Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Nye Optical 150mm f1.4 mirror lens


JMC

Recommended Posts

This one turned up today - a Nye Optical 150mm f1.4 mirror lens. It has a Nikon bayonet fit, but the bayonet is flush against the back of the lens, so it wont attach to an SLR without using a small extension tube, which is what I did here to fit it on to the d810. On a mirrorless camera it would be fine. Originally made for UV to IR work (180nm to 4500nm), and focussing from about 10ft to infinity (and beyond, given it will focus past infinity on the scale). A bit of a beast, and with no front lens cap, so I think I'll have to get one made for it, as it looks a bit delicate up there at the front.

 

A few shots of it on the Nikon.

post-148-0-54087300-1540647039.jpg

 

post-148-0-69913300-1540647044.jpg

 

post-148-0-39519700-1540647050.jpg

 

post-148-0-06026300-1540647055.jpg

 

post-148-0-92683200-1540647058.jpg

 

I did try and get a UV shot with it today, using the ACS UV modified d810, and a Buttercup from the garden. Settings, ISO2000, 1/25s. Camera mounted on a tripod, and a nice breeze blowing. 15mm extension tube to enable the lens to be mounted. Flower was in direct sunlight about midday, and about 4ft from the camera.

 

post-148-0-04741600-1540647222.jpg

 

Depth of field is obviously like a knife edge (I'm guessing a couple of mm either side of where it is focused), and I need to get used to manual focusing with it. But it does show the black centre of the Buttercup nicely. One of these days I will invest in a focusing rail.

 

Slightly easier to use hand held in visible light, although again I still need to learn how to use it, especially given that depth of field. This time on a Canon 5DSR normal, unmodified camera, with about 15mm extension tube. Handheld, ISO100, exposure times from 1/640 to 1/6400s. Gives some really trippy out of focus backgrounds.

 

post-148-0-37704100-1540647459.jpg

 

post-148-0-63616900-1540647462.jpg

 

post-148-0-20342000-1540647465.jpg

Link to comment

That is quite a beast indeed! What support is under it so that it won't pull on the camera body mount? I can't really tell from the photos.

 

So this lens has no aperture blades?

 

I love those backgrounds. The lens could be put to good artistic use.

Link to comment

Andrea, I used the mount on the lens, not the one on the camera, so it was better balanced.

 

No aperture blades, fixed f1.4 aperture.

Link to comment

Somewhere I have seen a "portable" set of aperture blades. Presumably one adds them to the back of a lens with some kind of step-ring fittings or whatnot. I wonder if such a set would be useful for a lens like this?

 

This lens must have been used for flat subjects. Sides of houses, garage doors, things like that. :lol:

Link to comment

It looks like a Maksutov-Gregorian type optic--but a very unusual one. Your test shots show some of the smudginess that such optics tend to exhibit, due to the center mirror (it has been explained to me as a drop in modulation transfer function at certain spatial frequencies. ) I also notice that the second frame appears sharpest in the lower left quadrant, which makes me wonder if there are alignment issues. An interesting find, nonetheless; I wonder what it was used for originally.

 

N.B. Adding aperture blades to such a lens will not work because of the center mirror; it will not increase DOF or sharpness. That is why only off-center mirror optics (e.g. Makowsky) have aperture blades. You are of course free to use ND filters, and many such lenses are supplied with such.

Link to comment
I think the 2nd frame is sharper in the bottom left as that's where I was focussing. Hopefully no alignment issues. I get the feeling it was more aimed at imaging objects further away rather than close-up. At least the depth of field would be less of an issue then
Link to comment

Clark, thanks for the info about center mirror lenses like this one. I don't know anything about these kinds of lenses at all (or telescopes). But now that you point it out, I can see why an added aperture wouldn't work.

 

So now I wonder if a focusing rail used for a stack of 50 images put together in Helicon Focus would work? I wonder what would happen with the unusual backgrounds if images were stacked?

Link to comment
Well it seems well-suited to artistic uses! What an awesome "bokeh" if that's what you even call it with this sort of lens.
Link to comment
I know, right? Bokeh usually has some circular or doughnut-like aspect. This is like broken mirror shards but very soft.
Link to comment
It is worth while to think of 'bokeh' as being blurs in three dimensions. With a very 'fast' mirror lens, what is rendered in the background (or foreground) and its shape critically depend on the distance involved. Concomitantly, any blur circles (or 'mirror shards', 'doughnouts) decline in intensity as distance increases. Plus some of these 'fast' mirror lenses don't fully cover the camera format (no idea about this particular 150/1.4 though). In combination, these factors lead to a very special 'bokeh signature' for such lenses.
Link to comment

Plus some of these 'fast' mirror lenses don't fully cover the camera format (no idea about this particular 150/1.4 though)

Birna, this one is designed for full frame (well, was originally designed to cover a full film frame). I have another, smaller one (200mm f2.8) which has a c mount, and that was not designed for full frame. Not yet figured out how to mount that one to use it.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 years later...

Minor update on this one. I decided to get a replacement front element for this, as I didn't like the plastic 'top hat' that was on the original one. Plus the original product literature showed it as being just a 'glass' element at the front with nothing stuck on it. However once I did that the image became very soft. Turns out that the front element is not a flat piece of quartz or fused silica, which is what I thought when I took it out, but is shaped. It looks as though it is like the front element of a Schmidt Cassegrain telescope with an aspheric grind on the inner surface. Much more advanced than I thought it was.

 

The goal this year is to get this looked at by a professional and have it cleaned and lubed as the focus is very stiff on it. I also want to check the collimation and realign it if necessary.

 

Originally they came with an option to have a set of adjustable fan blades fitted inside. These could be used to vary the amount of light getting through the lens from 'fully open' to basically nothing. Not the same as adjusting the iris on a normal lens, but a way of allowing it to work with light and dark subjects. Mine has fixing holes which were probably used for this, but those blades have long since gone.

 

Fascinating lenses these Nye ones. Shame that so few were made, and that there is so little information about them.

Link to comment

@JMC Jonathan if you want to decrease the light (increase the aperture) use an external black disk if you want the sharpest image,

or internal if you want it softer.

If you want to do creative things do it with the Rodenstock softar imagon or the Fuji :)

 

 

s-l1600-.jpg

Link to comment
2 hours ago, photoni said:

@JMC Jonathan if you want to decrease the light (increase the aperture) use an external black disk if you want the sharpest image,

or internal if you want it softer.

If you want to do creative things do it with the Rodenstock softar imagon or the Fuji :)

 

Ok, thanks. At the moment I am fine using it wide open, but will keep it in mind for the future.

 

 

Link to comment

I must be suffering from cross site confusion.

 

Last I read you added a glass filter like piece of quartz to the front (as a dust protector).
 

Then Klaus posted some funky photos of a variable pitch propeller inside your lens there. 

 

When did this aspherical front element find its way into the story?

 

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Blazer0ne said:

I must be suffering from cross site confusion.

 

Last I read you added a glass filter like piece of quartz to the front (as a dust protector).
 

Then Klaus posted some funky photos of a variable pitch propeller inside your lens there. 

 

When did this aspherical front element find its way into the story?

 

 

When I tried to figure out why my images were too soft after I swapped the front element. Just some work I did this morning. Have updated on MFlenses as well.

Link to comment

Ha! What a strange twist. After everyone agreed it wasn't the front element it turns out to be back on the lens for now. Great story and good find on the curve.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...