surprise.

 

Like Bob, I'll look eagerly forward to pictures taken with the lens. Having several UV-Nikkors myself, I probably refrain from getting this coastal 105 though.

Link to comment
A Stranger In The Wind

Look forward to it. A few years back I considered getting one but having the UV-Nikkor it seemed mute at the time.

 

I found the same issue with a LensBaby Velvet 56mm. Wanted to buy it in Nikon mount and use my F-EF adapters all which are tight with all my F mounts for mounting on a Canon but the mount on the Velvet had a little play so I opted for the EF mount instead.

Link to comment
enricosavazzi

I thought the Rayfact was the same lens?

No, it is different in every respect except the general specifications. The Nikon Rayfact 105 mm and the CoastalOpt 105 mm are designed and produced by different companies.

 

Coming to the Coastal Opt. marking at the front of this specimen, the Jenoptik web site at https://www.jenoptik...bjective-lenses shows this lens (correctly rated at f/4.5 by the way) in a completely black barrel. The PDF catalog at the same link shows the same picture in better detail, showing the lens without "Coastal Opt." marking at the front (though it might have been photoshopped away). The other two multispectral lenses are clearly engraved "Jenoptik" (Jenoptik purchased CoastalOpt several years ago). The PDF data sheet at the same link shows a different picture of the lens in black, this one with a label that may say "Coastal Opt." where the same label sits in JMC's specimen.

 

The white and light-blue version was the original one produced by CoastalOpt and illustrated on the original CoastalOpt web site and literature (I remember it well). Unless the black version was only created for illustration purposes but never marketed, JMC's specimen may be one of those produced before Jenoptik purchased CoastalOpt or slightly afterwards. JMC, did you purchase this lens second-hand from a previous owner, or supposedly new directly from Jenoptik? If it is a very early specimen, it might explain why the bayonet does not fit well. My CoastalOpt 60 mm fits perfectly on Nikon bodies. If your specimen comes directly from Jenoptik, it is old-stock inherited from CoastalOpt (albeit it might have been assembled from a stock of old parts after the order came in, which is what they do with e.g. the 60 mm because the lens assembly and testing is the most expensive part of production), and the lens or its parts may have been out of actual production for several years.

 

Does any of our members actually own a Jenoptik 100 mm in black barrel? (PS - Klaus actually shows one specimen of each color on his web site at http://www.macrolens...ObjektiveNr=299 . The bayonet of both specimens shows the peculiar machined-out parts between lugs that are not machined out in the CoastalOpt 60 mm in my possession, see second picture from top at http://savazzi.net/p...stalopt_60.html . This could be part of the reason why the bayonet of the 105 mm does not fit well.).

Link to comment

Enrico is correct, this is a different beast to the Rayfact and UV-Nikkor.

 

Mine was bought through eBay from someone who acquired it during a lab clearance. As fast as I know the blue/grey one I have is the first version and the new ones are all black.

 

Interestingly along with it were a few other items, including another Nikon bayonet mount for the lens, with a little label on it saying 'original'. That wasn't a brilliant fit either. The bayonet doesn't look damaged or worn, it just has too big a gap between the main face and the underside of the bayonet lugs. If I were to hazard a guess when originally bought it wasn't a great fit. Much discussion then between the person buying it and the buyer a Coastal Optics which resulted in a new mount, which still wasn't a good fit. Then it was probably used once or twice before being stuffed in a draw for a few years.

Link to comment

How about the Rayfact and UV-Nikkor? Are they related? I vaguely remember that ONE of three lenses is a renamed version of an older one but am seriously confused.

 

If this lens was a very early one, that is interesting.

Link to comment
Yes Andy, the Rayfact is essentially identical to the 105mm UV Nikkor. The UV Nikkor hasn't been made for years now, but the Rayfact is currently in production.
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...