A few classic German lenses in UV

[rfcurry]

I had been hoping that we would experience a warm sunny day with high UV. Alas, perhaps in a few months.

 

The following shots were taken with a UVP Model B100 Mercury-vapor lamp, with Wood's glass filter, as the UV source. The filter was an SEU gen1. The camera was a Panasonic GF1. All photos taken in f11, ISO 400. The subject was an antique hygrometer, thermometer, and barometer. The sole object of the exercise was to determine the utility of some delightful old German glass, as lenses in UV-reflective photography. Focusing was done in live view at max aperture before stopping down. I think the Tessar holds it's own in UV.

 

The images below are reduced in size to 900 pixel width. The crops are at 100% to show the 6pt text.

 

Steinheil Munchen Cassar-S 50/2.8 10/13s

 

Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50/3.5 10/13s

 

Schneider-Kreuznach Jsogon 40/4.5 13/10s

 

Meyer-Optik Primagon 35/4.5 32/10s

 

Cassar crop

 

Tessar crop

 

Jsogon crop

 

Primagon crop

[colinbm]

I don't understand your intentions with this post Reed ?

You have used a poor UV source with heaps of IR output & a poor 'Woods Glass' filter ?

Camera & any filter used on it, not mentioned ?

[Andy Perrin]

I don't understand your intentions with this post Reed ?

You have used a poor UV source with heaps of IR output & a poor 'Woods Glass' filter ?

Camera & any filter used on it, not mentioned ?

He did mention it, it was the Panasonic GF1 with SEU gen1 as the filter.

[colinbm]

Thanks Andy, my mistake, I read the post earlier then posted later.

So the intention is to show that the lens doesn't focus in UV ?

[bvf]

Reed - excellent - thanks for this.

 

A couple of things surprise me:

1. The poor image quality of the Casar S. Although I now favour the Focotar-2, I found the Cassar S to be pretty good. Your images were at f/11, whereas I always use f/8, but still ...
   
2. How good the Tessar comes out. I'm tempted to get one if the price is right. But there are so many Tessars about. Could you provide a photo of your copy together with the serial number?
   

I hadn't come across an SEU filter before, so had to resort to Google. Looked at https://www.uvroptics.com/index.php?SEU . Their filter costs about the same as the Bader U - does it have any advantage over Baader U or over sandwiches like U340+S8612?

 

Also, that site refers to the Andrea 'U' filter - is that anyhting to do with "our" Andrea?

[bvf]

 

But there are so many Tessars about. Could you provide a photo of your copy together with the serial number?

 

 

And ditto for the Primagon, please.

[dabateman]

Bernard,

Reed makes the straight edge u filters. So I am not too sure how much he will say about them. There are lots of test here if you search for SEU or SEU2. The newest version 3 looks really good to me.

From a US point of view, they are cheaper than the Baader venus u ($387) vs $269 and you get caps and a hood.

https://www.uvroptics.com/index.php?SEUGen3

 

 

As for the test Reed seem to be just as lucky as Andy and I with his Steinheil lens. Soft. I can see the ad now.

 

"Are your UV images just too crunchy, then try the Steinheil beauty lens. It smooths out the skin in all your sunscreen photos and hides all those nasty pores from ruining your photoshoot." Wink.

 

[bvf]

Bernard,

Reed makes the straight edge u filters.

 

From a US point of view, they are cheaper than the Baader venus u ($387) vs $269 and you get caps and a hood.

https://www.uvroptic...dex.php?SEUGen3

 

 

As for the test Reed seem to be just as lucky as Andy and I with his Steinheil lens. Soft.

 

Didn't know that Reed was the company owner - you gotta be careful on this forum before complaining about a supplier!

 

It's true that the price of a Baader U is higher than the SEU - £250 (say $325) for the Bader U vs. $260 for the SEU. But I'd have to factor in UK shipping and import duty. Anyway, I already have a Baader U and U340+S8612, so the SEU is probably not relelvant to me unless it has some distinct advantage.

 

I don't want to sound like the champion of the Cassar S (esp. as I've deserted it for my new love, the Focotar-2), but Andy has a Cassaron - might be quite a different lens to the Cassar S.

[StephanN]

Apologies for butting in, but apparently some Cassar-S lenses are better than others. Here's a test-photo I snapped just now on my balcony.

 

Light source is the sun, taken from a tripod at f/8, 1/6 s, ISO 1600, focussed with Live-View as close as the lens goes, around 1m. Camera: 6D, b/w with 330C and S8612. Full frame, and center crop.

 

While I wouldn't call it razor-sharp, I don't see it as a soft-focus lens And that's at close-range, if you want to do a photo of landscape or buildings at some distance, I don't think you ought to have any problems. Of course, the b/w-conversion does add some resolution, but if anything, this would serve to highlight lens-defects and not hide them.

 

For more details to my copy of this lens, see here: https://www.ultravio...sar-s-50mm-f28/

[dabateman]

The advantage is 65% transmission at 395nm. That is higher than the other filters. The version 3 looks to have a sharper edge that doesn't leak too much over 405nm. That also is an advantage as over 405nm flowers look a little different.

 

So if you don't have a full spectrum converted camera, than the SEU3 is the filter to get to get the UV look. It would easily give you one stop more light than a Baader venus u filter with a stock Olympus camera.

 

Looks like Stephan and Bernard own the only two failed beauty Steinheil lenses. You guys just don't get those soft, like vaseline all over your front element shots like we do. Oh well. Next purchase maybe.

