Clone Wars - Newcomers are the Casualties

[bvf]

I assume we all want to see more people taking up UV photography, but how do newcomers get started and avoid the many pitfalls?

 

When I was getting started with working in UV, I used this forum to understand the techniques and to help me select lenses and filters. Unfortunately, I wasted quite a bit of money on lenses which turned out to be not so good after all (Biotar 58mm, Tele-Ennalyt 135mm, Prinz Galaxy 35mm). Fortunately, 4^th time lucky with the Cassar S 50mm – still my favourite UV lens.

 

But as I use an APS-C sensor for UV, I also wanted a 35mm lens – more of a standard focal length for APS-C. My experience with a Prinz Galaxy had been unsatisfactory, so I bought a "Kuribayashi Clone" from Igororiginal: real Kuribayashis are acknowledged as being excellent for UV, but have become ridiculously expensive (£275 inc. postage).

 

Fast forward to this post - https://www.ultravio...te/page__st__60 . This led to a discussion and pointers to earlier forum posts which were pretty critical of the Igororiginal lens and objecting to its claim of being a Kuribayashi clone.

 

Now this all gets very confusing to me – it must be almost impossible for a new would-be UV photographer to understand the situation and make an informed choice of lens. For example, at https://www.ultravio...1572#entry21572 it is emphasised that there is no such thing as a Kuri clone, but other posts such as https://www.ultravio...__fromsearch__1 imply that there are such things, and the issue is just that Igororiginal has no basis for claiming his lenses are such clones.

 

What I believe is that there is a whole raft of vintage 35mm/3.5 lens from brands such as Prinz Galaxy, Optomax, Soligor, Hanimex ... which generally look similar in appearance to each other, some of which may be originally made by Kuribayashi, and some of which aren't. Some of them are good for UV, and some aren't.

 

What chance has the newcomer to UV got in making head or tail of this?

 

What I also believe is that Igororiginal takes versions of these lenses which work well in UV and, on the (misguided?) assumption that they are made by Kuribayashi, labels them as Kuri clones. I don't think he plays around with the lenses, other than changing the filter mount to 52mm (grrrr - I standardise on 49mm) and exposing the T-mount thread (grrrr – I've had to buy a T–mount to M42 adapter). But I can't be sure this is the case.

 

Reading through some of the material, it seems that these 35mm/3.5 lenses can be grouped into 2 types (sorry - I can't see any way of using tabs in the editor, and using multiple spaces to align columns hasn't worked):

 

Type A Type B Igororiginal

Front element diameter 23mm 31mm 23mm

Rear element diameter 11mm 14mm 11mm

Filter Thread 46mm 49, 52mm 52mm

Fitting T2 + T2 + T2

adapter adapter

UV Performance Possibly good Poor ???

 

So, anyway, I thought I'd do a simple comparison of the Igororiginal and a Type A and a Type B clone (or re-brand/whatever). I used the Cassar S, a known good UV performer, as the baseline. To save space and prevent even more boredom, there isn't any supporting information here – but feel free to ask if you're interested.

 

Just buying the lenses presented some challenges. I bought a couple of Type B lenses (£10 & £20 inc. postage). For one of them I was sent a 135mm lens (even though the ad. & picture was for a 35mm), and the other (Hanimex Hanimar) was blatantly damaged such that the aperture control was a mess: anyway, I was able to use the latter for my testing. I also bought a Type A lens: the going price seemed to be £10-£30 plus postage, but I picked up a Prinz Galaxy for £5 because it was encumbered by having a Praktica camera screwed to it which clearly nobody wanted.

 

Image Quality

 

I concentrated on corner resolution at my standard taking aperture of f/8.

 

The Type A, Type B, and Igororiginal all performed similarly. And they were not great by modern standards.

 

Looking at their performance over the area that would be covered by a 50mm lens, the Cassar S easily outperformed them.

 

UV Sensitivity

 

First test used a Baader U, which would be heavily weighted towards the longer wavelength end of the UVA spectrum (because of the declining sensitivity of the camera at shorter wavelengths). The relative sensitivities were:

 

Cassar S 100

Igororiginal 80

Type A 80

Type B 45

 

The second test was at the other end of the UVA spectrum using a 315BP25 filter. The numbers here should not be taken as being too exact because the filter is only 25mm diameter and causes vignetting with the 35mm lenses, so it was not straightforward to comapare with the 50mm Cassar S. The relative sensitivities are around:

Cassar S 100

Igororiginal 80

Type A 65

Type B 2.5

 

And the conclusions from all that?

 

The Igororiginal performs at least as well as a Type A lens.

 

Type B lenses are no-go for UV.

