Search the Community

Added Later: My summary has become this: why is there color noise in the UV photo but not in the Visible or UV+Blue+Green photos? Added Later: I attempted an explanation here - LINK. This is an unresized crop from a D610 + UV-Nikkor + BaaderU + SB140 photo of Chamaebatiara millefolium photographed indoors against a black velvet background. The file has been converted and white balanced only. No sharpening or detail enhancement has been applied. The flower buds, stems and small leaves are very, very hairy. The areas with these small hairs show lots of color artifacts. I don't think these are due to iridescense. It seems rather that the complexity of the hairy areas causes some kind of moiré like effect. I'm not sure what is the correct terminology for this effect. This will click-up to approximately 1600 x 1800 pixels in an enlarged browser. Then you can see the color noise. But next after this photo is a 3X enlargement which clearly shows the color noise. This screen shot was taken from a 3X enlargement in Photo Mechanic. There are cyan, pink, blue, brown and green areas. Here is that same area after Noise Ninja color reduction set to the default 50. Not quite every color is gone, but things look a bit less color-noisy. Finally here is Noise Ninja at the maximum 100 for color noise reduction. There are still some colorful bits, but the hairy areas are much more neutral. Here's the first thing: I think I like seeing the color noise due to the complexity of the hairy areas. So I'm undecided about whether to de-noise a photo like this or not. Here's the second thing: The UV light passes through the Bayer filter and is primarily recorded in the red channel. The white balance step produces typically some combination of false blue, false yellow and grey/black/white tones. So where does this color noise come from? It must be a result of demosaicing? This is an enlargement in Raw Digger showing the file before any white balance is applied. You can see some of the color noise in this raw composite.

I brought an EL-Nikkor 210mm f/5.6. I did some tests outside to see how much UV gets through it, because I am wondering how worthwhile it is to buy adapters to mount it. I used a S8612 2mm, U-360 2mm with a Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM. The sky is in the background, The next pictures show the lens next to a 135mm El-Nikkor.

Here you can find some modern pancake lenses: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/the-best-pancake-lenses&ved=2ahUKEwi1wc_9_9n1AhWEiP0HHbF9D1MQFnoECDQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1lhGHBqpxDFjKAQ4DNdKYz Some have only one cemented group, and one of them, the Sony E 20 mm f/2.8 has none, as previously mentioned. If the cement used in modern lenses is one of the causes for the poor UV reach, then these lenses could, maybe, perform acceptably. Remember, the Canon 40 mm pancake lens reaches a bit below 350 nm and has two cemented groups. I have hope we can find a modern lens that reaches 340 nm, below that it would be very unlikely.

While doing a routine search for some old lenses, I stumbled over this seller, who takes old German cameras from the 50s, like King Regula, pries out the lens and uses a 3D-printer to print a new mount for them, e.g. M39, M42, Sony, etc. I remember that this topic popped up in a recent thread, which I can't find now. There are Steinheils, Voigtländers, Ludwigs, etc. Perhaps some members may find this interesting? https://www.ebay.at/usr/vintageglas Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with this seller. Also, I have no information about the items he sells, apart from what's written on EBay.

As those of you who have been reading my posts know, I have, excitingly enough, finally upgraded to Sony e mount, and with that comes a number of exciting perks, one of which is the access to a plethora of Chinese made manual lenses, with parameters optimized for the APS-C format. Seeing as I will be selling the kit lens due to its fisheye grade distortion at the widest angle, I am looking for some better general options. I have found a few of those budget lenses that I would be interested in. Please, if any of you know/own any of those, could you please tell me or do a quick test on whether they have IR hotspots? I'd prefer not to deal with that. Here are the lenses of interest. Meike 35mm F1.7 https://www.ebay.com/itm/173977209501 Pergear 35mm F1.6 https://www.ebay.com/itm/233579546640 TTArtisan 23mm F1.4 https://www.ebay.com/itm/144329219471?var=443643921758 TTArtisan 35mm F1.4 APS-C https://www.ebay.com/itm/194174863592?var=494266407073 TTArtisan 17mm F1.4 https://www.ebay.com/itm/144058720886 TTArtisan 50mm F1.2 https://www.ebay.com/itm/313352583838?hash=item48f544fa9e:g:eqsAAOSwXUdgWcY0 Thank you to anyone with input. Edit: After being told I will probably have to see myself since we don't have data on those lenses, I decided to bite the bullet again (god save my wallet) and I purchased a second hand Meike 25mm f/1.8, Kolari actually says this one has no hotspots, but I know the list is not entirely reliable, it said the Canon kit lens had no issue but it actually has a hotspot at 950nm. Regardless. I got it for only 41€, so if it isn't fitting, I can just sell it for the same price. I'll report my findings when I get the converted a6000 back from Germany.

