Has the Noflexar 35/3.5 fever broken?

[Bill De Jager]

The Novoflex Noflexar 35mm f/3.5 was popularized a while back which led to complaints about the price going up to unreasonable levels. But recent prices on the US Ebay site seem to be more reasonable even if not actually cheap. The last three bid (as opposed to buy-it-now) sales were at $99 (one bid at starting price), $150 (one bid at starting price), and $128.50 (15 bids from a $9 starting price, which I won). I'd consider the last of these to be the most representative due to there being a true bidding contest. As always, there will continue to be grossly overpriced buy-it-now listings and a few people will fall for those.

[Andy Perrin]

Yeah, I noticed. I bought at the high point, unfortunately. But it's my favorite lens, so there's that.

[igoriginal]

The answer to such an inquiry is complex. But please allow me to offer what I believe to be some (but probably not all) of the contributing dynamisms of a "Novoflex deflation."

 

1. UV photography has undergone a recent (within the past decade) pop-cultural "renaissance" of sorts in today's digital era of increasingly more economical options (for those who are interested in getting their feet wet without breaking the bank). Because of this, as more and more "accidental lenses" are discovered as being UV-capable and added to an ever-growing list, the demand for any previously-hyped lens will begin to go down, since it is no longer seen as an "exception" to that list of UV-accidentals. People will naturally seek out more cost-effective lenses as alternatives to those which have been price-gouged.

 

2. Because of the leveling-out of retail prices of Full-Frame digital camera bodies due to the rapid growth of "mirrorless" technology over the past 5 to 8 years, thus resulting in stiffer competition among camera makers, and this ultimately leads to more financially-accessible (lower-end) FF-sensor camera body offerings to an increasing number of photographers. Couple this market trend with the overlapping fact of ongoing discovery of UV-capable lenses that are wider-angle than the 35mm focal length, then this means that the growing FF-ownership demographic is no longer just satisfied with the "standard wide" 35mm focal length lens. Not when we are now aware of 28mm, 25mm, and even a handful of sub-25mm focal-length FF lenses capable of transmitting usable amounts of UV, the 35mm prime lens is no longer seen as the "de facto" wide-angle lens for FF ultraviolet photography (unlike the film era, when sub-35mm focal-length prime lenses were variably more costly, on average). This is especially true since a growing number of second-hand/used film-era manual-focus lenses ("legacy lenses") continue to flood the re-sale market (Ebay, Amazon, etc.) and are hence being given 'a new lease on life', so to speak, by being re-purposed for digital bodies with larger, higher-quality sensors.

 

3. Because of FF-sensor digital bodies becoming more accessible, even to lower-income consumers, the crop-sensor market (APS-C and smaller) is also undergoing more stiff price competitions that continue to drift downwards in retail/MSRP prices. (The technological influence "travels down the economic ladder" and affects all other related products). Given this fact, UV photographers with converted crop-sensor digital bodies will be even more eager than their FF-sensor-using counterparts to seek out lenses below the 35mm focal length, since the crop factor of such cameras will render "normal wide" focal lengths as not true wides, but rather standard (50mm+) and portrait focal ranges.

 

So, this economic ripple will filter on down, as you can see.

 

There are other contributing dynamics to such trends in demand of any given lens, I am certain of this, but I offered what I believe to be among some of the primary ones.

[igoriginal]

I should also mention that the next "digital revolution" will be the inevitable migration of mirrorless technology into Medium-Format camera bodies, targeted at non-studio/non-elite commercial users. This will lead to even more tiers of consumer-orientated options of FF-sensored mirrorless body offerings.

 

Even as we speak, Fuji is well on its way to releasing a mirrorless MF body. It's surprisingly compact and portable for a Medium-Format body! But that's what the mirrorless trend has done for the digital camera. (See this link: Hands-On with the Fuji GFX 50S). Other makers will eventually follow with their own mirrorless MF body. (Sony will probably be next. Pentax will likely follow suit. Nikon will hesitate for a while. And Canon will probably be last.)

