Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Lens comparisons: El Nikkor 80mm, OD. Industries and X135


msubees

Recommended Posts

So now I finally have a Panasonic G5 converted to full spectrum, I used my 2" Baader UV pass (cutting IR and VIS) on all three lenses. But of course I had to use my hand for the two enlarger lens. On X135 it was inside a holder which flips to cover the lens.

 

All done at F8.0, same white balance (to Teflon) and same ISO (160). Exposure varied, with 1.3 sec for X135, 1.0 for EL Nikkor and 1/1.3 for ODI.

 

I used a dandelion flower. quite windy today, I placed it inside a bucket for the X135 and EL80, but for OD, it had so be about 8 " away so not inside a bucket. there might be motion blur due to wind.

 

None was processed other than cropping and leveling. No sharpening or contrast change. Shot as jpeg.

 

1. X135, 100% crop. it seems to be the sharpest...

post-41-0-52190800-1399835144.jpg

2. El Nikkor, 100%. I noticed there was considerable haze, and did not have a chance to open it to clean it yet. (always ask the seller explicitly and do not leave a good feedback until you test the lens thoroughly). the contrasts are lower than OD, so perhaps some cleaning might help?

post-41-0-08188100-1399835147.jpg

3. OD. industries 50mm F/4.5. I think I paid about $10. it goes to 2x life size! since it is so cheap, I am tempted to compare to others at less than 100%. 66.7% here.

post-41-0-59433400-1399835145.jpg

4. 100% crop. it is difficult to compare due to different magnification. Next time I have to move much further so it shows the same size on the screen before cropping.

post-41-0-79403200-1399835147.jpg

Link to comment

Sorry, you are right! it should D.O. Industries. But this lens cannot focus very far, but I believe I can use the helicoid to get 3:1 to 1:2 (2x life size), but all within 6-10". The x135 is the reverse, without the ballow lens and without the long extension tube, it wont focus close at all, everything has to be 10 m away or further.

 

It is D.O.Industries, not OD. Industries, am I right?

Link to comment

The x135 is the reverse, without the ballow lens and without the long extension tube, it wont focus close at all, everything has to be 10 m away or further.

 

Were you previously able to focus the X135 closer on you other camera?

 

What µ4/3 adapter are you using? Either an M42 to µ4/3 or a Nikon F to µ4/3 will be fairly long given the difference in the register depth, aka flange focal distance.

 

From discussions I have had with experts on the subject, for best image quality, I would omit the UV grade M42 to Nikon F focal reducer and go with a simple M42 to µ4/3 which has no optics.

Link to comment

Sorry, you are right! it should D.O. Industries. But this lens cannot focus very far, but I believe I can use the helicoid to get 3:1 to 1:2 (2x life size), but all within 6-10". The x135 is the reverse, without the ballow lens and without the long extension tube, it wont focus close at all, everything has to be 10 m away or further.

 

Thank you. I had this lens mounted deep in the focusing helicoid on Sony A100 - I could focus relatively far, probably around 2 feet, but not to infinity. But on G5 you should be able to focus it to infinity with appropriate helicoid.

Link to comment

Of course i was able to previously, when using the ballow lens. but with the relatively long tube (m42-M42), it can focus on close up subjects. Yes, I used the lens, then M39-42 adaptor, and to M42 helocoid (which also function as an extension tube), and then a M42 to G5 adapter. the photo here was taken without the UV transmitting lens.

 

 

Were you previously able to focus the X135 closer on you other camera?

 

What µ4/3 adapter are you using? Either an M42 to µ4/3 or a Nikon F to µ4/3 will be fairly long given the difference in the register depth, aka flange focal distance.

 

From discussions I have had with experts on the subject, for best image quality, I would omit the UV grade M42 to Nikon F focal reducer and go with a simple M42 to µ4/3 which has no optics.

Link to comment

so I would have to use a very short adapter. I will try without the long extension tube and see if it can focus further. it should be.

 

Thank you. I had this lens mounted deep in the focusing helicoid on Sony A100 - I could focus relatively far, probably around 2 feet, but not to infinity. But on G5 you should be able to focus it to infinity with appropriate helicoid.

Link to comment

Of course i was able to previously, when using the ballow lens. but with the relatively long tube (m42-M42), it can focus on close up subjects. Yes, I used the lens, then M39-42 adaptor, and to M42 helocoid (which also function as an extension tube), and then a M42 to G5 adapter. the photo here was taken without the UV transmitting lens.

 

Wait, now I am confused.

 

When you say "..... I used the lens, then M39-42 adaptor, and to M42....." are you saying the native mount on your Tele-Ennalyt 135 mm f/2.8 is an M39?

