Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Novoflex, any experience with other lenses than Noflexar 35mm?


ulf

Recommended Posts

The Novoflex Noflexar 35mm lens is considered to be a good lens for UV-photography, except for its leakage-quirks when it is extended.

 

A while ago I realised that Novoflex have had several bellows-lens heads intended for macro.

I made some brief research to find out more.

The lenses I found some information about on the net are:

 

Novoflex Staeble-Katagon 4.0 / 60mm M39

Novoflex Macro Noflexar 1:4/60mm M39

 

Novoflex-Memmingen Noflexar 1:3,5 / 105mm - M39

Novoflex Noflexar 1:4 / 105mm - M39

Novoflex Noflexar 1:4 / 105 Automatic - M39

Novoflex Schneider Xenar 1:3.5 / 105mm - M39

Novoflex Schneider Xenar 1:4.5 / 105mm - M39

 

Novoflex Noflexar 1:4.5 / 135 - M39

Novoflex Noflexar 1:4.5 / 135 Automatic - M39

Novoflex Schneider Xenar 1:4.5 / 135

 

Novoflex Schneider Xenar 1:4.5 / 150

 

Beside these macro bellows lenses Novoflex had their Schnellschuss tele lenses

I think there were a 5.6/400mm and a 8/600mm T-Noflexar lens head for the focussing grip.

The Schnellschuss lenses existed in several different versions over the time designated with capital letters A - D.

 

It would be interesting to findout if any of these lenses are good performers and might be usable for UV-photography.

Do anyone here have experience with any of these lenses?

Link to comment

In my simple tests below I previously noted the triplet enlarger lens Schneider Componar 4.5/135 had excellent performance, apparently on par with the Steinheil 2.8/50 and EL-Nikkor 5.6/80. I don't know the full relationship between Schneider and Noflexar, but figured it might be relevant.

 

http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/2954-approx-uv-transmittance-of-17-ununderdocumented-lenses-rough-estimates/page__fromsearch__1

Link to comment
The Novoflex 60 mm f/4 is not very good for UV. The lens heads (280/5.6, 400/5.6, 640/8) basically comprise a cemented doublet in front and I have severe doubts as to their UV performance. Might be worth a try, though, if one has access to these items. (do note they are *not* telephoto designs, but long focal length lenses).
Link to comment

The Novoflex 60 mm f/4 is not very good for UV. The lens heads (280/5.6, 400/5.6, 640/8) basically comprise a cemented doublet in front and I have severe doubts as to their UV performance. Might be worth a try, though, if one has access to these items. (do note they are *not* telephoto designs, but long focal length lenses).

 

I have seen several versions of the Novoflex 60 mm f/4 on eBay.

Some look like the older Novoflex Staeble-Katagon 4.0 / 60mm, some like a more modern lens.

They might be of different optical design and with different coatings.

https://www.ebay.com...P8AAOSwRdta4cti

https://www.ebay.com...BkAAOSwzYpbBybH

 

 

In what aspect is the one you refer to not good for UV?

Was it an older or newer type?

Link to comment

I have two different kinds, old and new. None too good.

 

I'm curious. Please let me know more if you can.

 

Are they similar to the ones in the ebay links above?

Was it recently you tested them?

Are they "None too good" compared to some other lens? If so what lens did you compare with.

Was the problem bad UV transmission, sharpness, focus-shift, difficulty of adapting and reaching infinity on a Nikon camera, some or all problems at the same time?

Link to comment

I used them on a Novoflex bellows. So they did focus to infinity if memory serves. In fact, the item I purchased was the bellows (with separate focusing rail incorporated) and the lenses just followed with it. After a quick test, the lenses were put aside and as I have moved since then, I'm not actually certain where they are located at present. Not that it matters much as I have the superior Coastal 60/4.

 

They did look like the eBay samples you linked to, expect for both being M39 thread.

Link to comment

Thank you very much for the additional information.

As your test was quick it might be meaningful to to investigate a bit more about these lenses and the other variants.

 

I am mainly interested in finding out if these lenses also are usable as accidental UV-lenses, working as low budget alternatives.

They are not that expensive.

 

I'm already reasonably content with the results from my EL-Nikkor 80mm and 105mm, metal and my Focotars.

 

Specialised UV-lenses like the Coastal 60/4 and UV-Nikkor 105 are without any doubt superior, but they also come with a slightly different price tag.

They are a bit outside my budget. :(

Link to comment
I asked a similar question some time ago. I have both the Novoflex Noflexar M39 1:4.5 / 135 Automatic and 1:4 / 105 Automatic. My primary recollection is that of considerable color fringing so I did not explore in much more detail. However, that was noted focusing at a building ~100 meters distant. Perhaps as bellows (presumably macro) lenses they should perform better close up.
Link to comment

Thank you John for your input!