 

I spoke about this mirrorless trend, just a few years ago, asserting that the noisy, vibrating, flapping mirror is on its way out, and will eventually go the way of the dinosaur. I predicted it, and now it appears to be happening. Especially given the fact EVF technology is becoming so incredibly good, that a conventional viewfinder will soon become obsolete (within digital bodies) and an extra moving part that is an unnecessarily added expense in the construction of a digital body.

 

It is therefore not beyond feasibility, that in due time, our "UV lens sticky" will grow to include "accidental" UV-capable Medium-Format lenses. :)

[Andy Perrin]

Yep to all that. Although I like the Noveflex so much I was seriously considering getting another one when I saw the price the other day. Ultimately decided I wanted to diversify more, but I may revisit it sometime. (And I almost never use my viewfinder, unless the sun is making it impossible to see the screen. But they do seem to be yet another place for a light leak...)

[OlDoinyo]

How much better is this lens than the Asahi 35/3.5 that I have using? Just curious, as those can be reasonably priced as well....

[igoriginal]

Yep to all that. Although I like the Noveflex so much I was seriously considering getting another one when I saw the price the other day. Ultimately decided I wanted to diversify more, but I may revisit it sometime.

 

Of course. Don't get me wrong. The 35mm focal-length prime lens is still a useful lens. There will always be a need for any given focal length. The 35mm focal length is not going to go away, to be sure. But, as stated, when one wants something even wider, for as much UV-landscape field-of-view as possible, the 35mm prime will not always cut it.

 

 

And I almost never use my viewfinder, unless the sun is making it impossible to see the screen. But they do seem to be yet another place for a light leak.

 

I like keeping my eyes to an EVF. It's the best of both worlds. All the available information (including menu options) without ever having to take your eyes off of the finder. No glaring LCD screen in bright sunlight, such as the case of an optical-viewfinder body switched to "live view."

 

In addition to this, "focus peaking" technology has been absolutely revolutionary in helping to focus a manual-only lens, when looking through the EVF. Something an Optical VF does not provide. And focus peaking is especially useful when trying to manually focus a darker UV image.

[Andy Perrin]

That Asahi is actually not in the sticky even OlDoinyo? Only the Asahi Pentax 35/4 is on there (listed as passing to 345nm, vs 330nm for the Noflexar, for what it's worth).

 

Iggy, my favorite thing about the Noflexar is that built-in macro thingy.

[igoriginal]

Yes, the Asahi 35mm F/3.5 is not particularly notable for UV work. I have a few copies of it, being a long-time "Pentaxian" going back to my beloved K1000 body during the film era - my very first SLR camera, in fact. (Given to me by my father, when I was 19). And although there are a few variations on the Asahi 35mm F/3.5, I am skeptical that any of the versions are particularly UV-useful.

 

The 35 F/4, I haven't tried yet.

[Andy Perrin]

My new purchases are a varied lot.

- Nikon EL-NIKKOR 80mm f/5.6 (for UV)

- Wollensak 1 inch 1.5 Cine Velostigmat (for UV snapshots and my SWIR rig, hopefully. And because I like antiques.)

- Asahi Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (for NIR and visible)

- D.O. INDUSTRIES 50MM f/4.5 (for UV)

[igoriginal]

Ahhhh, so you managed to snap up a Wollensak 1 inch (25mm) F/1.5 Cine Velostigmat?

 

Nice going! It's not a very common (nor particularly cheap) acquisition, on average.

 

I was the one who originally found its notable UV capabilities, and thus had it added to the UV lens sticky, as you probably already know. It was a very rewarding find, at that, since it turns into an exceptional 50mm F/1.5 UV-portrait lens (2x crop factor) on a Micro-4/3 camera body (Panasonic/Olympus mirrorless). No vignetting at all, as you also very likely know. It completely covers the sensor.