 

It was my understanding that the lens was a native M42 mount, but you say it sports an M39-42 adapter. If the lens is a native Leica thread mount (M39x26tpi) or Canon screw mount (M39x1) it should have a register distance of 28.8mm. If it is a native Paxette mount (M39x1mm) the register distance should be 44mm.

 

I looked back at your lens dissection photos and do not see an M39-42 ring. What am I missing?

Link to comment

Sorry, I think you are right. too many adapters and I myself am confused. I think it is M42. I was perhaps thinking of El Nikon which was M39 and needed the adapter.

 

Zach

 

Wait, now I am confused.

 

When you say "..... I used the lens, then M39-42 adaptor, and to M42....." are you saying the native mount on your Tele-Ennalyt 135 mm f/2.8 is an M39?

 

It was my understanding that the lens was a native M42 mount, but you say it sports an M39-42 adapter. If the lens is a native Leica thread mount (M39x26tpi) or Canon screw mount (M39x1) it should have a register distance of 28.8mm. If it is a native Paxette mount (M39x1mm) the register distance should be 44mm.

 

I looked back at your lens dissection photos and do not see an M39-42 ring. What am I missing?

Link to comment
igoriginal

 

 

Wait, now I am confused.

 

When you say "..... I used the lens, then M39-42 adaptor, and to M42....." are you saying the native mount on your Tele-Ennalyt 135 mm f/2.8 is an M39?

 

It was my understanding that the lens was a native M42 mount, but you say it sports an M39-42 adapter. If the lens is a native Leica thread mount (M39x26tpi) or Canon screw mount (M39x1) it should have a register distance of 28.8mm. If it is a native Paxette mount (M39x1mm) the register distance should be 44mm.

 

I looked back at your lens dissection photos and do not see an M39-42 ring. What am I missing?

 

I believe that he was going back to talking about the native M39 mount of the El Nikkor 80mm, again (he referred to it as a "ballow" lens - a typo, I am sure, for the word "bellows" - although it should be referred to as an enlarger lens, since that was its original purpose, regardless of whatever else it can be pressed into doing.)

Link to comment
igoriginal

El Nikkor, 100%. I noticed there was considerable haze, and did not have a chance to open it to clean it yet. (always ask the seller explicitly and do not leave a good feedback until you test the lens thoroughly). the contrasts are lower than OD, so perhaps some cleaning might help?

 

The "loss of contrast" and "loss of sharpness" is PRECISELY due to the haze within your El Nikkor 80.

 

I know, because I own 4 copies of it. And all four are surprisingly sharp and contrasty, once they are clean on the inside.

 

Thus, you do need to open that thing up and clean out the haze on the glass, because otherwise, you are not getting the true performance of the El Nikkor 80.

 

Also, using a hood on the lens is important, too. Especially if the illumination source is not behind you, but rather not far removed from the edge of the frame.

Link to comment

I have an El Nikkor 80mm lens, plastic not chrome :D

It needs a good clean inside (fungus?).

Is there a tutorial for opening up these El Nikkor lenses & re-assembly, or is it just simple with no adjustments or traps ?

Col

Link to comment
igoriginal

I have an El Nikkor 80mm lens, plastic not chrome :D

It needs a good clean inside (fungus?).

Is there a tutorial for opening up these El Nikkor lenses & re-assembly, or is it just simple with no adjustments or traps ?

Col

 

I don't really recommend the newer version of the El Nikkor 80 (plastic) for UV photography, as it doesn't transmit as deeply into the UV-A as the older, chrome-colored base, all metal, older version. Not that the newer model is completely useless for UV, or anything. Sure, it's "useful." But the older El Nikkor seems to render a broader "color fidelity" in UV-A photography (without needing to punch up saturation in post-photo editing, to extremes). And, given its deeper UV-A transmission, the older EL Nikkor will not force one to expose as long as the newer El Nikkor, to get the same exposure results.

 

Having said that, I've never attemped to take the newer-version El Nikkor 80 apart. And since I no longer own a copy, I couldn't tell you how.

 

But ... as for the older (chrome-base) version goes ... taking it apart and cleaning each element is quite easy, painless, and requires no tools for the job (unless it is jammed shut, due to extensive "metal aging", as in corrosion). Meaning, all of it comes apart by hand. Sometimes, though, a small jeweler's flat-head may be required, though, to insert into one of the two "turning slots" (used to gain twisting leverage, if the barrel will not twist by hand) at the front of the lens, in order to get the front barrel module (where the first two elements are housed) to start to twist away from the rest of the lens's body.

 

Otherwise, quite easy and uncomplicated.

 

I can definitely put together a simple "guide" in taking the old-version El Nikkor 80mm apart. It would take all but 5 minutes of a person's time to do that. Probably one of the easiest UV-capable lenses that I know of, in terms of dismantling, cleaning, and re-assembling.

