Does anyone know the UV performance of vintage steinheil lenses?

[akburk]

I'm looking to buy my first UV lens on a budget hopefully being able to take photos at below 350nm, around 330nm would be ideal in a perfect world.

 

Steinheil came up a lot in my searches and I've seen it in the UV lens sticky here but I assume they are for steinheil lenses that are modern like this 45mm. I think they are modern as they look it. Then there are lenses that go by the same name ut they look very vintage like this

and this

and are very cheap. The 45mm is very cheap.

 

If you have used any of those types of vintage lenses, let us know. If there is little information on this, I might buy them and do my own pinhole test and come back here to share the results.

[Andy Perrin]

Almost no modern lenses work for UV unless they were designed for it. I think you're wrong, or defining "modern" in some way that includes the 20th century. Steinheil was dissolved in 1994 and the trademark was not renewed.

 

I have a Steinheil Munchen EDIXA-Auto-Cassaron 2.8/50mm. It has excellent UV pass but it's a soft lens (or my copy is, anyway). If you want good UV characteristics, older versions are typically the good ones.

 

For a first UV lens, one of the EL-Nikkor family would actually be my recommendation, either the famous metal version of the 80mm/5.6 or the others we've tested. Those are VERY sharp lenses with good bandpass. You are going to have trouble taking photos at 330nm because the gain of the camera falls very swiftly on that end, so you need very strong blocking of everything longer than 330nm AND a lens with high bandpass to get there. It's honestly not a good initial goal if you are just starting with UV -- first get started with the longer wavelengths and get to understand your equipment. People new to UV greatly underestimate how hard it is to be sure of what you're seeing in the photos, and how to do things like white balance.

[akburk]

Relatively modern would be a better term. It seems that there is a distinct lens design difference between some of the lenses. The 'modern' ones are largers and silvery and the vintage ones come with these shutters on the lens and other bits that set them apart.

I meant to say that it capable of passing 330nm as I have seen on charts of the steinheil lenses. I would be shooting with a bandpass between 330nm to 400nm ideally.

[StephanN]

+1 on the EL-Nikkor. If you dig (moderatly old, not really old ones) Steinheil lenses, check out one of these: https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4171-steinheil-cassar-s-50mm-f28/ or https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4170-steinheil-culmigon-35mm-f35/ , both are suited for UV and quite sharp. I sort of remember from data by Klaus Schmitt that the 50mm reaches down to 320nm and the 35 mm down to 360nm, not sure though

[Andy Perrin]

Klaus's numbers are based on a weird criterion, StephanN, and I don't think I'd go by them, unless you are comparing Klaus lens-to-Klaus lens measurements. They are useful in a relative sense but I wouldn't use them for absolute numbers. Ulf has been remeasuring all of these lenses spectrographically and doing so in a standardized way, so I would consult the work he has done so far here on the board.

[akburk]

Yes, the two lenses you linked are both the "modern" ones. I may bite the bullet and buy the "modern" lens.

Though the "really old" lens are very cheap so I may test one of those and come back to UVP with the results (just a crude pinhole test). The 45mm 'really old' Steinheil Muchen Cassar F2.8 goes for £10-£20 on ebay (attached to film cameras)

[akburk]

For reference: for other people reading, Klaus did tests on Steinheil lenses he describes as "M42 thread mount taking lenses in silver aluminum barrel" which are exact description of the 'modern' lenses not the vintage lenses (the screw mounts much are smaller and less silvery)

[Andy Perrin]

I don't know why people like Steinheil when they could get an EL-Nikkor. Mine is awful.

[StephanN]

so I would consult the work he has done so far here on the board.

 

Here's hoping that the data will shop up here for quick comparison: https://www.ultravio...technical-data/

 

[Edit]https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/3232-canon-50mm-and-40mm-lenses-vs-50mm-cassar-s/page__hl__steinheil__fromsearch__1[/Edit]

[Andy Perrin]

[Edit]https://www.ultravio...__fromsearch__1[/Edit]

The cloudy-looking photo from the Cassar S in that link is typical of what I get, and it's why I would never recommend that lens (or my Edixa Auto-cassaron) to anyone. Bandpass isn't everything.

