• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Got a new Nikkor EL 105mm - Need UV Filter Advice

24 replies to this topic

#1 Doppler9000

    Member

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 13 July 2021 - 15:55

Well, I got a new, apparently literally, Nikkor 105mm on an auction site.

To start, I am interested in monochrome UV images, particularly those with fairly high levels of reflection, but I am not sure of the constraints of the lens and a full spectrum conversion.

Thank you in advance.

John

Attached Images

  • Attached Image: IMG_9021.jpg
  • Attached Image: IMG_9022.jpg
  • Attached Image: IMG_9023.jpg


#2 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,416 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 13 July 2021 - 15:59

The lens should be fine for normal UVA imaging. I have one but haven’t used it much. I have found the EL-Nikkors to be very sharp, some of my best lenses.

#3 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,741 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 13 July 2021 - 16:00

Is this lens in the lens sticky ?

#4 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,828 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 13 July 2021 - 16:08

It is the lens in my Lens data post https://www.ultravio...-metal-version/
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#5 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,828 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 13 July 2021 - 16:15

The filter thread is a bit unusual, but there are step rings: https://www.ebay.com...amera?_bkw=34.5
A temporary solution can be to use a step up ring 34mm with some material in the threads to make it grip by the lens's filter threads.
I did so once as the waiting time was very long for the ring I ordered from RAF-camera.

Edited by UlfW, 13 July 2021 - 16:18.

Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#6 Doppler9000

    Member

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 13 July 2021 - 18:05

View PostUlfW, on 13 July 2021 - 16:15, said:

The filter thread is a bit unusual, but there are step rings: https://www.ebay.com...amera?_bkw=34.5
A temporary solution can be to use a step up ring 34mm with some material in the threads to make it grip by the lens's filter threads.
I did so once as the waiting time was very long for the ring I ordered from RAF-camera.

Thank you - I will order one of these. A recent order from RAF for some other items came through fairly quickly, so fingers crossed.

I think it makes sense to choose the filters then the adapters. Any suggestions for a simple, monochrome stack?

Edited by Doppler9000, 13 July 2021 - 18:29.


#7 enricosavazzi

    Member

  • Members
  • 602 posts
  • Location: Kalmar, Sweden

Posted 14 July 2021 - 01:29

View PostDoppler9000, on 13 July 2021 - 18:05, said:

[...]
I think it makes sense to choose the filters then the adapters. Any suggestions for a simple, monochrome stack?
If you plan to acquire multiple lenses for UV imaging in the future, it makes sense to standardize on one or two filter sizes. Eventually you will also want to acquire additional UV-pass and perhaps NIR-pass filters as well, which is one further reason to standardize on the filter size.

The Baader U is probably the single most popular UV-pass filter, and is available in 1 1/4" and 2" mounted sizes. Some lenses, like the El Nikkor 80 and 105 mm, can use the smaller filter, while a few lenses need the 2" size to avoid vignetting if the filter is mounted in front of the objective. Some lenses can be used with a filter rear-mounted between lens and sensor, especially on mirrorless cameras, and in this case the smaller filter size can often be used (and there are reasons to prefer rear-mounting in some cases, even though it makes filter swapping more time-consuming).

Some photographers tend to standardize to 52 mm filter mounts (2" filters are easily adapted to 52 mm via a step-down ring, and can even be permanently converted to 52 mm by re-mounting the filter blank), or 25 or 32 mm as a second, smaller filter size. It makes sense for example to leave a step-up adapter ring ending in a female 52 mm mount always mounted at the front of a lens (even an El Nikkor), as well as a 52 mm front lens cap on the adapter.
-- Enrico Savazzi

#8 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,828 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 14 July 2021 - 04:06

I have done as Enrico describes above and standardised my filter stacks to 52mm.
It is one of the most common dimension of filters that can be used for our type of photography.
I also remounted my Baader U in 52mm rings.

What do you mean with "monochrome UV images"?

Edited by UlfW, 14 July 2021 - 04:09.

Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#9 Doppler9000

    Member

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 14 July 2021 - 14:36

Thank you so much, guys.

By monochrome, I mean that I am interested in black and white images. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this might change the recommended filters.

#10 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,741 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 14 July 2021 - 14:45

Your filter choices remain the same.

#11 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 3,004 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 14 July 2021 - 18:06

If you only want a monochrome image you can get away with using a ZWB3 similar to U330 = UG5 filter for UV imaging.

