Hej! from Sweden

[Thomas Males]

My name is Thomas Males,

 

I have been interested in Ultraviolet photography for a few years, now.

 

I have just converted my second camera, this time to UV only, first multi spec. I have tried different things but mostly I have used flash for UV.

 

My first camera was a Canon 5dm2 converted to full spectrum, now EOS R, UV only.

 

I'm interested in many things, photography is one of them. Ultraviolet photography is hard, but that also what makes it worth while.

 

I'm having software issues, White Balance and IR leakage, but getting decent pictures still, Just a little more work. I only have worked with my new camera for about three days.

 

 

I haven't been shooting UV for a long time, but it's much easier the second round, not starting from scratch. Im also interested in IR both short wave and thermal, to see what can't be seen is, well interesting.

 

/ Thomas

 

Pictures form today

 

One wb from camera the other modified ( unwantedly) in LR.

 

[nfoto]

Welcome to UVP! We are maybe a small community, but the total information resource contributed by our members is vast.

 

What lens/filter did you use for the lichen shot?

 

PS: I'm actually born in Sweden (Stockholm) and technically have Swedish as my mother tongue DS

[dabateman]

Welcome,

The second image really pulled the spider out. I didn't see it in the first.

 

What filter did you use in your UV only converted camera?

 

I haven't used Canon for UV, but other members have. So they maybe able to help with in camera WB. Otherwise, many software options can get you to where you may want to be.

 

[ulf]

Welcome to the forum Thomas,

 

Nice to have yet another member joining from Sweden.

 

I like your images and would like to know more about the setup, filter type, flash type and how it was modified...

 

It is interesting that you could post images on the forum with that high resolution, 3995 × 5992 pixels.

If I remember correctly it is against the forum's rules.

I thought the forum's engine rescaled automatically.

 

I love to be able to dive into the details of images and have sometimes felt a bit limited when I posting images here.

[nfoto]

Probably the images were below the *size* limit. The forum will rescale pixel size, though, until you click up the image. Too great discrepancy here can cause the image quality to suffer.

 

It is, however, always preferable, to adjust images oneself to be fit for any web page. I standardise on 2000x1300 pix and sRGB myself and a low degree of sharpening. That way the image should display properly on most systems.

[Thomas Males]

OK, first of all I didn't intend to break any forum rules on my first post, obviously. (Image size).

 

I don't know exactly the bandwith of my sensor filter, it's Lifepixel own, the sensor filter alone ( in daylight) I fells like is insufficient for UV photography , but together, with an extra filter ( ore two) get the job done. I haven't been able to test ir leak just yet.

 

This is my latest configuration, but it's a work in progress, if i stack two filter I need a powerful uv source to fucus, there off the filter on the flash instead.

 

canon eos r, internal uv pass, Canon RF 35mm f/1,8 Macro IS STM, b+w 489 filter (ir cut), close up filter Nissin extreme mg8000 flash for canon, with the cover plastic removed, and replaced with a B+W 403 filter instead.

 

I'm happy it works but I want it to be a bit easier to use.

 

I have used Baader U in the past, but I do feel like it's hard to work with, so I'm trying to find ways around it. With out the results suffering to much, The dual uv filters in two places is a try, in that direction.

 

I'm new to these kinds of forum, posting at least, so I have to brush up on size limits and what not.

 

Happy to join

[dabateman]

I am not sure if that lens is a deep UV transmitting lens. Something thats not said is very few lenses are good in the under 400nm for UV photography. A great AF Canon lens that Jonathan has recommends is the 40mm f2.8 pancake lens. I also have it and it works very well for UV photography. You can add a tube to get macro focus distance.

This is the Lifepixel UV filter that I know of. It seems to dip into 405nm, so you maybe seeing more violet than UV with your lenses.

[Thomas Males]

I know the lens, I have tried it, but not on this camera, yet, it's a STM lens as well, not that many around just yet. I tried the 50mm stm lens with baader U earlier this year, and I got a 40mm stm the very same you write about, they are all STM witch I was thinking transmits more UV. I not sure about the lenses, I have used various Carl Zeiss aus Jena lenses, in the past, but I want a more modern lenses now Can you ore others recomend any more lenses for Canon ? I have been looking at the STM line up, so far.

 

[ulf]

OK, first of all I didn't intend to break any forum rules on my first post, obviously. (Image size).

 

I'm not complaining at all. I'm just happy for finding out.

It is by breaking rules that new discoveries are done.

 

Sometimes it is nice to be able to show all the details in one image.

In the future I will still mostly rescale the images to make them fit well at most monitors and save allotted forum space, but I too might "break" the old rules occasionally.

[ulf]

Unfortunately there are very few modern lenses out there that works well for UV.

Either you have to get some quite expensive specialist lenses like the UV-Nikkor 105mm or the Coastal Opt 60mm.

Their price tag is similar to fast super tele lenses.

 

You can also explore suitable older MF-lenses and enlarger lenses on focussing-helicoids.

For macro I would like to recommend the old metal version of EL-Nikkor 80/5.6. It also works acceptable at infinity.

Wider lenses that works well for UV are often slow old 35/3.5mm.

[nfoto]

In order to make the image file be uploaded at all, its *size* (in MB) must be below 2MB if memory serves. Thus nothing is gained by uploading a huge file (in terms of pixel dimension) that has to be pared down severely in jpg quality. Rework the image to be more suitably sized before uploading and if critical details are to be shown, make a crop and upload that separately.

[dabateman]

Its not that its an STM lens that makes the 40mm f2.8 pancake lens good for UV. But that it has very few UV killing glass elements, to allow the 370nm and up wavelengths through.

