An unexpected (?) lens for UVR - 200mm micro Nikkor

[Adrian]

Inspired by Jonathan's UVR images of Ragwort, I thought I would try my own with my 105mm UV Nikkor. On a whim, I also tried my Nikon 200mm f/4 ED micro Nikkor, which gave a surprisingly good UV image (about 3 stops slower than the UV Nikkor). This lens is quite old, sadly no longer manufactured (but a superb long macro lens).

 

As might be imagined, the depth of field with the 200mm lens was very small, approx. 1.3mm. I will do some more tests. Maybe the lack of "colour" is due to the coating on the 200mm lens?

 

Image: Left: visible, centre, UVR with 105mm UV Nikkor, right, UVR with 200mm micro Nikkor

 

Technical details: Camera: full spectrum Nikon D800; UV: 4 x Metz "full spectrum" CT-1 flashguns on full power, Baader U filter, WB in Photo Ninja using PTFE target. UV Nikkor: f/11/16, 200mm lens f/5.6. 400ISO.

[Stefano]

Basically a UV-dedicated lens gives you richer colors, as expected. The difference is quite a lot.

[dabateman]

Looks like you are pushing the 385nm edge of the Baader venus filter. That is why its slower and more monochromatic.

 

[nfoto]

As Dave already said: the 200 Micro probably just ventures below the 400nm mark. As it is a very sharp lens and well corrected, the "UV" image still holds up nicely.

 

I have similar experiences with the old AIS 85/.4 Nikkor which is bitingly sharp in combination with the Baader U, but don't expect much in terms of UV chromacity.

[JMC]

Adrian, as others have mentioned I get the feeling this is not transmitting very far into the UV (especially looking at the internal construction of it). Something like Reed's StraightEdge U filter might work will with this, given it's letting much more light through in the 380-400nm range. But you're not going to get strong yellows out of it though unfortunately.

 

I have one of the earlier version 200mm f4 micro Nikkors, and while it is a different construction to yours I may have a play with it in UV to see what it is like.

[JMC]

This is the transmission spectra for my earlier version of the 200mm f4 micro Nikkor (shown between 280nm and 420nm).

 

 

As expected this cuts off quick quickly in the UV region. Adrian, while you work was with the newer ED version of the lens rather than this one, I doubt yours is getting any deeper into the UV, so you'll be looking right at the top end of the range of the Baader U which explains the reduced chromaticity. Also helps to explain the good sharpness, as you'll be looking at a relatively narrow range of wavelengths, so there's less of chromatic aberration.

 

I took a picture of ragwort using this lens and a Straight Edge U gen II filter on a monochrome d850 here - https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4008-senecio-jacobaea-common-ragwort-more-examples/page__view__findpost__p__37690

[Stefano]

This is probably one of the worst lenses for UV. Barely transmitting at 360 nm.

[dabateman]

This is probably one of the worst lenses for UV. Barely transmitting at 360 nm.

 

Nope the Pentacon six Zeiss 50mm f4 is the worst lens I know of for reflective UV. Absolutely nothing below 400nm. Maybe even 405nm.

I remember when I first tested it thinking my dandelion was broken and needed a good shake to regain the black center.

 

In hindsight it may be a good lens for UV induced fluorescence. But needs 86mm filters.

[Stefano]

Nope the Pentacon six Zeiss 50mm f4 is the worst lens I know of for reflective UV. Absolutely nothing below 400nm. Maybe even 405nm.

I remember when I first tested it thinking my dandelion was broken and needed a good shake to regain the black center.

 

In hindsight it may be a good lens for UV induced fluorescence. But needs 86mm filters.

Wow, you don't need UV filters with this lens. If it doesn't sharply cut off than it should be yellowish, like Schott GG420 or even GG435. I never heard of a lens so bad in UV that it even blocks violet. Thorium lenses become yellow as they age, they are probably useless for UV.

 

Or, at least, not good candidates for UV capability.

[colinbm]

Stefano, I posted something for you on Daves post, Raspberry pi HQ review

[Stefano]

Stefano, I posted something for you on Daves post, Raspberry pi HQ review

I don't know if I understand. In the topic you linked you talked about the layers on a sensor, the fact that there is a cover glass that can absorb UV. Here I was talking about lenses... can you explain what you mean better?

[colinbm]

I don't know if I understand. In the topic you linked you talked about the layers on a sensor, the fact that there is a cover glass that can absorb UV. Here I was talking about lenses... can you explain what you mean better?

I was looking for your further comments there...?

[Stefano]

I was looking for your further comments there...?

Are you referring to the post you linked? I don't have much to say, I read it, I learned something... thank you.