• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Soligor 35mm f/3.5

Lens
21 replies to this topic

#1 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,735 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 27 March 2021 - 13:45

Finalized: Work in progress.
Last Update:
Note: Additional information or links about this lens are welcomed and will be incorporated into the first post as time permits.


Soligor 35mm f/3.5

Manufacturer: Kobori
Manufacturer's lens designation: Soligor 1:3,5 f=35mm
Currently manufactured: No
Lens type: Manual focus, Prime, Wide Angle
Design: 5 elements in 5 groups
Focal length: 35mm
Aperture range: f/3.5 – f/22, Preset Manual, 8 blades
Optimal magnification *: ?
Sensor format/coverage: up to 24 mm x 36 mm
Mount: M42 x 1 (test lens) and others. The mount is internally mounted on a T2 mount structure that can be exchanged between lenses.
Helicoid: Yes
Flange Focus distance: M42/45.46 mm,
Front filter: 46 mm x 0.75 mm
Introduction year: between 1969 or earlier
This lens produced: 1971
S/N of test object: 9714227
** Mount of test object

Comment about types of Soligor 35/3.5: Over the years several different models of this lens were produced by different manufacturers. They have different shapes and optical performance, possibly including different UV-reach. For more info see the Soligor Lens Compendium. This website correlates the Soligor serial numbers to the actual manufacturer.
See also: http://www.savazzi.n.../35soligor.html


Image of test object:

Attached Image: IMG_2693.jpg Attached Image: IMG_2695.jpg Attached Image: IMG_2696.jpg
The shape of the rear lens mount has often proved to be a good hint of a possibly good UV-performance for similar lenses branded differently like Galaxy and Prinz Galaxy

Transmittance Summary

Definitions of the parameters below
  • Range: This Soligor 1:3,5 f=35mm transmits from 1-70% in an increasing slope from 310nm to 400nm.
  • TVISmax (%) = 84%
  • T400nm (%) = 65%
  • T365nm (%) = 57%
    This high percentage is an indicator for relatively short exposure time under typical UV-pass filtration peaking around 360 nm or when using 365 nm UV-LED illumination.
  • λUV HMvis(nm) = 341nm
  • λUV HM400(nm) = 333nm
  • λUV Zero(nm) = 310nm
  • These three values indicate that the lens is working for upper UV-B photography with some filters and the few for this, suitable cameras.

Spectral Transmission Graphs

UV-NIR, Soligor 1:3,5 f=35mm
Attached Image: Screen Shot 2021-03-20 at 13.06.38.png
The transmission measurement accuracy into the end of NIR range is less good due to limitations in the light source.

UV, Soligor 1:3,5 f=35mm
Attached Image: Screen Shot 2021-03-20 at 13.05.31.png

UV-Log, Soligor 1:3,5 f=35mm
Attached Image: Screen Shot 2021-03-20 at 13.05.09.png
Numerical Spectra Data available: Yes

General comments about the UV-reach:
tba

Filters and how to use them on this lens:
The front filter thread is 46mm standard filter thread.

It is also possible to use rear mounted filters, either in lens mount adapters for mirrorless cameras like Sony A-series etc, or placed directly in the camera.

An alternative, if space in the camera allows, is to putty-mount a filter directly against the lenses rear element mount ring. The rear lens element is recessed and thus safe and the ring provides a good reference plane for orienting the filter normal to the optic axis.


Handling and focussing:
TBD

Flare and sun-stars:
TBD

Sharpness:
TBD

Lens distortion:
TBD

Chromatic Aberration in UV:
TBD
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#2 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,591 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 27 March 2021 - 15:01

These are the ones & their clones, are refurbished & sold on ebay by Igorigingal

#3 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,049 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 27 March 2021 - 15:07

Happy to know my Soligor probably reaches down to 310 nm. It's a nice lens.

#4 OlDoinyo

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 875 posts
  • Location: North Carolina

Posted 27 March 2021 - 18:59

Suggestion: in stead of "sensor/format coverage," report effective image-circle diameter at infinity.