 

I have now gotten some samples of a few of these lenses and so far have measured their UV-transmission in my spectrometer-setup.

The transmission graphs seams very similar to the one from my Noflexar 35mm.

 

Next step would be to design a suitable test procedure for the lenses in a reasonable close-up distance similar to normal flower photography.

Normal lens test targets are too big for that.

 

Any suggestions for suitable alternatives?

Link to comment

The X-Rite ColorChecker Passport along with some of the small Labsphere Spectralon targets is a good combination.

Throw in a botanical specimen of known UV rendering if available and you have a good basis for comparison to other work on this forum. See Fig 3 & 5

Link to comment

The X-Rite ColorChecker Passport along with some of the small Labsphere Spectralon targets is a good combination.

Throw in a botanical specimen of known UV rendering if available and you have a good basis for comparison to other work on this forum. See Fig 3 & 5

All these objects are for indirect checking the image result of the transmission variations.

I think I have that aspect better covered by direct spectrometric measurements.

I have a setup for testing focus shift that work well already.

 

What I was looking for was traditional test targets for resolution, distortion fringing and possibly MTF., but in miniature size, suited for a close-up photo situation.

Something between microscope resolution targets and standard lens test targets that could be home made by printing them with a good printer.

There are several well designed test pattern files available on the web.

I will look for some higher resolution printing source to print some small sharp test targets.

Link to comment
Noflexar 35 mm was made by Staeble, other lenses sold by Novoflex were made by other manufacturers, including Schneider-Kreuznach. So, taking into consideration (1) different manufacturer, and (2) different optical design, I would not expect them all to perform similarly. There are many proven UV-capable lenses in the 35mm-135mm range already identified. Is there any special reason why you look for new ones?
Link to comment

Noflexar 35 mm was made by Staeble, other lenses sold by Novoflex were made by other manufacturers, including Schneider-Kreuznach. So, taking into consideration (1) different manufacturer, and (2) different optical design, I would not expect them all to perform similarly. There are many proven UV-capable lenses in the 35mm-135mm range already identified. Is there any special reason why you look for new ones?

 

I fully agree with your two arguments and will be very surprised if I find a similar performance for all parameters in these very different lenses.

All lens designs are unique and will without doubt have different optical behaviours.

 

I have not measured anything except transmission so far, for some of the lenses in my list above.

So far most of them look promising regarding the UV-range and surprisingly similar transmission compared to the Noflexar 35mm

I have only bought some of the ones on my list above.

 

Curiosity, just curiosity and a bit of the lens collection bug was the reason to look for new lenses.

The ones I have bought were not very expensive.

 

From my experience with my Schnellshuß T-noflexar 400/5,6, some of the lenses from Novoflex are performing very well indeed, at least in VIS.

 

The Noflexar 35mm was accepted as an OK lens for UV here, until the race for even shorter wavelengths cut-off started among people searching for the extreme UV-limit for our sensors.

I am however not impressed with the optical performance of my four different "Kuri-Clones" branded Soligor and Prinz Galaxy, even if they all transmit very deeply into UV, just as the Kuri.

 

I hope to find some new lenses suitable for UV with good optical performance in other aspects too.

Such finds might help other members with more new alternatives if I have success in my quest.

 

Over time, proven UV-capable lenses tend to be more and more rare.

It is nowadays very rare to see a real Kuribayashi 35/3,5 on eBay.

IMHO new additions to the list of UV-capable lenses are needed.

 

I already have what I need of good accidental UV-lenses.

Link to comment

I am however not impressed with the optical performance of my four different "Kuri-Clones" branded Soligor and Prinz Galaxy, even if they all transmit very deeply into UV, just as the Kuri.

 

That is because not every "Kuri-Clone" is really optically identical to "the Kuri"

Link to comment

I spent my share searching for UV-capable lenses. In the end, it would have been cheaper to buy UV-Nikkor outright. I still have a bunch of Kyoei/Kuribayashi 35mm lenses (original and clones) sitting collecting dust and spider webs.

But if you want to spend your time searching and testing, I would not advise focusing on the manufacturers. Learning basic lens design and optical requirements of different lens types will make your search much more efficient and less costly. And more interesting for technically-oriented person.

Link to comment

I spent my share searching for UV-capable lenses.

Then you too have had some fun doing this type of searching. I hope you do not deny me that. ;)

 

I still have a bunch of Kyoei/Kuribayashi 35mm lenses (original and clones) sitting collecting dust and spider webs.

This is one reason for the need of finding new alternatives.

I have not ever had access to one of those lenses as they are already absorbed by other collecting UV enthusiasts.

I stopped searching after one year without success as, this lens type anyhow doesn't really fit my typical close-up photography style.

If I found a Kuri, after testing it, it too would be sitting collecting dust and spider webs instead of being available for someone to actually use it.