[StephanN]

You guys just don't get those soft, like vaseline all over your front element shots like we do. Oh well. Next purchase maybe.

 

Perhaps it's a from a different series, in the thread I linked you can see the s/n of my lens, if you're interested.

 

On EBay there is a number of those lenses for sale from Hungary, and the description reads as follows, perhaps a bit exaggerated :

 

"- It's a triplet (like Trioplan) with Steinheil quality (much better than the Meyer, I think)!

- This lens is capable for UV photography! This is one of the best UV photo lenses in the world! The Steinheil lenses are famous for their HQ glass, wide spectrum light transmission (down to UV light). This HQ glass produces such glittering and lively images as you cannot produce with any other lens in the world!"

[bvf]

Perhaps it's a from a different series, in the thread I linked you can see the s/n of my lens, if you're interested.

 

On EBay there is a number of those lenses for sale from Hungary, and the description reads as follows, perhaps a bit exaggerated :

 

"- It's a triplet (like Trioplan) with Steinheil quality (much better than the Meyer, I think)!

- This lens is capable for UV photography! This is one of the best UV photo lenses in the world! The Steinheil lenses are famous for their HQ glass, wide spectrum light transmission (down to UV light). This HQ glass produces such glittering and lively images as you cannot produce with any other lens in the world!"

 

The serial number of mine is 2046654 - so presumably a bit older than your 2069367.

 

Yes, some of the descriptions are a bit over the top - I've seen the lens described with words like "stunning" and "magnificent". For a 1960s triplet!

 

Actually, there's a new one on ebay. Currently at £50 with no bids, and 4 days to go. The serial number is 1669882 - so possibly even earlier. I may keep a watch on this one.

 

We shouldn't be too worried by the negative comments of our US friends. They're just envious and bitter about being thrown out of the empire by the British, and keep banging on about it every 4th of July. Live with it, guys - it was 250 years ago: you'll be OK on your own.

[rfcurry]

Bernard,

 

Your sentiment "it was 250 years ago: you'll be OK on your own" is, alas, not borne out by recent events. (Sigh)

 

I still owe you shots with the Ludwig Meritar.

Below are some images taken indoors with sunlight. The lense used was the Tessar 50/3.5 for the Cassar images, The Primogon 35/4.5, with flash, was used for the Tessar images. The Cassar S is an M42 mount, the Tessar is an Exakta mount.

 

http://uvroptics.com/images/CassarSAWB900px071.jpghttp://uvroptics.com/images/CassarSAWB900px073.jpghttp://uvroptics.com/images/CassarSAWB900px073.jpghttp://uvroptics.com/images/CassarSAWB900px075.jpghttp://uvroptics.com/images/CassarSAWB900px078.jpg

 

The Cassar S is well-made, small but heavy.

 

The Tessar is also well-made. A bit larger than the Cassar S. My Tessar 50/2.8 does not perform as well as the Tessar 50/3.5 shown.

 

http://uvroptics.com/images/Tessar50-3.5AWB900px087.jpghttp://uvroptics.com/images/Tessar50-3.5AWB900px091.jpghttp://uvroptics.com/images/Tessar50-3.5AWB900px093.jpg

[rfcurry]

The AndreaU is named after Our Andrea. Many years ago, Andrea and Birna were kind enough to rigorously test my early filter designs. Poor Birna had a CuSO4-filled filter leak its innards over one of her cameras. You took your photographic life in your hands in those days. But I digress...the AndreaU and AndreaU MKII have always been well-received. The US Navy has made several large purchases over the years, ostensibly for missile testing. (Apparently, the initial plume of a surface to air missile has a strong, easily-identifiable, UV signature.) Andrea has performed an exhaustive test of the AndreaU MKII and published it somewhere on this forum. :)

[bvf]

Reed - thanks for this.

 

The serial number of the Cassar S is very low. Stephan and I both have serial numbers in the 20.... range. I wonder if this is a distinguisher betwen good and bad copies. David - what is the serial number of your lemon of a Cassar S?

 

Re. the Tessar, the serial number of 3515530 would indicate a manufacture date of 1952-55. There are a number of CZ 50/3.5 Tessars of similar or earlier ages on ebay at the moment, but they are quite expensive (getting on for £200). There is a cheaper one for immediate sale at £65 Exakta mount, like yours), but I can't see the serial number. However, all of them have different bodywork to yours, so I'm a bit reluctant to take the risk.

 

All of these Tessars, inc. yours, are red T versions: I thought that denoted improved coatings - do you know if that is right? If so, it would be great to find an earlier non-T copy.

[rfcurry]

Bernard,

 

The red "T" just indicates the use of an anti-reflective coating, increasing its "Transparency".

 

I wonder if they used more Thorium in the glass of my Tessar 50/3.5. It is Exakta mount. Exaktas were very popular in their price range, hence a high volume customer. CZJ might have used more thorium to increase RI, save manufacturing costs, and increase profit margin. Just a thought. I don't have a Geiger counter.

 

A Tessar 80/2.8 of the same time period of my lens was the hottest lens in the Swedish Thorium study. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:652338/FULLTEXT01.pdf

[nfoto]

Most of lenses such as Noflexar 35/3.5 or the Cassar 40/2.8 should be stopped well down for adequately crisp results in UV. I usually put them to f/11 and then even the sometimes maligned Cassar delivers respectable image quality. It does, however, display lower image contrast than many others unless you boost contrast during post processing.