#5 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,735 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 27 March 2021 - 19:41

View PostOlDoinyo, on 27 March 2021 - 18:59, said:

Suggestion: in stead of "sensor/format coverage," report effective image-circle diameter at infinity.
That sounds like a very nice idea.
Can you please suggest a practical way of determine that?
I am not sure I have any equipment to measure such a parameter.

Maybe I should remove that line for lenses designed for 35mm film instead?
The line is a thing from the topics and data sheets for EL-Nikkor lenses where that parameter is defined.

Edited by UlfW, 27 March 2021 - 19:42.

Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#6 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,049 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 27 March 2021 - 20:19

If you had a camera with a very big sensor (like medium format) than you could measure the diameter of the image circle in pixels and knowing the sensor size do some math and figure it out.

Another way could be putting a sheet of paper where the sensor would be and measure it with a rule/caliper, but that probably isn't very precise.

#7 Pedro J. Aphalo

    Pedro J. Aphalo

  • Members
  • 86 posts
  • Location: Helsinki, Finland

Posted 27 March 2021 - 21:01

Based on the information given at https://www.apotelyt...soligor-catalog this copy of the objective was manufactured in 1971. I have two copies of this same objective, one from 1970 and one from 1969. So the introduction year must be 1969 or earlier.

#8 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,973 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 27 March 2021 - 21:52

I want to add here that there are possibly different varieties of Soligor 35/3.5. So we should add some kind of comment in the first topic about that. Let me think how best to word it. Or please make suggestions.

[Side Note: Pedro, hello! Nice to see you here again. :grin: ]
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#9 Bernard Foot

    Bernard Foot

  • Members+G
  • 722 posts
  • Location: UK

Posted 27 March 2021 - 21:57

View PostOlDoinyo, on 27 March 2021 - 18:59, said:

Suggestion: in stead of "sensor/format coverage," report effective image-circle diameter at infinity.

I would expect that for most lenses there is not a sharp cut-off at the circle of coverage - instead the image quality will drop off to a point where it is not considered deuate (sorry - word should have been "adequate"). So you'll have to have an agreed criterion and a method of measuring it.
Bernard Foot

#10 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,735 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 28 March 2021 - 05:44

View PostPedro J. Aphalo, on 27 March 2021 - 21:01, said:

Based on the information given at https://www.apotelyt...soligor-catalog this copy of the objective was manufactured in 1971. I have two copies of this same objective, one from 1970 and one from 1969. So the introduction year must be 1969 or earlier.
Hi Pedro,

Thank you very much for the interesting link with information
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#11 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,735 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 28 March 2021 - 05:46

View PostAndrea B., on 27 March 2021 - 21:52, said:

I want to add here that there are possibly different varieties of Soligor 35/3.5. So we should add some kind of comment in the first topic about that. Let me think how best to word it. Or please make suggestions.

I made an attempt for that, Andrea. Please feel free to make adjustments
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#12 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,735 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 28 March 2021 - 05:52

View PostBernard Foot, on 27 March 2021 - 21:57, said:

I would expect that for most lenses there is not a sharp cut-off at the circle of coverage - instead the image quality will drop off to a point where it is not considered deuate. So you'll have to have an greed criterion and a method of measuring it.
That is exactly what I expect too.
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#13 Bernard Foot

    Bernard Foot

  • Members+G
  • 722 posts
  • Location: UK

Posted 28 March 2021 - 07:19

View PostUlfW, on 28 March 2021 - 05:44, said:


Thank you very much for the interesting link with information


Yes - it was interesting. I wonder if Stefano's Soligor has a KA serial number - that would make it a Kyoei Acall lens, and perhaps allow it to be called a "Kuri clone". (I may be opening a tin of worms there ...)

Unfortunately my Soligor 35mm enlarger lens doesn't appear to have a serial number.