 

I would not advise focusing on the manufacturers. Learning basic lens design and optical requirements of different lens types will make your search much more efficient and less costly.

I am not only focussing on manufacturers, even if that sometimes might be good for general optical quality.

I already quite well understand the impact on UV-transmission of coatings, lens cement, number of elements/glas surfaces, glass types and thicknesses.

 

The main problem is that the older lenses very rarely have their designs published.

Information about details like actual lens thicknesses in a lens-design and glass types used is quite difficult to obtain.

I wouldn't dream of searching among fast lenses as there often is a lot of glass in them, but that can also be the case with slower ones.

Please compare the optical buildup of Canon FL 100/3.5 and 135/3.5 a bit down on this site: https://www.mir.com....enses/index.htm

 

And more interesting for technically-oriented person.

How can anything be more interesting for a technically oriented person like me, than to design proper measurement setups, understanding their limitations and then interpret what is meaningful in the results from the measurements. :) :) :)

 

That is where I get my kicks in this, not the searching itself.

If I find something useful, it will only be a bi-product from my testing.

Link to comment

I have not ever had access to one of those lenses as they are already absorbed by other collecting UV enthusiasts.

I stopped searching after one year without success as, this lens type anyhow doesn't really fit my typical close-up photography style.

If I found a Kuri, after testing it, it too would be sitting collecting dust and spider webs instead of being available for someone to actually use it.

 

Please do not add me to the list of collectors, as I am not trying to collect UV-capable lenses, but rather the opposite - get rid of all that I do not use.

I deeply regret buying all the Kyoei/Kuri, original and re-branded, except for the very first one that I use. So if you want any - let me know.

 

In my opinion, knowing the exact purpose of the lens is more informative than knowing its optical design when trying to deduce its UV-potential, especially if one wonders into the area of non-photographic optics.

Link to comment

I am very happy with my Kuribayashi 35mm. It is the best UV lens I have. The Kyoei is the same lens, works the same.

I have not found any affordable lens that works better for me in UV.

I don't have a UV-Nikkor, prices on those seem to have sky rocketed, I see 3 on eBay at the moment, all are 5 grand or more, one is 7 grand.

I should have one.

Given the focal length difference between 35mm and 105mm, that might be one reason to own both, if you can afford both, especially if you are lucky to find a Kuri/Kyoei.

The Kuri/Kyoei 35mm seem harder to find these days, so you might want to grab a Kuri/Kyoei that Alex is willing to part with.

It is hard for me to say what actual day to day difference I would find between the Kuri and the UV-Nikkor, aside form focal length.

I know the UV-Nikkor would transmit lower, and would have a flatter UV transmission in the UVA range of my usual UV pass filters, which I might expect could decrease exposure time slightly.

The UV-Nikkor would also help with lower transmitting UV filters, such as 300nm- to 350nm range, basically a UVB+UVA mixed range,

however, I have not seen any of this demonstrated. I would really like to see someone compare those two lenses for transmission using usual UV pass filters.

 

...and don't get mixed up with the two versions of the Kyoei 35/3.5 lenses.

Here again is my visual comparison, Kyoei at the left doesn't transmit UV well, the two in the middle do, and the Petri breach-lock mount does also, but isn't exactly the same mechanical build, and not my favorite to adapt, especially to a Nikon, but might be easier to find.

 

post-87-0-65203100-1538199915.jpg

 

post-87-0-74303600-1538199954.jpg

 

...And please let me know if you see some UV-Nikkor that is more in my price range. ;)

Link to comment

Kyoei pronunciation

 

KEY OH A

 

Not "Ky Oh E I"

(thanks to Bob for that info)

Of course, I never actually 'talk' to anyone about this stuff, I just type it... but just in case... :D

Link to comment
  • 3 years later...
enricosavazzi
On 10/1/2018 at 10:13 PM, Cadmium said:

Kyoei pronunciation

 

KEY OH A

 

Not "Ky Oh E I"

(thanks to Bob for that info)

Of course, I never actually 'talk' to anyone about this stuff, I just type it... but just in case... :D

Perhaps in some English-speaking countries, but not in Japan. きょえい is just pronounced kyo (like the second syllabe in "Tokyo") + ei (like the first syllabe in "either" - although "either" can be pronounced in at least three different ways according to different English speakers). Most Europeans would agree that Kyoei is just pronounced the same way it is written.

 

I have not been able to find a reliable Japanese (kanji) spelling of this particular Kyoei company name. Multiple Kyoei companies exist (with multiple kanji spellings of the name), but I could find none making optics. Without the original kanji spelling one cannot really translate the meaning of the name. The Japanese language is plagued by/blessed with thousands of homophones (words that mean different things and are written differently in kanji, but are pronounced in the same way).

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...