• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

35mm comparison : Nikon E Vs Soligor Vs Optomax

UV Lens UV Portrait
2 replies to this topic

#1 DonPilou

    Member

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location: Paris, France.

Posted 16 January 2017 - 17:24

Good evening!

Following the comparison of three 50mm lenses, I am going to compare three 35mm lenses for ultraviolet portrait photography : the Nikon E 35mm F/2.5 , the Optomax 35mm F/3.5 and the Soligor 35mm F/3.5.

For this comparison I used 3 Yongnuo yn560 IV unfiltered at full power, the same camera distance (1m) and the same EXIF : 35mm, F/5.6, 1/40s, 400iso. The focus is not perfect at each time...

After the take of the shots, each file was processed the same way.

Note : the shutter speed is not a real parameter here because the only UV light source is provided by the flashes. It only has to be lower than the synchronisation time of the flashes : 1/200s.

Here are the results of the test :

Nikon E 35mm F/2.5
Attached Image: IMG_0171-4.jpg
Attached Image: Nikon_35.jpg

Soligor 35mm F/3.5
Attached Image: IMG_0172-5.jpg
Attached Image: Soligor_35.jpg

Optomax 35mm F/3.5
Attached Image: IMG_0177-6.jpg
Attached Image: Optomax_35.jpg

The results show why I haven't used a 35mm lens since now ;) : the Nikon E 35mm F/2.5 is really bad in ultraviolet photography. Both Soligor 35mm F/3.5 and Optomax 35mm F/3.5 seems to have the same good performance, the histograms are closed, I notice a better sharpness with the Optomax 35mm F/3.5.

Edited by DonPilou, 16 January 2017 - 17:30.


#2 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 9,116 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 16 January 2017 - 17:28

Are the Optomax and Soligor supposed to be f/3.5 rather than f/2.5??
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#3 DonPilou

    Member

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location: Paris, France.

Posted 16 January 2017 - 17:31

View PostAndrea B., on 16 January 2017 - 17:28, said:

Are the Optomax and Soligor supposed to be f/3.5 rather than f/2.5??
Indeed, I made the correction ;).