Lentar 135/3.5 vs. Hanimar 135/3.5 on Sony a7R-BB

[Andrea B.]

Here is a first test of two 135mm f/3.5 manual, aperture-preset lenses, one a T2-mount Lentar (#5664XX) and the other a T2-mount Hanimar (#351XX).

 

The skies were bright and sunny. At the beginning of the experiment my UV meter read 3.0 mW/cm2 at about 14:30 UTC-5. After the last shot I got a 2.5 mW/cm2 reading at about 14:59 UTC-5.

 

The subject tulips are beginning to bloom in Deep Cut Park here in Middletown, New Jersey. The very dark red tulip colour was not successfully recorded in visible light and had to be darkened in the converter/editor.

 

Focus was made at f/3.5 on the central cluster of dark red tulips although the occasional gentle breeze may have disturbed that in some results.

 

There was some focus shift between the Visible and UV for both lenses.

 

The Lentar 135/3.5 seems more UV-capable than the Hanimar 135/3.5. The Lentar UV exposure times ranged from 1/1.2" to 1.3" at f/11 and ISO-400. The Hanimar was considerably slower, ranging from 1.6" to 5". Given that the Hanimar was the second lens to be used, a small amount of its increased exposure time may attributed to the decrease in ambient UV. However, I have no idea how to make that more precise.

 

The Raw Digger raw composite frames show that the Lentar raw is closer in appearance to raws produced by dedicated UV lenses. The Hanimar raw shows larger amounts of blue. Can we conclude that the Hanimar does not shoot "as deeply into the UV" as the Lentar? Probably so, based on my experience.

 

White balance: I struggled with white balance on the Sony a7R because I am new to the camera. So please don't go all judgey on colours in either the Visible or the UV frames. I need to experiment more with pre-setting WB in my a7R and working with colour profiles for this camera. I'll get there eventually.

 

All photos will click up to 1000 pixels width in an expanded browser.

 

EQUIPMENT [sony a7R-broadband + LENTAR 135/3.5 + Sunlight]

 

Visible [f/11 for 1/160" @ISO-50 with Baader UV/IR-Cut Filter]

Conversion & edits in Photo Ninja.

 

Visible [sooC unresized crop]

Oh bad!!!!! See next.

 

Visible [sooC unresized crop]

This time no winds. From the frame just before.

However the reds are not dark enough.

 

Ultraviolet SooC [f/11 for 1.3" @ISO-400 with BaaderU UV-Pass Filter]

 

Ultraviolet B&W [Conversion and edits in Photo Ninja]

 

Raw Digger [Raw composite]

 

Raw Digger [histogram]

 

 

EQUIPMENT [sony a7R-broadband + HANIMAR 135/3.5 + Sunlight]

 

Visible [f/11 for 1/60" @ISO-50 with Baader UV/IR-Cut Filter]

Conversion & edits in Photo Ninja.

 

Visible [sooC unresized crop]

The red colour is not dark enough prior to conversion & edits.

 

Ultraviolet SooC [f/11 for 5" @ISO-400 with BaaderU UV-Pass Filter]

 

Ultraviolet B&W [Conversion and edits in Photo Ninja]

 

Raw Digger [Raw composite]

Note this Hanimar raw composite has more blue than the Lentar raw composite.

 

Raw Digger [histogram]

[Cadmium]

Hi Andrea, I feel confused because the straight out of camera (SooC) UV shots are so monochrome, and also that the flower leaves and stems are not dark, as I might imagine them to look in UV.

Maybe I am missing something here.

[Andrea B.]

I don't know what to tell you. That's the way it came out. :D

 

I can run some little tests on the leaves & flowers. I have some tulips in my yard.

[Andrea B.]

Here is a link to the Chopin Tulip which I dug out today and posted. The topic is still in progress, but the photos are there. In UV the tulip leaves are somewhat UV-reflective.

http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/1786-tulipa-kaufmaniana-chopin-chopin-tulip/

[Cadmium]

Thank you Andrea :-)

[JCDowdy]

The skies were bright and sunny. At the beginning of the experiment my UV meter read 3.0 at about 14:30 UTC-5. After the last shot I got a 2.5 reading at about 14:59 UTC-5.

 

I also saw your mention of UV meter readings in another post as well.

 

What UV meter, and detector combination if detachable, are you using and more importantly what are the units?

[Alex H]

Andrea, both Lentar and Hanimar are re-sellers names, and not manufacturers. It would be beneficial to see the lenses themselves.