 

On top of this, it exhibits a very pronounced "Petzval Field Effect" (swirly bokeh) within the OOF (out-of-focus) areas of the image, particularly when focusing on a subject in the foreground at wide-open aperture while leaving the background blurred. It's like getting a UV-capable "Petzval" lens, without selling your "pound of flesh" to do it. :)

[igoriginal]

My new purchases are a varied lot.

- Nikon EL-NIKKOR 80mm f/5.6 (for UV)

- Wollensak 1 inch 1.5 Cine Velostigmat (for UV snapshots and my SWIR rig, hopefully. And because I like antiques.)

- Asahi Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (for NIR and visible)

- D.O. INDUSTRIES 50MM f/4.5 (for UV)

 

Speaking of variety, have you considered adding a UV-capable telephoto (300mm and up) prime lens to your UV arsenal?

 

I have been finding and adding a few of those to my collection. I've found a handful of 400mm, 450mm, 500mm and even 600mm primes, some of which transmit UV down to about 325nm!

 

How can these be useful? "UV birding", for instance. Getting VIS/UV comparison photos of various large birds (such as water-wading heron) from a distance, without alarming them and causing movement. Heron and a few other species often remain very still, when resting. This provides for a unique opportunity to experiment with this "UV birding" idea of mine, since the subject will remain still for both the Visible and the UV image, without shifting position. (I've found some rather shocking colors on some birds under UV exposure, when doing this.)

 

I'll be releasing my finds, concerning this area, this coming spring. Including the lenses which I recommend for adding to the UV lens sticky, and also some published photo results right here on UVP.

[Andy Perrin]

Heh. Self-promotion (or kind offer) duly noted, Iggy! I may consider something of the sort. We'll see how things are looking when the birds return.

 

I am not sure yet how I feel about the Wollensak as a lens. I will have to try it out first. I had a look at your prior efforts and also at what could be found online in the visible spectrum. I generally prefer sharp lenses, but I liked the Wollensak as an antique as well as for its transmission abilities. (And I am curious if it will help in the SWIR rig. I'm having major SNR problems. Just not enough light.)

[igoriginal]

Heh. Self-promotion (or kind offer) duly noted, Iggy! I may consider something of the sort. We'll see how things are looking when the birds return.

 

Probably more along the lines of *kind offer*, at this point, since I have found (unfortunately) that I do NOT like to part with most of my lenses, after all. (I dislike selling most of what I have acquired). That's very likely a bad thing, because I do not have unlimited hoarding space. Haha.

 

Thus, yes. My publishing of my finds at this point will be primarily to share info for the betterment of others having access to the same info, and not because I am ratcheting up for some kind of a bulk sale. (I can try my hand at selling my stockpile, again, maybe in a few years, perhaps when my wife is finally plotting to kill me for my ever-burgeoning collection. Hah!)

[igoriginal]

I am not sure yet how I feel about the Wollensak as a lens. I will have to try it out first. I had a look at your prior efforts and also at what could be found online in the visible spectrum. I generally prefer sharp lenses, but I liked the Wollensak as an antique as well as for its transmission abilities. (And I am curious if it will help in the SWIR rig. I'm having major SNR problems. Just not enough light.)

 

What camera have you tried to adapt it to?

 

Even wide-open at F/1.5, I have actually found it quite surprisingly sharp (at least in the center of the frame and up to about 2/3 of the entire frame from the edges), when adapted to a Micro-4/3 camera. In fact, it appears to be sharper at F/1.5 than most other primes I have used (except maybe my old Takumar 55mm F/1.8 with its thorium-infused glass, or my Konica Hexanon AR 50mm F/1.4, but here I am only talking about their ViSIBLE-wavelength sharpness. I have never assessed their UV transmission). And at F/8, the Velostigmat becomes very sharp across the entire frame (but this is not uncommon, when stopping down most lenses).

 

If you do not mind me asking you, what is "SWIR?" That's a new acronym for me. Yikes. Have I been away from UVP long enough to become that ignorant of recent trends?