 

Cassar S is the better lens – unless you need the wider angle of view of a 35mm.

 

Is the Type A or the Igororiginal a Kuribayashi clone or re-brand? I don't know.

 

Is it worth buying the Igororiginal? Well, I think it probably is for a newcomer. It works like the Type A lens and avoids the risk of buying a 35mm/3.5 that turns out to be a dud for UV. And my copy, at least, was in good condition, unlike lots of the lenses on the market.

 

Is the Igororiginal value for money? More difficult to say. At £93 (I guess US price is $120 or 125) it is a lot more than the going rate for a 35mm/3.5 (£5-£30), but you are sure of getting something that works. And it comes with a BG39 + ZWB1 filter stack to get you going, but you may not want this or would probably soon want to move to a better filter.

[Cadmium]

Yes, I feel 'clone' may not be a somewhat nebulous work, it can have several meanings.

There are two that are the same, Kuribayashi 35mm/3.5, and Kyoei 35mm/3.5. Those are the same lens except for the cosmetics on the focus ring mostly. Those both test the same for UV transmission and focal shift,

they are built exactly the same, and they were made by Kyoei (Kuribayashi was a camera company that had some lenses made by Kyoei).

There are others that also have the same build and apparently were also made by Kyoei (maybe, probably), and work the same (maybe).

And then there are others that may not be made by Kyoei and look about the same, but may not be built exactly the same, and the word clone is perhaps used in a wishful way.

 

Personally, I would stay away from any lens that is not branded, or has had the brand removed, no mater someone says.

Such a situation is a perfect example of how 'clone' is over used.

You can of course test such a lens, but against what?

If you had a Kuri/Kyoei to compare, then you would know how close the lens is to the real thing.

 

The two lenses in the center below are the Kuribayashi and the Kyoei. DO NOT get the Kyoei on the left for UV, it transmits UV quite poorly.

Although it has the same name, "Kyoei 35mm/3.5", it is not the same lens at all, as you can see.

The Petri lens on the right (new camera company name for Kuribayashi) also works for UV if you want to deal with adapting the Petri mount design to your setup.

It doesn't have the same build, but the glass is probably the same type of glass from Kyoei used in the Kuri/Kyoei build.

[dabateman]

Well I will take a different view than Cadmium. I have had a couple email conversations with igoriginal, before I knew this forum/website existed. His knowledge seemed in line with my 10 years of trial and error in UV photography.

So I trust his 35mm lenses. He takes them apart, cleans them, adds o-rings, swaps various elements, and lens parts and reassembles them into working UV lenses tested to take a UV photographs.

They are all different, but will work for UV photography and I would definitely recommend this lens and filter to a person starting out fresh.

He tested the ZWB filters to make sure they don't leak visible. So you even get a good cheap one of those in the set. Although now they seem to be generally better.

So you don't get a spectrum of the lens, but it will work well for UV photography.

However, these lenses should be referred to as igoriginal 35mm lenses as he has modified them. Calling them clones is wrong. I don't think he owns an original Kuri, that he has modified these to equal. So they are not clones, by definition.

[Cadmium]

You can't modify a lens to "equal" the transmission of a Kuri (or any other lens) unless you change the glass.

[Andrea B.]

He [igoriginal] tested the ZWB filters to make sure they don't leak visible.

 

These danged-rabbity ZWB filters are going to be the death of me! I don't recommend them - yet - under any circumstances. Perhaps Igor's ZWB glass does not leak visible, but there is plenty of ZWB glass out there which does. So, our naive newcomer gets a good ZWB filter (...maybe...) and then thinks that it is ok to buy others but gets burned because the next ZWB may not have been made under good quality control.

 

---

 

The lenses in the Lens Sticky were all recommended by people who had used those lenses successfully for reflected UV photography. I suppose the only thing I can say here is that one person might like a certain lens while another might not. That is not a particularly satisfying or insightful statement. But it is valid. For example that Biotar 58/2.0 in the Lens Sticky was used by a UV photographer to take UV photos for illustrating a certain book that they wrote & published. I would assume then that they must have liked that lens and thought it good enough for UV or they would not have used it and taken the trouble to recommend it be added to the Lens Sticky.

 

---

 

I have no working knowledge of how Igor constructs his lenses. I can only say that it is easy enough to re-purpose elements from enlarger lenses or 28mm or 35mm lenses by adding them to an old lens helicoid+aperture (along with glue, adjustments, gaskets, etc.) There is more than one set of instructions on the internet about how to make your own lens with elements and helicoids ordered from Edmund Scientific or any other optical element supplier. I do think that Igor mislabels his creations. I find that "Kuribayashi Clone" labeling quite misleading. But if this Ebay lens works for some UV photographer hen that is all good regardless of what the label says.