 

I know, because I have fully dismantled, cleaned out, and re-assembled three copies, to date.

Link to comment

Thanks Iggy

I was worried about lens alignment & doublets & triplets & the orientation of them.....can I get these mixed up ?

Col

Link to comment
igoriginal

Thanks Iggy

I was worried about lens alignment & doublets & triplets & the orientation of them.....can I get these mixed up ?

Col

 

The elements themselves can certainly be "accidentally" (or intentionally, for some experimentation) inserted backwards from their original and proper orientation within the optical path.

 

And, if one is not paying attention to the disassembly, then yes: One can inadvertently place an element (or more) in a backwards orientation, which can lead to any number of unexpected results ... including an unusable lens.

 

But, it is not difficult to note the proper orientation of each removeable element, as they each have a clearly identifiable "concave" and "convex" side. (Not always the case with some other elements that exist within more complex optical formulas, where the convex / concave curvatures can be more subtle and harder to distinguish sometimes, without a closer inspection).

 

At any rate, all of the elements of the El Nikkor 80 are clearly identifiable in orientation, so long as you pay attention and take note, accordingly (or trust your memory), so that your re-assembly finds you placing the elements back into the same orientation as found during of the disassembly.

 

And there aren't too many ways to "mess up" on the El Nikkor 80, since only one actual element is completely pried loose from the front module, leaving the surfaces of three elements fully reachable for cleaning. The front-most element, accessed by removing the second-from-the-front element from the rear of the twisted-out front module. And also, the element at the rear, behind the aperture mechanism, which sits all on its own.

Link to comment
igoriginal

I will try to put together a basic snap-shot / photo step-by-step guide, some time tomorrow.

 

Not sure, though, about disassembly and servicing on the newer, plastic-version El Nikkor 80 which you have, though. Let me know how that goes. I know it's not built the same as the older version, even if the optical formula itself may not be all that different.

 

(I'm guessing that the REAL difference between the older and newer models, is that the newer model which you have may have certain coatings added to some or all of the elements. Which explains the fungus growth, since fungus thrives on metabolizing lens coatings, as its "food."

 

As for fungus removal, isn't it best done with butane / lighter fluid, from what I have read?

 

I know that haze is easier to clean. Simple "Zeiss lens cleaning fluid" always works perfectly for me. Fungus, on the other hand, is a whole different beast. It can be in the earlier stages, to which removal may not be such a nightmare. Or ... in the latter stages, it can literally "eat" and "etch" right into the glass, itself! Leaving permanent trenches.

Link to comment

Thanks Iggy

If it 'is' fungus that I have, it is light & could be just a noticeable haze ?

I will use a disinfectant first on the parts & leave it for a few minutes to kill anything, then use the usual lens cleaners.

Cheers

Col

Link to comment
igoriginal

If you don't see any actual "tendrils" (which can be more easily spotted, when looking through the entire optical light path of the lens while up against a bright light source, such as an overhead room light) ... then it's probably not "advanced growth." But, then, again: "Tendrils" (small, whispy, root-like ligaments) may only be ONE type of fungal growth, for all I know.

 

Good luck with it.

Link to comment

Well if it has any "tendrils" or not, it won't have any after I finish with it :D

While it is apart, I'll look at blocking the light leak in the aperture window.

Col

Link to comment

Bjørn states that the ammonia based window cleaner Windex will kill fungus.

(Andrea wonders about the blue dye in Windex, but presumably a good lens paper will remove all Windex traces.)

 

Andrea the microbiologist notes that, indeed, not all fungus capable of contaminating a lens

has tendrils or filaments although that is the typical presentation.

We also note that sometimes haze is chemical in nature depending on the glues and glass in use.

 

For general maintenance set your lenses out in the sunlight. The UV kills incipient fungus or small bits of fungus.

However, don't forget the lenses are outside baking and do bring them indoors before the thunderstorm catches them. :D

 

It is always instructive to take apart a lens. However, success in reconstruction is not guaranteed.

 

The new 80mm EL-Nikkor shoots UV just fine if you cover the aperture windows.

Lots of myths float around the internet based on one measurement of one lens with no statements about precision or accuracy of the equipment involved.

Link to comment

But the older El Nikkor seems to render a broader "color fidelity" in UV-A photography

 

Seriously, dude, false colour has no component of colour fidelity. :D :( :D

Yes, different versions of the 80 EL may photograph slightly differently based on different construction, glass type, coatings, whatever.

Link to comment

Thanks Andrea & Bjorn for the heads up on the lens fungus cleaning.

Keep it up with having fun on the journey :D

Cheers

Col

Link to comment
On top of sample variation a lot of these older vintage lenses also depend on how they were treated by their previous owners, the climate they were in (dry gives less fungus than humid), how many times they dropped them etc
Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...