But best way to know if any of your other lenses are good is to test them. Since you have at least one good lens, the 40mm, you can compare the exposure settings and color of your images using the same WB setting.

Just take an image of a flower or something using the 40mm pancake. Also best to white balance using some plumbing tape or PTFE or something using your 40mm f2.8 pancake lens. Set this as a custom WB and use it for all of your following shots.

Then test each other lens, using the same WB, same subject and see how much you need to increase the exposure settings. Also look to see if the color from that lens shifts to blue or purple.

Most likely the 40mm pancake will be your best lens. But if not PLEASE let us know.

Modern AF lenses good for UV, are rare. But the Sigma 30mm f2.8 lens for E-mount and M43rds, as well as the Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake lens seem good.

 

[Thomas Males]

Thank you, I will compare the three canon lenses I have in the near future, and see if there are any interesting results.

[Andrea B.]

Hi Thomas and Welcome to UVP!

 

(I was moving house and am just now returning to UVP, so please excuse the lateness of this greeting.)

 

Your second, white-balanced lichen and spider photo is very good. Quite striking! I see that you have discovered that the white balance step is quite useful in removing the overload of false colour in order to bring out details in reflected UV work.

 

I also sometimes like to raise the dark areas just a small amount (by trial & error) in such a photo because the typical conversion of a UV photo tends to leave to leave too much dark because the typical "gamma" curve used in conversion is tuned to work for visible photographs.

 

Many UV photographers here have been enjoying the Photo Ninja app for UV conversions. It is quite good at white balancing and bringing out detail. (I have not been maintaining a list of useful converters but perhaps should do so!)

 

We have a lot of suggestions for useful non-dedicated UV lenses in our Reference section. You probably want to look for an old EL-Nikkor lens or an old 35/3.5 lens to adapt to your Canon for better UV capability. Link: Sticky :: UV-Capable Lenses

[Thomas Males]

Hi Andrea, and thank you for the welcome.

 

Have been trying some lenses, and flash set up, Since those pictures were taken. I have been using canon pancake lenses, with I got suggested earlier, now I'm using EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM, and is the best so far.

 

I have been trying a bit taking pictures in UV and visible, so far just doing dry runs, learning more about UV and flowers. ( it's winter).

 

Couldn't open photo ninja, but it doesn't support raw in canon any way. But the program that comes with the camera works well "digital photo professional 4"

 

Thanks for the tips, I'm making some progress, but still lots to learn

[nfoto]

Photo Ninja *usually* can handle RAW files from cameras ± unknown to the software. Not with optimum colours though so one should build a session profile and use that to get improved colour rendition. This is very simple in PN.

 

PN runs my Z6/Z7 files just fine, even on PN versions going back to 2014 ....

[Thomas Males]

OK, I got the program working, I had an old license too, as it seems.

 

I havn't learned the program just yet, but I have to have something to look forward to.

 

Thanks

[nfoto]

PN shines for UV usage.Perhaps less well suited to IR and false-colour processing, however.

[dabateman]

Wait did you just say the 24mm is more UV responsive than the 40mm f2.8 pancake lens?

Interesting.

[Thomas Males]

No, I didn't say that, well I said it was the best so far, (but not regarding UV sensitivity), sorry about that.

I could not see any difference between them, but the 24mm has much closer focusing distance, so I don't have to use extension tube.

Canon EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM, has a focal length of about 38,4mm on a full frame camera, so about the same as the Canon EF40mm f2.8.

In my testing they performed the same. I am going to go back at some point, to see if I can tell them appart, regarding UV.

(38,4mm was the focal length according to dpreview page about the lens).

[dabateman]

Yes I would be interested to know if the 24mm f2.8 STM, and 50mm f1.8 STM perform in UV the same as your 40mm f2.8 STM lens.

 

Looking them up they are all 6 elements. The 50mm may have a different coating than the 24mm and 40mm. Both the 24 and 40mm seem to have an aspherical element, the 50mm doesn't.

So some similarities. The sharpness seems to vary with the 40mm being sharper at the edge than the 24mm, but the 24mm being the sharpest in the center.

 

I look forward to your review of them. See if there is a color shift to either yellow (better for uv) or to blue (worse for UV) than the 40mm using a PTFE white target (like teflon plumbing tape). And compare the exposure settings, using a 365nm light source, if you have one.

Thank you.

[Thomas Males]

Testing 3 canon lenses for UV sensitivity

 

I still use Digital Photo Professional 4 to keep the white balance, (since PN does not open canon Raw (CR3).

 

Any how the thing I have noticed with this test is that the crop factor is not noticeable until the picture is compared with others, with much smaller pictures. because it's aps-c lens.

 

I first used the same distance, time, ISO and aperture. And then the closest distance each lens can focus, with set f and ISO, although at least one picture is note in focus. I used Labino UVG2 ( 365 nm),

 

and a the white side of a grey/white card, and did the white balance on 40mm lens.

 

The information is on the pictures, First same distance about 0,45m, then closer with the lenses that can. The distance is not in the pictures 0,16m 24mm lens, and 0,3m with 40mm .

 

 

 

 

830A2514text3.jpg

[dabateman]

Thank you,

The 50mm looks more purple to me than the 40mm and possibly a stop slower in the UV.

The 24mm looks ever so slightly more purple. Possibly having similar UV range as the 40mm. But the exposure looks not as bright, possibly 1/2 stop slower than the 40mm to me.

Interesting, the 24mm maybe another good UV Azf lens. Its also on sale now for only $100 new.

 

Thank you again for this. On M43rds the 24mm would be 48mm direct equivalent and 34mm equivalent on the speed booster. Might be a fun lens.