I found I had a lens that didn't glow under UV, and no coating, so I made a camera lens with it on a helicoid. I put the zwb1 2mm/S8612 2mm on the front. One of the rear elements in one of the EL's got a massive cleaning with everything I had in the house when I first got the lenses, but I can't remember if I'm using that one. Would this be considered as a legit test Even though it's not a pinhole? I did turn up the saturation a bit to see the color better.

For some older lenses it is possible to find their internal design including the glass type each element is made of. If this is possible for modern lenses too, one can use this information to estimate the lens' UV reach, give or take ~10 nm. This would allow us to find good modern candidate lenses for UV photography (and eventually, if possible, measure them on a spectrometer to have more accurate data). A modern lens reaching 340 nm would already be good. I would be very surprised to find one reaching 320 nm or below. I think most modern lenses are more or less usable at 365 nm.

Last Update: 03 April 2021 agb/label/spacing Finalized: Work in progress. Canon 50mm f/3.5 FDn Macro Manufacturer: Canon Lens Label: CANON MACRO LENS FD 50mm 1:3.5 Currently manufactured: No Lens type: Manual focus, Prime, close focussing macro lens Design: 6 elements in 4 groups Focal length: 50mm Aperture range: f/3.5 – f/32, 6 blades, can be locked for manual stopped down mode Magnification range: to 0.5x at 0.232m. Up to 1x with the Extension Tube FD25-U that the lens originally were delivered with Sensor format/coverage: up to 24 mm x 36 mm Mount: Canon FD Flange Focus distance: FD-standard, 42.00mm Front filter: 52 mm x 0.75 mm Introduction year: 1979. This is likely the same lens-type as the older version: Canon Macro Lens FD 50mm f/3.5 S.S.C. introduced 1973 S/N of test object: 161623 Lens info on the web: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdmacro/50macro.htm Image of test object: Transmittance Summary Definitions of the parameters below Range: The Canon 50mm f/3.5 Macro FDn lens transmits 1-70% in an increasing slope from 336nm to 400nm. TVISmax (%) = 93% T400nm (%) = 70% T365nm (%) = 49% λUV HMvis(nm) = 363nm λUV HM400(nm) = 356nm λUV Zero(nm) = 336nm These three values indicate that the lens is only working for UV-A photography. Spectral Transmission Graphs UV-NIR, Canon 50mm f/3.5 Macro FDn The transmission measurement accuracy into the end of NIR range is less good due to limitations in the light source. UV, Canon 50mm f/3.5 Macro FDn UV-Log, Canon 50mm f/3.5 Macro FDn Numerical Spectra Data available: Yes General comments about the UV-reach: This lens do not reach very deep into UV, but many times this reach will be enough for most UV-photography, with sun or UV-converted flash as light source, together with a typical UV-pass filter-stack or a Baader U. A good enlarger lens like a EL-Nikkor 80mm old metal or a suitable Focotar 50mm is definitely better with their deep UV-reach, but they demand more effort getting a suitable helicoid, mount adapter and arrange for mounting the UV-pass filters. Filters and how to use them on this lens: The front filter thread is 52mm 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 surface, that provides a good reference plane for orienting the filter normal to the optic axis. The rear lens element is not recessed and thus needs a filter mounted in a filter ring to place the filter's glass surface at a safe distance from the rear lens element. Handling and focussing: Due to the short 42mm flange focus distance this lens will not focus at infinity on some DSLRs. It is still an excellent lens for closeup due to the built in focussing helicoid. There are cheap well working lens mount adapters for the FD mount for several mirrorless cameras like Canon M, Sony NEX mount etc. I used this lens as my main 50mm lens during the film era with several different FD-mount cameras. It is an excellent lens in general. Sharpness: High according to several sources. I agree. Lens distortion: TBD Chromatic Aberration in UV: TBD Image samples:

https://jmcscientificconsulting.com/testing/nye-optical-150mm-f1-4-mirror-lens-uv-to-ir-imaging/ Never thought I'd see this, but here we have it, a super bright lens with deep UV reach. Edit: turns out this is a known and discussed model, sorry for the spam. The mods are free to delete this if they want to.