[Andy Perrin]

It hasn't arrived yet, but I have a NEX-7 (APS-C, crop 1.52 I believe). I was referring to the pictures I've seen so far online, but I'm not sure which bodies they were attached to. (I got the radioactive Super-Takumar 50/1.4, incidentally.)

 

SWIR is shortwave infrared. Depending on whom you're talking to, it goes from roughly 1100nm to 3000nm. Some people include NIR as a subset, but in my case, I am using an upconverting phosphor screen sensitive to 1480-1600nm and a relay lens. The phosphor emits at 950-1050nm via anti-Stokes shift.

 

Manufacturer spectrum (arbitrary units...which hide the fact that it barely emits any goddamn light!)

 

I am using it with a Thorlabs Premium Edgepass 1200nm to block visible and NIR (which would otherwise pass through the phosphor and drown out the signal).

[igoriginal]

It hasn't arrived yet, but I have a NEX-7 (APS-C, crop 1.52 I believe). I was referring to the pictures I've seen so far online, but I'm not sure which bodies they were attached to. (I got the radioactive Takumar 50/1.4, incidentally.)

 

Hmmm. That's interesting. I've never considered trying the Velostigmat on a Sony E-mount APS-C sensor camera (I have a converted Sony A6000, which - although in spite of its "A" designation - it is an E-mount, not an Alpha/A-mount body). Probably because I assumed that there might be some vignetting on the extreme edges of my Sony body, unlike a smaller 2x-crop Micro-4/3 sensor. But my assumption may have been only that: an assumption. So, what you're saying is that the Velostigmat fully covers the Sony E-mount APS-C sensor with no image drop-off along the edges?

 

SWIR is shortwave infrared. Depending on whom you're talking to, it goes from roughly 1100nm to 3000nm. Some people include NIR as a subset, but in my case, I am using an upconverting phosphor screen sensitive to 1480-1600nm and a relay lens. The phosphor emits at 950-1050nm via anti-Stokes shift.

 

Thank you for the clarification. The furthest IR range I have ever photographed in is by use of a Schott RG1000 filter on a full-spectrum-modified camera. I do not know, however, how much more IR-sensing range my specific full-spectrum-converted cameras are capable off, only because I am generally not a fan of monochrome IR and only do RG1000 shots when I want high-contrast black & white images for some extra pop. Otherwise, I often crave for the custom-white-balance results of the "Super Blue" (Wratten or Tiffen Blue 47) filter or high faux-color RG600 filter (approximately Wratten or Tiffen Red 29) when it comes to faux-color VIS+IR and/or Dual-Band work.

[Andy Perrin]

Hmmm. That's interesting. I've never considered trying the Velostigmat on a Sony E-mount APS-C sensor camera (I have a converted Sony A6000, which - although in spite of its "A" designation - it is an E-mount, not an Alpha/A-mount body). Probably because I assumed that there might be some vignetting on the extreme edges of my Sony body, unlike a smaller 2x-crop Micro-4/3 sensor. But my assumption may have been only that: an assumption. So, what you're saying is that the Velostigmat fully covers the Sony E-mount APS-C sensor with no image drop-off along the edges?

Nope, I make no such argument! If it has vignetting, it has vignetting. It's "vintage," right? ;-)

 

I do not know, however, how much more IR-sensing range my specific full-spectrum-converted cameras are capable off[...]

ALL silicon sensors become transparent by 1125nm (roughly). It's a bandgap thing, so it's independent of camera type. See figure 6 of that paper.

[igoriginal]

Iggy, my favorite thing about the Noflexar is that built-in macro thingy.

 

It's very useful on a traditional body with a larger FFD (Flange Focal Distance), where using a bellows or additional helicoid will obliterate any chance of retaining infinity-focus within the same lens, thus making a swap-out between macro work and infinity work cumbersome.