 

---

 

If there is anything that anyone thinks I should do about the lens recommendations, please let me know.

 

---

[Cadmium]

The eBay clone is still listed as a Kuribayashi, and people search for that lens, then they think they have a Kuri.

They don't, and they don't know what they have even if they know they don't have a Kuri, it is deceptive, or call it what you want,

but it isn't a Kuribayashi, and unless someone like Jonathan or Ulf or others test one and compare it to other known lenses, by whatever method...

...unless, then no one knows, there is no graph with that listing, and now you are saying it is not even always the same lens?

So even if someone was to test it, compare it, then someone buying one would still not know how their lens would compare to other UV transmitting lenses.

You can usea lot of different lenses for UV, many could be said to transmit UV well enough, for example a Nikkor 18/4, best 18mm lens for UV I have, but definitely not a good lens for transmitting UV, but it will work, just not as good as say a Kuri, but if you want 18mm, you can't use a Kuri.

To identify a lens as a Kuribayashi 35mm, without any transmission documentation, no graph, and without a consistency in regard to the actual lens being sold...

that is something I would not purchase, but then I don't buy filters that have no such documentation either.

People really have no idea what they are getting, unless they get one and compare UV transmission to other lenses, and not just with photos.

The same goes for filters, especially the ZWB Chinese filters which have no solid source or solid data, none of the ones I have tested perform as well as premium brands of filter glass. This is something you can not know or compare unless you have them side by side.

 

For example, if I went looking for an El-Nikkor 80mm (older type with silver mount), I would be sure to get a good UV transmitting lens based on so many tests people have done using spectrometers, gratings, etc.,

and this would be true of a few other lenses I can think of, but not of the so called 'clone' on eBay.

The clone would work, but compared to what?

[eye4invisible]

The only take I have is that I purchased a "Kuri clone" from Igoriginal, which looks like the 2nd Kyoei in Cadmium's photo (M42 mount with the 46mm filter thread, and he included a 46-52mm step-up) and it works well for me. I didn't take the ZWB filters as part of his kit offering, as I already had the B+W 403, S8612 and KVUV filters.

 

There's always an inherent risk in buying things online, but the lens works well in UV, and I have no complaints.

[Cadmium]

By the way, here is the real thing, expensive, especially considering the outrageous shipping cost, but that would depend on where you live.

Definitely looks in good shape though.

323960760432

[dabateman]

Yes, calling the igoriginal 35mm lenses clones I think is wrong. They need to be called igoriginal 35mm lenses.

However, I don't think anyone would search for that on ebay. So I understand why he labels them as he does.

And yes I would expect each to perform differently and not the same as they are a mixed bag.

 

I would highly recommend the old Nikkor 80mm EL lens and an Olympus Em1 camera to anyone starting out. The Olympus Em1 can be used for UVA without modification. And if modified can reach into UVC.

[Cadmium]

If you are going to promote an unknown 'Kuri clone' on eBay, then it would be best to compare one to the real thing, by way of a spectrometer, grating, Sparticle, or other method that will define and compare the transmission.

Even given such a real comparison, if the lens is not always the same, then toss all that out the window.

[ulf]

When selecting a lens for UV-photography, naturally the UV transmission is important.

How deep into UV that must be depends on what type of UV-photography you are intending to do.

Other things to consider are working distance, sharpness and FOV.

If the lens is to be used for macro only, there is obviously no need for an ability to focus at infinity.

 

The real Kuribayashi/Kyoei 35mm lenses are among the best non specialist UV-capable lenses together with the Cassar-S 50mm, that arewell suited for non-macro work.

I only have the Cassar-S but believe both are quite good.

With extension rings they could be used for macro, but not in a very practical way as with a real macro lens.

 

For macro work some selected enlarger lenses can a better alternative.

They are normally designed and optimised for very good sharpness and might cover a big image circle.

The EL-Nikkor 80/5.6 is designed for a Ø100mm image circle at the film plane. http://www.savazzi.n...El-Nikkor_2.pdf

[bvf]

... For example that Biotar 58/2.0 in the Lens Sticky was used by a UV photographer to take UV photos for illustrating a certain book that they wrote & published. I would assume then that they must have liked that lens and thought it good enough for UV or they would not have used it and taken the trouble to recommend it be added to the Lens Sticky. ... If there is anything that anyone thinks I should do about the lens recommendations, please let me know.