It will give you the UV floral signature in green, which some don't like. But that doesn't matter in monochrome. So you will gain some stops of light using it with a S8612 filter to block the IR.

Cadmium once called a 1.5mm U330 with 2mm S8612 the poor man's UV stack. As will work even with an unconverted camera, if it has a weak UV/IR blocking filter.
But best monochrome.

#12 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,246 posts

Posted 15 July 2021 - 04:26

That is right. The old trick was UG5 2mm, VERY fast exposure compared to a UV stack, desaturate, and you have an almost identical image to the UV stack that requires much less exposure time.
I can't remember, does it even need the S8612 stacked with it to work, hmm. Here is a comparison, UG5 vs Baader U, both are monochrome, I don't know which is which (upper/lower?),
and I don't know if the UG5 was stacked with S8612, I tend to think not.
But this should work for UG5 or U-330.

Attached Image: 42_Baader_UG5_BW_9.jpg

#13 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,828 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 15 July 2021 - 07:52

View PostCadmium, on 15 July 2021 - 04:26, said:

Here is a comparison, UG5 vs Baader U, both are monochrome, I don't know which is which (upper/lower?),
and I don't know if the UG5 was stacked with S8612, I tend to think not.
But this should work for UG5 or U-330.
It must have been stacked with some kind of BG-glass as UG5 has a rather high transmission of NIR above 650nm.
Without the BG glass there would not be any UV-signature visible.

A filter stack that is reasonably fast, but not as fast as the UG5-stack above is one with UG2A 2mm combined with a suitable BG-glass.
That stack gives fully black UV-signatures identical with a U-360-stack, but is normally one or two stops faster.
A stack with UG2A 2mm combined with a suitable BG-glass is not a pure UV-stack as it passes a tiny bit of deep violet past the 400nm border, but is still quite usable.
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#14 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,246 posts

Posted 15 July 2021 - 20:44

David, I tend to think you are right now. For example, if I desaturate a UV shot and a UG5 + S8612, they both look the same.
Desaturated UG5 alone resembles more of an IR photo.
I will put that comparison on my list to retest sometime. Something to play with if you have those filters around and you want to do monochrome UV. Definitely faster exposure. You will still need to white balance the original RAW file,
so I suggest doing that out of camera first, then desaturating it.

#15 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,173 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 15 July 2021 - 20:46

Then it depends on how "pure" you want your photo to be. Polycarbonate goggles are probably not black with a UG5 stack, for example. If you just want to see nectar guides, it's OK.

#16 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 3,004 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 16 July 2021 - 04:29

Thats a different question Stefano.
Remember I added the qualifier that you needed a weak UV/IR blocking filter. A fully converted camera is best. Also the tread with newer cameras seems to be to block even the lowest 400s. So may not be easy anymore.

The peak for the UG5 is 250nm into just 400s. So it gives you all the UV, your fully converted camera can see. So that has impact on the results.

#17 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,828 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 16 July 2021 - 05:45

View PostCadmium, on 15 July 2021 - 20:44, said:

David, I tend to think you are right now. For example, if I desaturate a UV shot and a UG5 + S8612, they both look the same.
Desaturated UG5 alone resembles more of an IR photo.

No Steve, my middle name is not David. ;-)

/U
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#18 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 3,004 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 16 July 2021 - 07:14

View PostUlfW, on 16 July 2021 - 05:45, said:


No Steve, my middle name is not David. ;-)

/U

Ulf,
Cadmium was responding back to my quote that he used to call the 1.5mm U330 + 2mm S8612 filter stack the poor man's UV filter set.

I should find that reference. But it might be in an email when I first ordered the U330 from him years ago.

Edited by dabateman, 16 July 2021 - 07:15.


#19 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,828 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 16 July 2021 - 07:27

David,
You definitely talked about the 1.5mm U330 + 2mm S8612 filter stack the poor man's UV filter set.
Then the thread moved on.

If you read post #12 and #13 by Steve and me I think he was replying to what I said.
I still think he mixed us up as I clearly commented on his statement " I don't know if the UG5 was stacked with S8612, I tend to think not. " in post #12
I cannot find you doing that.

No offence taken.
Maybe I should be honoured by the mixup. :wink:

Edited by UlfW, 16 July 2021 - 07:30.

Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#20 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,246 posts

Posted 16 July 2021 - 22:58

Just to clear that all up, Ulf is correct, I was responding to Ulf's post #13, by mistake I used David's name.
Thanks for the correction.

Edited by Cadmium, 20 July 2021 - 13:57.