[akburk]

What EL-Nikkor do you use?

[Andy Perrin]

80mm/5.6 old metal type

[bvf]

Well, I'm a fan of the 50mm Cassar S. It's got good UV reach, and gives pretty good quality images (at least on an APS-C sensor). Many of the images I have posted use that lens. So I would fully recommend it - although the prices seem to have become rather high. You can find the occasional bargain by buying an old camera with an M42 mount like an Edixa that happens to have a Cassar S screwed to it.

 

Having said all that, I have switched to a Focotar 2 as my first choice at 50mm - it has similar UV reach, but seems to give a bit better image quality. But that lens is scarce, and also quite pricey. For longer focal lengths, the old-style metal El Nikkor 80mm and 105mm are good although the limited maximum aperture (on the Focotar 2 as well) could cause difficulties for focussing.

 

At the 35mm focal length, I'm not impressed with the image quality of the UV-friendly lenses I have tried (Igororiginal, Prinzflex) - although the UV reach is good. If you can find one and you are using an APS-C or smaller sensor, the Soligor 35mm f/3.5 enlarger lens is pretty good.

 

At 28mm I have an f/3.5 Enna Lithagon. That's pretty good too.

 

BTW - I have not found any hotspots with these lenses when using them for IR.

[Andy Perrin]

My 35mm choice is still the Noflexar. That built-in macro feature is very handy.

[dabateman]

My 50m f2.8 EDIXA is like Andy's, soft like butter. Smearing vaseline on a lens would be sharper.

The Nikkor EL 80mm f5.6 old metal version is my recommendation for first lens. Mine can just see to 313nm, but its noisy. Or just need a deadly amount of photons.

 

Looks like Ulf has 1% transmission at about 313nm with his EL 80.

 

I just got a Milar 50mm in RMS mount that I will need to test. Should be fun. I am hoping its similar to Ulf's Milar 30mm and Milar 65mm, and can be used at 10x magnification.

[ulf]

My Cassar 50/3.5 enlarger lens has a good UV reach and is quite sharp.

That is beside my Cassar S 50/2.8 the only lens I have used for photography.

 

Regarding UV-reach I would say that as long as it is good enough it is rarely an important parameter to chase for as long as you are not going to use very special filters and light sources.

If you are going to use the sunlight as light source and a Baader U or typical UV-pass stack like S8612 + U-340 or + U-360 other parameters are more important.

Andy's Noflexar is quite OK for UV-reach and that lens has rather less reach than a Cassar S.

My main lens for UV is the EL 80.

 

It is interesting that Steinheil lenses are asked for now because lately I have, inspired by my Cassar 50/3.5 enlarger lens, been hoarding some different types, to test in the future.

[bvf]

BTW - should have said in my post that I always stop down to f/8, whatever lens I'm using - unless circumstances or artistic requirements dictate otherwise. You're never going to get brilliant performance from a 1960's triplet lens at full aperture.

[ulf]

Yes, the two lenses you linked are both the "modern" ones. I may bite the bullet and buy the "modern" lens. Though the "really old" lens are very cheap so I may test one of those and come back to UVP with the results (just a crude pinhole test). The 45mm 'really old' Steinheil Muchen Cassar F2.8 goes for £10-£20 on ebay (attached to film cameras)

I think the difference between the lenses you call "modern" and "really old" are just that the "really old" are mounted together with a central-shutter mechanism and harvested from cameras without exchangeable lenses.

They look to be from the same period.

To use a "really old" lens type you likely must make some adaption to some normal mount type like the M42 thread,to fit whatever lens mount adapter you intend to use on your camera.

One if the problems with that is to get the lens to sensor distance right, for a woking infinity focus.