 

Here are the results of the testing I did a couple of years ago (apologies - the "Kuribayashi" here is the Igororiginal; the Prinz Galaxy must have been a Type B, using my definitions earlier in this thread):

 

The Biotar and Tele-Ennalyt are not really any better than standard modern lenses. The thing is that I doubt there is any lens whose transmission spectrum hits a cliff-face at 400nm, so any lens could be used to get a UV image at the longer UVA wavelengths, given enough light and a long enough exposure.

 

So I do think the lens recommendations need to be updated. They should only show lenses where there is some supporting data. Otherwise, it might as well show every lens in the world. A starting point would be the existing list with all the entries without data removed. And of course the forum has a lot of knowledge of other good lenses which members should be encouraged to add - like the Autocrat de Luxe 50mm/75mm and Soligor 35mm enlarger lenses, Igororiginal, Type A (as defined earlier in this thread) 35mm/3.5 lenses.

 

When I cleared out the Biotar, Tele-Ennalyt, and my first Prinz Galaxy I sold them back to my source for the Biotar - but of course it still ended up costing me money. To be useful, the recommendations need to have sufficient data to help people avoid paying money for a lens that is not suitable for them (even though it may be OK for others), and it should aim to make life easy to encourage newcomers to UVP.

[bvf]

... the Cassar-S 50mm, that arewell suited for non-macro work. I only have the Cassar-S but believe both are quite good. With extension rings they could be used for macro, but not in a very practical way as with a real macro lens. ...

 

I actually find the Cassar S is pretty good at macro work with tubes and bellows. A few examples below. I always stop down to its sweet spot of f/8 and use focus stacking.

 

Now that I have a metal El Nik 105mm tend to use that for macro because of the longer working distance, but don't notice any difference in image quality.

 

In order, Lily, Gerbera, Quince:

[ulf]

Very nice pictures Bernhard.

How many source images was needed for the last one when stacking?

Are you using ZereneStacker?

[bvf]

Yes, I use Zerene.

 

I don't retain the stack component images so can't say how many there were in the stack, but probably 30-40, bearing in mind there is quite a depth to the image.

 

Actually, this was one of a stereo pair. If you have red/cyan glasses, here is the stereo shot:

[dabateman]

The thing is that I doubt there is any lens whose transmission spectrum hits a cliff-face at 400nm, so any lens could be used to get a UV image at the longer UVA wavelengths, given enough light and a long enough exposure.

 

Never say never. I have a couple lenses that do cut off at 405nm to 400nm. One is the Zeiss pentacon six 50mm f4. I have both the single lens coating and multiple coating versions and they both are useless for UV.

But this does raise a new question. I will have to go back and look, but the maybe perfect for UV induced work.

[eye4invisible]

If you are going to promote an unknown 'Kuri clone' on eBay, then it would be best to compare one to the real thing, by way of a spectrometer, grating, Sparticle, or other method that will define and compare the transmission.

Even given such a real comparison, if the lens is not always the same, then toss all that out the window.

You're right, of course. If Igor does swap out elements, then there's no guarantee that the next "clone" will be as good/poor as another. All I can do is compare it to the other lenses I have, and from the small set of shots I took, I can say that UV image sharpness and shutter speeds at low ISO (which is important to me) are as good as my EL-Nikkor lens.

 

Even if I had the real thing and a spectrometer to test that, it would only confirm that my specific "clone" was good/poor in relation, which is too late by then.

 

So, given the price of the real thing (insane shipping costs for the one you mentioned, by the way) I am going to take a bit of a risk with the "clone". Not going to "promote" it as such - just the usual YMMV/caveat emptor.

[ulf]

I actually find the Cassar S is pretty good at macro work with tubes and bellows.

 

It was mainly the fiddling with tubes and bellows that was, when doing macro work, my reason to chose enlarger lenses instead.

It is nice to know that the Cassar S is working well at some magnification too, but it might be difficult to cover a bigger range of magnification, especially including low magnifications with one helicoid. That works quite well for me with the EL-Nikkor 80/5.6, mounted inside a bigger helicoid.

https://www.ultravio...__fromsearch__1

 

I have a Leitz Focotar-2 50mm mounted in a similar way too.

It cannot reach infinity in that configuration, but reaches reasonably low magnifications when needed.

The Focotar-2 has a slightly better UV range than the EL-Nikkor 80 and 105-lenses.

 

https://www.ultravio...ion-difference/

https://www.ultravio...dpost__p__18699

[Andrea B.]

I temporarily have the Lens Sticky unavailable while I go through it and remove all lenses for which we have no "data".

 

The big problem is that the data we DO have is not standardized.

 

I have no way of obtaining standardized data for the lens sticky unless

• I buy the measurement gear myself, learn how to use it
  and then attempt to measure a rather large amount of lenses, most of which I don't own.
  
