Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Video about UV-Nikkor 105


im_ghl

Recommended Posts

I think the UVP community has an unsually high incidence of UV-Nikkors. I probably am not the only UVP member with more than one of these work horses ....
Link to comment

I think the UVP community has an unsually high incidence of UV-Nikkors. I probably am not the only UVP member with more than one of these work horses ....

 

sure, but this lens is almost unknown to the rest of the world.

Link to comment

And after the author talking for such a long time, the intrepid viewer still awake can ascertain that very inadequate filtration is brought to bear to make his "UV" photos strongly impacted by IR contamination .....

 

Morale of the story is that even a UV-Nikkor will not make miracles if used in a haphazard manner.

Link to comment
It was, but only by a couple of items. Roland has 2003031 as the highest for the UV-Nikkor AIS and this was 2003034 if I read correctly from the video.
Link to comment

It was, but only by a couple of items. Roland has 2003031 as the highest for the UV-Nikkor AIS and this was 2003034 if I read correctly from the video.

 

a fake maybe?

Link to comment

Oops, I added an extra '0' to the serial numbers. So should be 203034 for the Youtube lens exceeding the max. number (for AIS) of 203031 per Roland Vink.

 

The serial numbers of those I currently own are 201240 and 201544, respectively. The oldest is from 1991 if memory serves. Apart from adding a CPU to each of them and a relubrication (after a desert trip in 2012) nothing else has been required in terms of maintenance. Focusing is still buttery smooth.

 

On the Sony NEX-5N monochrome and the full-spectrum Z6 I mainly use rear filtration, on the D3200 I rely on its built-in Baader U.

Link to comment

I would love to find one in a market one day. Discouned because its slow and doesn't autofocus.

 

I got my Nikkor 80mm EL super cheap as the seller thought it was broken. No focus ring. Maybe only lucky once.

 

Birna,

The serial number of the one in the video is 200306 pause at 1min 30 seconds and its crystal clear.

Link to comment

Ok, I just catched it in error then. 200306 is well within the previously known range, and must be an early model.

 

I got the first UV-Nikkor almost for nothing, so felt the next one could be purchased at a slightly more "normal" price level. The average price would still be very comfortable :smile:

Link to comment

im_ghl, it looks like you used a Baader U for the uv pictures?

 

Yes, it is a baader filter, though before getting the baader, I used a BW 403 with a standard D40 hoping to eliminate the maximum of IR leakage thanks to the camera default filtering characteristics.

Link to comment

You don't say what filter you are using? That is essential! What filter are you using?

 

a baader filter, though before getting the baader, I used a BW 403 with a standard D40 hoping to eliminate the maximum of IR leakage thanks to the camera default filtering characteristics.

Link to comment

I am sure it is an excellent lens, but what is the point when it exceeds our cameras ability to see beyond UVA ?

The point is that our cameras (not really mine) can see UVB and monochromatic sensor can be stretched into the UVC spectrum. You probably won't see a big difference between it and a good "non-designed-for-UV" UV lens, like the Kuribayashi under sunlight, but you need it (or similar) to reach 300 nm and below.
Link to comment

The UV-Nikkor simply is an excellent performer, and in practice one never needs to worry about insufficient bandwidth coverage. Focus shifts are usually negligible visible-UV, sometime a little more of significance visible-IR; both characterstics simplify work with a wide spectral range and different filters immensely. Its image circle suffices even to cover the lower medium formt range if close-ups are taken. So what is there not to like about such a lens (apart from the oftentimes outlandish asking price)?

 

I do, however, cringe when seeing a UV-Nikkor being advertised and priced as a collectoir's item. These lenses are made for heavy work and should deserve to be put to actual tasks, not being stood on a collector's shelf. 8.5K USD is simply too much when you can buy a brand new Rayfact UV 105 for less.

Link to comment

I am sure it is an excellent lens, but what is the point when it exceeds our cameras ability to see beyond UVA ?

Aside from UVB/UVC experiments, it also just makes really great looking UV photos. Even my best UV lens, the EL-Nikkor 80/5.6 metal, doesn't approach the quality of Cadmium's casual snapshots for example. Really sharp lenses that are not built for UV either have focal shift, CA issues in UV, or limited bandpass giving washed out colors. It's not that the El-Nikkor 80/5.6 is a bad lens by any means (and it's muuuuch cheaper) but if I cared about getting truly documentary quality results, the UV Nikkor seems to deliver.

Link to comment

I just saw a Nikkor 105mm f1.8 go for $500, and another listed for $375 with stiff focus ring.

So this super slow 105mm should be like $60, right. If I keep saying that, will it come true?

If any one wants to sell their UV-Nikkor 105mm for $60, please let me know.

 

Some humor altert here.

Link to comment

I just saw a Nikkor 105mm f1.8 go for $500, and another listed for $375 with stiff focus ring.

So this super slow 105mm should be like $60, right. If I keep saying that, will it come true?

If any one wants to sell their UV-Nikkor 105mm for $60, please let me know.

 

Some humor altert here.

 

That's quite expensive, got mine (105 f/1.8) for $265 in pristine condition, I guess you can get one in ill condition and fix it, I do that all the time.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...