[Andrea B.]

Alex, ok. I'm terrible at photographing lenses but will give it a try.

 

John, I was using my UVA/UVB meter you recommended. Measures in mW/cm². I was sort of making notes-to-myself there, but should have added the units. I'll go do that. I have been working to get myself into the habit of using it regularly so as to begin to get a feel for UV-in-sunlight. I don't think I use the meter in any precise way - just kinda aim at the sun. Sometimes try to aim at the sun from the flower's height instead of my height. But who gets the angle correct when doing that? Probably not me.

[Cadmium]

About the meter, this might be off topic here, but it is an interesting question. I have a few of those and I don't know the best way to use them.

You have the Solarmeter SM 5.0 ?

[Andrea B.]

I son't see an SM on mine, but yes it is a Solartech Solarmeter 5.0.

[Cadmium]

I have that also.

I have wondered if our usual UV filter range might be more accurately measured using the Solartech Solarmeter 4.0 (and 4.2 for lower light), because those are UV-A only.

I can't tell if model 4.0/4.2 also have the slight 500nm-550nm transmission (like model 5.0/5.7 do). 4.0/4.2 have less blue sensitivity also.

Model 4.0 graph: https://www.solarmet...ges/solar40.png

Model 5.0 graph: https://www.solarmet...ages/solar5.jpg

[Andrea B.]

At this time I use my Solarmeter 5.0 to measure the "relative" amount of UVA/B simply to learn at what times the peaks occur or whether there is any UV at all reaching into a more shaded area. And I have enjoyed confirming what the textbooks say about the relative mounts of UV at different times of the day and so forth. But let's ask our photobiology expert John Dowdy about what might be the most accurate meter for use with filters. I'll "ping" him via PM.

 

I've also thought about getting the version which reports the measurement in terms of the UV Index. This is likely more familiar to most of us than would be mW/cm2 although I suppose the conversion is not all that difficult. "-)

[JCDowdy]

Solartech was acquired by Solar Light and the meters may no longer carry the Solartech name on the back label. I have several of these handy little meters of different types and have recommended them for years to clients for various uses.

 

The Solarmeter 5.0 is the general purpose (280-400nm, 0-199.9 mW/cm²) model I typically recommend. The model 4.0 UVA meter would likely do just as well for most UV-photographic needs within the typical Baader-U range. I would hesitate to recommend the more sensitive, low intensity, models 4.2 or 5.7 for outdoor use as they will be more likely saturated by bright sunlight. The model 6.5 UV Index meter is weighted to human sunburn response, moslty UVB, and while excellent for monitoring your personal risk would be less useful for documenting ambient UV levels. The UVB and Vitamin-D models are fine for keeping your reptiles healthy but are likewise less appropriate for documenting UV-photos.

 

As a matter of formal convention one should always include the units of measure and the make & model of the radiometer, and/or meter/detector combination if it is of the type with interchangeable detectors. I expect it may also be important to describe how it is used, pointing at the scene like an exposure meter or to document the direct or scattered intensity of the solar UV.

[Cadmium]

Thank you John. That would be my question, to point it at the sun, or at the scene being shot, perhaps both?

I also have model 5.7, and I find it quite nice for measuring lower levels, indoors, comparing UV light sources, MTE, etc.

[Andrea B.]

John, thank you so much for the survey of the Solar Light meters. That is useful info.

 

I've used my Solartech 5.0 to satisfy my own curiosity by pointing it at the source of illumination - the sun in most cases. Sometimes I just stand in a clear area and point at the sun. Sometimes I attempt to aim the meter from the subject's point of view. More consistency in how I measure is clearly desireable.

 

I figured any reflected UV off a flower or other organic subject might be much harder to measure? And I'm not sure of the size of the meter read sensor? Thus all my readings are for the incident light falling on the subject.

 

I will take some care to mention required details in future write-ups!! :D

 

One thing that annoys the heck out of me is that the meter won't hold the reading until I can look at it. So I have to perform pretzels sometimes to see the reading if I'm aiming it from the subject's point-of-view.

[Alex H]

That is all good, Andrea, UV-meters and such, but what about pictures of lenses????

[Alex H]

I am being stubborn here. I just got a bot with a bunch of lenses, including a number of 135mm F/3.5 and F/2.8 "rebrands". I did have a Soligor 135 F/3.5 in the past and tested it for UV. I should have at least two of those in my "lens parts box".

 

Anyway, pictures of lenses, please. Shots taken and uploaded with the smartphone will do ;)