BTW, here is a useful site to allow ageing of many vintage German lenses and cameras from their serial numbers: http://camera-wiki.o.../Serial_numbers
Bernard Foot

#14 Pedro J. Aphalo

    Pedro J. Aphalo

  • Members
  • 86 posts
  • Location: Helsinki, Finland

Posted 28 March 2021 - 09:52

@Andrea
Enrico Savazzi has described this version of the Soligor 35 mm f:3.5 as well as the version with serial numbers starting with KA. Quoting Enrico "However, the optical scheme and its UV performance remain the same." This then suggests that objectives with the same optical formula were at least assembled by different manufacturers. I think we cannot assume that mechanical and optical components were produced by the same company...

Enrico also mentions that there are additional Soligor 35 mm variations with different optical formulas.

http://www.savazzi.n.../35soligor.html

These objectives have been frequently available very cheaply in eBay, and photographs usually allow the identification of the "good-for-UV" ones. (One seller even told me that had I not bought the lens, he would have thrown it away!)

#15 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,049 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 28 March 2021 - 13:16

View PostBernard Foot, on 28 March 2021 - 07:19, said:

Yes - it was interesting. I wonder if Stefano's Soligor has a KA serial number - that would make it a Kyoei Acall lens, and perhaps allow it to be called a "Kuri clone". (I may be opening a tin of worms there ...)
No, it's not a KA lens. Here it is: https://www.ultravio...attach_id=22186

#16 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,973 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 28 March 2021 - 18:45

Interestingly, the Soligor Catalog link does not list any 35mm f/3.5 lenses. Strange.

Ulf, the Savazzi link is incorrect. It leads to a Pentax formum and Novoflex lens.
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#17 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,735 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 28 March 2021 - 19:20

View PostAndrea B., on 28 March 2021 - 18:45, said:

Interestingly, the Soligor Catalog link does not list any 35mm f/3.5 lenses. Strange.

Ulf, the Savazzi link is incorrect. It leads to a Pentax forum and Novoflex lens.
Fixed.
I have no idea where those got mixed up. I just made a copy paste of the address from the Chrome address field

Edited by UlfW, 28 March 2021 - 19:22.

Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#18 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,973 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 03 May 2021 - 17:33

What we would like to see in Sensor Format/Coverage is simply one of these:
  • M4/3 17.3 x 13 mm
  • APS-C/Canon 22.2 x 14.8 mm
  • APS-C/Nikon 23.6 x 15.7 mm
  • APS-H/Canon 28.7 x 19 mm
  • Full Frame 36 x 24 mm
  • Medium Format
  • Large Format
No modifiers such as "up to" are necessary. Clearly, everyone knows that if a lens covers Full Frame, then it also covers APS-C. And so forth.

If anything is outside those three designations, then of course an appropriate description is necessary.

If the actual coverage is not known, then mention the sensor size on which the lens was tested.

Comments please??
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#19 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,973 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 03 May 2021 - 17:44

I have forgotten the dimensions for medium format. And not sure how to list dimensions for large format.

Looked it up in Wiki and got: Large is 9 x 12 cm or larger. Medium is anything larger than Full Frame and smaller than Large. ok.
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#20 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,735 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 04 May 2021 - 02:25

View PostAndrea B., on 03 May 2021 - 17:33, said:

What we would like to see in Sensor Format/Coverage is simply one of these:
  • M4/3 17.3 x 13 mm
  • APS-C/Canon 22.2 x 14.8 mm
  • APS-C/Nikon 23.6 x 15.7 mm
  • APS-H/Canon 28.7 x 19 mm
  • Full Frame 36 x 24 mm
  • Medium Format
  • Large Format
No modifiers such as "up to" are necessary. Clearly, everyone knows that if a lens covers Full Frame, then it also covers APS-C. And so forth.

If anything is outside those three designations, then of course an appropriate description is necessary.

If the actual coverage is not known, then mention the sensor size on which the lens was tested.

Comments please??
OK, go ahead and change if you want.
To really know te coverage practical tests might be needed to determine the image circle, but the originally intended usage might be OK.
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.