• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Minolta lenses

85 replies to this topic

#1 Terry

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location: Auckland

Posted 07 December 2018 - 21:04

Why is there not much information on Minolta lenses for use in UV photography - is there something I'm missing?

I have quite a few Minolta's from the years gone by and they seem to work great on my Sony.
I have just purchased a Minolta 100mm f3.5 macro which is not as good as the f4 but is a quarter of the price. Haven't been able to test it with UV yet as I need a 55 to 52 step down ring but it doesn't seem too bad in FS.

Attached photo taken with the Minolta 50mm f1.7 on a Sony a5000 FS TV1/5 AVf2.8 ISO400 Kolari Vision UV filter

Attached Images

  • Attached Image: DSC00253.jpg

Terry
Sony @5000 - Kolari Vision UV bandpass filter
Sony and Minolta lenses

#2 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 22:33

Looks good, but it looks like you have a possible light leak, on each side, the fuzzy/fogginess shows up in background dark areas, vertical bands on each side.
Also, your white balance could be slightly different, with more gray/black foliage, would be the norm, instead of the violet/purple foliage, it should be gray.

#3 Terry

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location: Auckland

Posted 07 December 2018 - 22:53

Thanks Cadmium, I must admit I was shooting IR so WB was set for that.
Will give it another bash :)
Terry
Sony @5000 - Kolari Vision UV bandpass filter
Sony and Minolta lenses

#4 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,257 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 08 December 2018 - 00:37

Can you get any false yellow?

#5 Terry

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location: Auckland

Posted 08 December 2018 - 00:50

in camera or in PP?
Terry
Sony @5000 - Kolari Vision UV bandpass filter
Sony and Minolta lenses

#6 OlDoinyo

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 673 posts
  • Location: North Carolina

Posted 08 December 2018 - 01:12

I have the 50/1.4, the 35/2, and the 24/2,8 "beer can" lenses. They are reasonably good for visible photography, but their UV bandpass and sharpness are notably inferior to the lenses I have accumulated for the purpose, so I tend not to use them for that. That is not to say they cannot be used, just that there are reasonably-priced alternatives that are better for UV.

Edited by OlDoinyo, 08 December 2018 - 01:14.


#7 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 08 December 2018 - 01:35

There would be no UV yellow in that scene or that flower...

I have a Rokkor-TC 100mm f/4, which as I recall transmits UV quite well, but I can't find a Sparticle test of it, I will make one later tonight and post it.
I know it isn't really in the same ball park as a 50mm and such... but does UV well, if I am not mistaken, will test it later and share.
It is a nice little 100mm, I should take it out for a spin sometime soon.

Attached Image: Rokkor_TC_100mm_f4.jpg

Here is a really old pre-Sparticle UV test, the green dot is 340BP10.
Attached Image: RokkorTC_UV_test.jpg

Edited by Cadmium, 08 December 2018 - 01:45.


#8 Terry

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location: Auckland

Posted 08 December 2018 - 02:02

Thanks for the input - I have no idea what a sparticle test is so please enlighten me. (I am assuming its some sort of variable test to check bandpass?)

Definitely have an issue with light leak which I hadnt noticed with the IR (much higher shutter speeds no doubt) and it stems from the NEX to MD adapter. I suppose having body and lens of the same brand such as Nikon avoids all these issues. I have a D200 FS but as Im a Canon shooter, I only have one lens for the D200 and seeing how its not the ideal body without live view I had no intention of buying any additional lenses.

@OIDoinyo - what are the better alternatives in the same price bracket? What would be the ideal starter lenses in your opinion?

In the first image I wrapped the adapter and the second it is open. Clearly this is a huge issue :(
Attached Image: DSC00362.jpgAttached Image: DSC00363.jpg
Terry
Sony @5000 - Kolari Vision UV bandpass filter
Sony and Minolta lenses

#9 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,257 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 08 December 2018 - 02:33

No, any false yellow at all, after white balance. In ANY flower. Not the original. The question was really an oblique way to ask what the band pass is.

Edited by Andy Perrin, 08 December 2018 - 02:36.


#10 Terry

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location: Auckland

Posted 08 December 2018 - 02:38

ok, no yellow, cool - I'm just not sure what I should do with this info Andy - what does it mean if I get yellow?
Terry
Sony @5000 - Kolari Vision UV bandpass filter
Sony and Minolta lenses

#11 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,257 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 08 December 2018 - 02:44

Yellow is good. It means you are getting at least less than 370nm. That dandelion looks like you might get yellow if you white balance it. The center should be black.

Edited by Andy Perrin, 08 December 2018 - 02:44.


#12 Terry

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location: Auckland

Posted 08 December 2018 - 02:52

I assume you mean something like this?
(excuse the focus, it was hand held)

Attached Image: DSC00232.jpg
Terry
Sony @5000 - Kolari Vision UV bandpass filter
Sony and Minolta lenses

#13 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,257 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 08 December 2018 - 03:03

Yeah, I’m not near a computer so I can’t play with it. Maybe? That example looks like it has a color cast also. Are you using a program that can set a UV white balance? Photoshop can’t...

Edited by Andy Perrin, 08 December 2018 - 03:04.


#14 Terry

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location: Auckland

Posted 08 December 2018 - 03:24

no I am not, what software would you suggest?
Terry
Sony @5000 - Kolari Vision UV bandpass filter
Sony and Minolta lenses

#15 OlDoinyo

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 673 posts
  • Location: North Carolina

Posted 08 December 2018 - 03:58

View PostTerry, on 08 December 2018 - 02:02, said:


@OIDoinyo - what are the better alternatives in the same price bracket? What would be the ideal starter lenses in your opinion?


I have the Asahi 20/4.5, the Asahi 35/3.5, and the Steinheil Cassar-S 50mm as my three workhorse optics for UV (all in M42 mount.) The 35 was very inexpensive when I bought it; the other two were under $300 each as I recall. Some here use the Tamron 20/4.5 as well, but that lens is not as sharp as the Asahi.

#16 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,257 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 08 December 2018 - 04:13

I like PhotoNinja but there are other options. I think there is a sticky somewhere.

#17 Terry

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location: Auckland

Posted 08 December 2018 - 04:49

This any better in terms of yellows?

Attached Image: DSC00362aaa.jpg
Terry
Sony @5000 - Kolari Vision UV bandpass filter
Sony and Minolta lenses

#18 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,257 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 08 December 2018 - 05:56

Ahah! Yes. That is what it should look like. As an aside, the center looks reddish still, which might indicate some IR getting through the filter?

Edited by Andy Perrin, 08 December 2018 - 05:57.


#19 Terry

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location: Auckland

Posted 08 December 2018 - 06:01

not sure, I was under the impression that the Kolari filters let very little IR through?
Terry
Sony @5000 - Kolari Vision UV bandpass filter
Sony and Minolta lenses

#20 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,257 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 08 December 2018 - 06:13

I would have thought so also, but there shouldn’t be any red here. I don’t know, maybe someone else will have an idea.