[StephanN]

What EL-Nikkor do you use?

 

80mm f/5.6, if I need a longer focal length (for shorter focal lengths Steinheil or Soligor lenses, but as you can see the question which lens is suitable for UV is a very complex and emotional issue )

 

I've tried the 105 mm f/5.6 (https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4295-nikon-105mm-f56-el-nikkor-old-metal-version/) once for landscape but saw something akin to a hotspot; I have to admit, though, that I did no testing, might have been some other sort of lens flaw.

[Andrea B.]

Regarding UV-reach I would say that as long as it is good enough it is rarely an important parameter to chase for as long as you are not going to use very special filters and light sources.

 

I think this point should be made more often. Don't chase UV reach! Any reflected UV-photo made with illumination or filtration peaking between 360-400 nm is a totally legitimate reflected UV photo. There aren't many differences between what you see there and what you might see between 300-360 nm other than some differences in the *raw* false colour and some occasional minor differences in UV reflectivity.

Now that is a general statement, so please don't go flooding me with counter-examples!! Some do exist, but not enough to warrant the great expense of a dedicated UV lens for anyone who just wants to play with UV for a while.

 

 

I've tried the 105 mm f/5.6 ... once for landscape but saw something akin to a hotspot.

 

A few years back I remarked here (somewhere!) on UVP that *any* UV-capable lens is also capable of some wack-o flare or hotspots or other reflection weirdities depending on the angle to illumination and what filter you are using and what time of day it is and what time of year it is and how the interior of a particular lens is constructed and whether you were standing on your left foot or your right foot .... and so on .... If it is a random problem which has cropped up, then moving around, reframing, stopping down, using an alternate filter or whatever-may-work will cure the problem.

[rfcurry]

I have accumulated pre-1970 prime German lenses for many years. I have found the build quality of many pre-coated, German lenses is excellent. That said, a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50/3.5 provides a much sharper image overall than a CZJ Tessar 50/2.8. I started with the Ludwig Meritar 50/2.8. That little lens does pass UV well and many find the IQ is good-very good. Then I bought the full line of Pieskers, which, with the exception of the 250mm which is 2element/2groups, are triplets. Superb build quality.

 

After a few years, the general softness of triplet lenses pushed me to add one more element. The Tessar design is one of my favorites. Yet, the Schneider-Kreuznach Jsogon 40/4.5 is an excellent UV-capable lens. Its one drawback is the lack of a threaded filter position.

[bvf]

That said, a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50/3.5 provides a much sharper image overall than a CZJ Tessar 50/2.8. I started with the Ludwig Meritar 50/2.8. That little lens does pass UV well and many find the IQ is good-very good. ... The Tessar design is one of my favorites.

 

Tessars don't appear on any of the UV-friendly lists. Do you have any supporting data/demonstration on UV image quality or UV reach? There's plenty around, and if they outperform the Cassar S they might be a viable option. I guess the problem that you raise is that there are many manufacturers and variants of the Tessar design and so you wouldn't know what you are going to get in terms of UV performance.

 

I remember the Meritar (wasn't it f/2.9 rather than 2.8?) as a simple (i.e. manual diaphragm) entry-level lens on Exa cameras. I never paid it any attention. If they're cheap enough on ebay I may try one.

[rfcurry]

Bernard,

 

I can never recall whether the Meritar, Peronar, or Victar are 2.9 or 2.8. This review says 2.9, so you are right. http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_919.html

 

I should have plenty of UV images from the Meritar, I'll look for them. I never paid more than $25 for a Ludwig 50/2.9 under any of the three names, IIRC.

 

Regards,

Reed

[akburk]

Thank you all, I'll see what I buy for my first lens. I may priotise sharpness instead if UV-reach if isn't as important. I'll update soon with pinhole tests too.

[Andrea B.]

There should be a Tessar in the Lens Sticky? I have one which seems good enough for UV.