• or, someone else does this.
  

At this point I am really not sure whether to maintain the Lens Sticky at all.

Maybe it should go away ??

 

I'll see what it looks like after I remove the data-less entries.

 

Stay Tuned!!!

[bvf]

I think you're doing the right thing, Andrea. It would be nice if the data was standardised, but something is better than nothing. And the links to the source data (e.g. Klaus' famous spreadsheet bar chart) are v. useful.

 

Definitely keep the Lens Sticky. I look at it regularly.

[colinbm]

Andrea, I think all data should be archived at least, It may prove useful when the data can be improved or expanded.

If only there was a simple & reproducible way to collect the data....it might be available next year....?

Col

[Cadmium]

I temporarily have the Lens Sticky unavailable while I go through it and remove all lenses for which we have no "data".

 

The big problem is that the data we DO have is not standardized.

 

I have no way of obtaining standardized data for the lens sticky unless

• I buy the measurement gear myself, learn how to use it
  and then attempt to measure a rather large amount of lenses, most of which I don't own.
  
• or, someone else does this.
  

At this point I am really not sure whether to maintain the Lens Sticky at all.

Maybe it should go away ??

 

I'll see what it looks like after I remove the data-less entries.

 

Stay Tuned!!!

 

There is nothing wrong with the lens sticky, it is perfectly fine.

If you feel some item needs updating, then there is no rush.

Perhaps, if someone disagrees with an item or wants something changed, then ask others first, or maybe put a note next to the item for now?

The information here is a wealth to the world, one of the best resources of information about UV/IR.

Please leave it public. I recommend it to people all the time, and send them here to learn.

I would not remove lenses from the sticky, I believe the information there is more than 99% accurate and useful.

 

Your sticky topics are based on multiple sources, people, tests...

Of course you don't and can't own all the lenses or test everything,

but that could be said of filters, cameras, and so many other tests, of any sticky topic.

We depend on the many people and sources as a small community here, trying to set forth a consensus to help others the best we know how with our best understanding.

Our understanding evolves over time, and is updated, but your sticky topics remains one of the best resources of this knowledge anywhere.

[bvf]

Andrea - can't add comments to the new Lens Sticky, but I think you've done a good job.

 

Having lenses in the list with no data is just a list of lenses that provides no value. The removed lenses can always be added back in if any data is provided.

 

How do we add entries? For example, I have tested the Prinz Galaxy (s/n 34087) at 320nm and you can form images at that wavelength. But it needs a note to say choose a version with 23mm diameter front element and 11mm rear elemen - not one with 31mm front element and 14mm rear element.

 

We should also say something about Igororiginal. Again, my example can record at 320nm. The problem is that one Igororiginal may be a different lens to its predecessor and successor. But there are 2 or 3 forum members who are happy with their Igororiginals.

 

BTW - just ordered another lens on the basis of the sticky. Lithagon 28mm/3.5. Seemed to be going at a bargain price of £40 inc. postage. Serial number in the 400 series, so hopefully will perform as well as the one in the sticky which references the Klaus Schmidt spreadsheet bar chart where the serial number is in 401 range.

[enricosavazzi]

[...]

BTW - just ordered another lens on the basis of the sticky. Lithagon 28mm/3.5. Seemed to be going at a bargain price of £40 inc. postage. Serial number in the 400 series, so hopefully will perform as well as the one in the sticky which references the Klaus Schmidt spreadsheet bar chart where the serial number is in 401 range.

I own and tested a few Lithagons and their Porst clones (optical clones, the barrel mechanics and materials are different). I was not particularly impressed with them (especially the 24 mm), and I find the Nikon AI-S Nikkor 24 mm f/2.8 far better. The Lithagon 28mm is better than the Lithagon 24 mm, but the Nikkor 24 mm is much better than any Lithagon/Porst I tested.

My tests with the Lithagons: http://savazzi.net/photography/EnnaLithagon.html

Samples with Nikkor 24 mm: https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/3375-finspang-castle-ai-s-nikkor-24-mm-f28

[dabateman]

The lens sticky does look better.

I see you removed the Wollensak 25mm f1.5 c-mount lens. That is probably best. Its the only lens I felt slightly burned by.

I got a mint condition one in original box with caps and original filter. It was horrible in UV.

But I took it a part and polished the coatings off the 4 elements, and it is much better for UV photography. But still not as good as the Nikor 80mm EL, both at max aperture.

 

A note could be made that igoriginal did test many c-mount lenses and only the Wollensak 25mm f1.5 worked. So generally c-mount lenses might be bad for uv.