 

But ... on a mirrorless body with a smaller FFD (Sony E-mount, Panasonic/Olympus Micro-4/3, Nikon-1, Canon EOS-M), you can take almost any lens, add a variable-focus helicoid adapter between the lens mount and camera body, and effectively add your own macro-focusing capability to the lens AND still keep its infinity-focus capability, all in one neat and elegant implementation.

 

So, while the novel "macro feature" of a lens such as the Noflexar Novoflex 35mm F/3.5 was useful for the larger FFD's of film bodies that it was originally designed for (which is really nothing but an added extension built into the lens), such a feature is no longer so novel because there are macro-helicoid adapters for shorter-FFD mirrorless bodies which enable you to "create" the same kind of build into any lens adaptation.

 

In other words, why pay upwards of $100+ for such a feature within a lens (if you plan to use such a lens on a short-FFD mirrorless body), when a $25 adapter will give a prime lens the same exact ability?

 

By the way, come to think of it, that may be Reason #4 for why the Novoflex price is trending down. The advent of short-FFD mirrorless bodies with variable-helicoid adapters have rendered such a previous novelty of in-lens macro feature nothing special at this point in time. :D

[Andy Perrin]

Eh, it's two pieces where one (Noflexar) piece will do, and it's another ring that can get disturbed between shots. I am going that route with the enlarger lenses, though.

[igoriginal]

Eh, it's two pieces where one (Noflexar) piece will do, and it's another ring that can get disturbed between shots. I am going that route with the enlarger lenses, though.

 

A good point, of course. But not all adapters are built the same. Some of them have gotten quite good. Firm, precise, fidget-free build and coupling.

 

Yes, I understand the advantages and disadvantages of either route. But, I can tell you from my own preference that I would rather have the flexibility of turning any prime lens into a macro lens, and save money, than to worry over something so minor as an "added part."

 

Consider that an M42 variable-helicoid unit can be migrated to an infinite number of adapted lens (of many focal lengths and constructions, for that matter), and you begin to see how the cost savings and versatility can add up, over a very long time of buying and adapting many lenses.

 

Whereas, that over-priced macro lens is only one macro lens. You cannot borrow that ability towards any other lens you own. Or worse still, break or lose that lens, and what will you be left to do? Buy yet another single lens at a high price?

 

In any case ... preferences, preferences. I am glad we have 'em. :)

[igoriginal]

Nope, I make no such argument! If it has vignetting, it has vignetting. It's "vintage," right? ;-)

 

Well, if vignetting is what you want (or, at least can comfortably accept), then by all means. But if one is looking for a fast, UV-capable lens to cover the entire image frame, then "Houston we have a problem."

 

I'll tell you what: Since you are still waiting for your items to come in, I am going to test my own Velostigmat on my Sony A6000, tomorrow, and report back.

 

ALL silicon sensors become transparent by 1125nm (roughly). It's a bandgap thing, so it's independent of camera type. See figure 6 of that paper.

 

Right. Which is why even longer wavelengths (e.i. - microwaves) pass through objects that much more freely.

 

I just never realized that this phenomenon begins to manifest itself so relatively early, at a mere 1125nm. Interesting. Thank you for sharing that highly-informative link.

 

(Of course, silicon is not equal to a brick wall, nor a metal roof, when it comes to transmissive properties. Obviously, it begins to look "transparent" to electromagnetic radiation at a relatively short wavelength, compared to elements with higher atomic numbers. I have never given that much thought, so thank you for bringing that to my awareness).

[Andy Perrin]

(Of course, silicon is not equal to a brick wall, nor a metal roof, when it comes to transmissive properties. Obviously, it begins to look "transparent" to electromagnetic radiation at a relatively short wavelength, compared to elements with higher atomic numbers. I have never given that much thought, so thank you for bringing that to my awareness).

Well, it is not directly related to atomic number, although there is an indirect relationship. What happens is that light is absorbed when a photon has the same (or somewhat larger) energy than the band gap of a semiconductor, which is a forbidden energy region between the low energy "valence band" and the high energy "conduction band" of the silicon lattice. The charge carriers in semiconductors are electrons and "holes," so called because they are places where an electron is missing in the silicon lattice. When a photon is absorbed, an electron jumps from valence to conduction band leaving a hole behind in the valence band.

 

The band gap itself comes about because the regularly spaced ions of the crystal lattice cause electrons (which can behave as waves as well as particles) to interfere with each other, very much like the situation in dichroic filters with light. I mention that only by way of analogy -- the alternating refractive index of the dichroic filter layers is similar to the alternating high-low potential energy from the ions in the lattice. Just as with the dichroic filters, where the layer thickness relative to the wavelength determines the size of the filtered region, in the electron case, crystal lattice spacing determines the band gap.

 

The crystal lattice spacing itself depends on how strong the silicon bonds are, and that depends on charge, and therefore on atomic number, which is the indirect effect I mentioned.

[igoriginal]

Well, it is not directly related to atomic number, although there is an indirect relationship. What happens is that light is absorbed when a photon has the same (or somewhat larger) energy than the band gap of a semiconductor, which is a forbidden energy region between the low energy "valence band" and the high energy "conduction band" of the silicon lattice. The charge carriers in semiconductors are electrons and "holes," so called because they are places where an electron is missing in the silicon lattice. When a photon is absorbed, an electron jumps from valence to conduction band leaving a hole behind in the valence band.

 

The band gap itself comes about because the regularly spaced ions of the crystal lattice cause electrons (which can behave as waves as well as particles) to interfere with each other, very much like the situation in dichroic filters with light. I mention that only by way of analogy -- the alternating refractive index of the dichroic filter layers is similar to the alternating high-low potential energy from the ions in the lattice. Just as with the dichroic filters, where the layer thickness relative to the wavelength determines the size of the filtered region, in the electron case, crystal lattice spacing determines the band gap.

 

The crystal lattice spacing itself depends on how strong the silicon bonds are, and that depends on charge, and therefore on atomic number, which is the indirect effect I mentioned.

 

Yes, indeed, I am aware that there is far more going on on the sub-atomic level, besides mere total electron count (the atomic number) of any given element. I appreciate you putting it out there with such detail, of course. Although my mention of atomic number was a generalization, and not a claim that it all comes down to that factor, alone. My overall point, was that elements with greater number of electrons will also lead to a greater potential for interference / absorption. This is why denser materials tend to be better at blocking longer wavelengths than less dense materials. But it was never a claim of exact and inverse proportionality. No doubt, there are other physical factors involved.

 

That was a nice little refresher, though. Thank you!

[Andrea B.]

Let me toss this into the Noflexar ring.....

 

UV photography occupies a somewhat lonely little corner of the photographic arts arena because, generally speaking, it is very geeky/techie and not very pretty and not particularly easy. (Those factors naturally make UV photography appealing to me and some of you all here!) Thus many people try UV photography for a while but become soon bored with it. They then sell off some of the excess UV gear they have collected. So you see these market fluctuations in UV-capable lenses over the years.

 

The Noflexar price went up a bit during the early years of the UVIR boards on Fotozones because it was (and still is) a very versatile, useful lens which was often talked about there. Those UVIR boards have had no activity for a few years. And in general there seems to currently be a downward slope in UV photograpy interest so I'm not surprised that the Noflexar price has dropped on Ebay.

 

There may be some contribution to the pricing of UV-capable lenses from the various other factors mentioned above, but our observations here at UVP tend to support the factor based on fluctuating interest in UV photography.

 

On a personal note, I still love the Noflexar for its all-in-one-ness. Shoot wide, near, close (or closer) all with one nifty rock-solid little lens. Other lenses may be sharper, other lenses may have better correction, but the Noflexar can be summed up in one word: useful. I think I'm currently down to 3. One native F-mount, one native M42 Pentax screw-mount and one converted from an ?-mount to an F-mount.