This one turned up today - a Nye Optical 150mm f1.4 mirror lens. It has a Nikon bayonet fit, but the bayonet is flush against the back of the lens, so it wont attach to an SLR without using a small extension tube, which is what I did here to fit it on to the d810. On a mirrorless camera it would be fine. Originally made for UV to IR work (180nm to 4500nm), and focussing from about 10ft to infinity (and beyond, given it will focus past infinity on the scale). A bit of a beast, and with no front lens cap, so I think I'll have to get one made for it, as it looks a bit delicate up there at the front. A few shots of it on the Nikon. I did try and get a UV shot with it today, using the ACS UV modified d810, and a Buttercup from the garden. Settings, ISO2000, 1/25s. Camera mounted on a tripod, and a nice breeze blowing. 15mm extension tube to enable the lens to be mounted. Flower was in direct sunlight about midday, and about 4ft from the camera. Depth of field is obviously like a knife edge (I'm guessing a couple of mm either side of where it is focused), and I need to get used to manual focusing with it. But it does show the black centre of the Buttercup nicely. One of these days I will invest in a focusing rail. Slightly easier to use hand held in visible light, although again I still need to learn how to use it, especially given that depth of field. This time on a Canon 5DSR normal, unmodified camera, with about 15mm extension tube. Handheld, ISO100, exposure times from 1/640 to 1/6400s. Gives some really trippy out of focus backgrounds.

As the title says, some photos taken at a nearby lake (Weikerlsee) and the river Traun, a tributary of the Danube. This night is going to be pretty noisy, so some relaxation time before Camera: Canon EOS 5DSR, converted to full spectrum (first time I've really used this one) Lens: Canon EF-24-70 Filter: 850 nm IR-filter, plus 9-stop ND-filter I had covered the eyepiece with that thingy that comes with the camera, and the lens hood was on, but I did manage to get some flares where the sun was on the right side and I didn't notice that it did shine on the front filter, oh well. Also, in case you're wondering about the high ISO, I stupidly brought only one ND-filter, so with the f-stop I had to go higher. Still, with the camera it's not really a problem. First a tree by the lakeside, f/16, 60s, ISO 800 Next, a view of the lake itself, f/16, 60s, ISO 800 (with the long-time exposure, the tree in front really gets more attention) I moved over to the river Traun, where a long time ago there had been plans to build a bridge, but because the adjoining area is a nature reserve, the project was abandoned. However, the stubs of the pylons and end-piece were never removed. f/16, 60s, ISO 800 (the left pylon is not very prominent, but I didn't want to wade into the stream, even if air-temp was around 15 °C, this would have been a chilly adventure. The view is towards the confluence of Traun and Danube, so the wood and hills behind the water are already on the other bank of the Danube) Ramp-ruin, of course with graffiti on it. It was quite windy, so actually I'm surprised that the one tree just behind the ramp is pretty sharp, while the ones behind are smeared out, f/16, 180s, ISO 400 The next two are the same motiv, with different exposure times. In a way I like both, with a small tendency to favour the second, f/16, ISO 800, the first 30s, the second 180s And a detail of the ramp-bit, this time shorter exposure time as not to completely wash out the clouds, and with the f-stop setting the cloud is not in focus anyway: f/2.8, 8s, ISO 800

Considering a dedicated lens for UV (and NIR) I am wondering about peoples’ thoughts on taking the plunge on a Nikkor/Rayfact UV 105mm, Coastal 60mm or 105mm. Do you regret the purchase? Wish you had done it sooner? If you have multiple dedicated lenses, but could have only one, which would you keep? Thank you.

Yesterday, while I was searching for a way to build a DIY UV lens, I found this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.randombio.com/uvlens.html&ved=2ahUKEwi_rYWjron1AhUf7rsIHShpCAIQFnoECCcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3_jPNBuJlvQImihUrwA7KK This person successfully built a UV-capable lens using a Cooke triplet design with two outer CaF2 positive elements and a fused silica negative element in the middle. He then made it zoomable by adding a fourth plano-convex lens. The result is a nice lens with good correction for chromatic and spherical aberrations, very good UV transmission (it should be limited by the fused silica element to around 160-170 nm), and it can be zoomed. This last feature makes it special as common zoom lenses are very poor for UV, and commercial UV-capable lenses are fixed-focus, so such a lens can only be custom-made. I wonder if it's possible to modify a common UV-capable lens to make it a zoom lens by adding this fourth element. Some of the known UV-capable lenses have a triplet design (such as the Steinheil München 50 mm f/2.8 Cassar S). I hope this wasn't already posted on UVP, I did a search and found nothing.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/384548060752?hash=item5988d9be50:g:oz8AAOSw0UVhpX-5

Needs to fit a full frame DSLR and be able to reproduce yellow. I use "dandelions" to test for yellow with black center. I was hoping to use an old 4 element Pentax 200mm 6x7 lens. Filters fit easily in the K mount adapter. Unfortunately, the "Dandelion" centers are gray at best. Drats. Thanks, Doug A

Just wanted to show it to you, I'll check what it can do in UV when I have at least a bit of sunlight here... Radiation levels about 40 times more than the background radiation (4 uSv/h vs 0.1 uSv/h) - measured using Geiger counter, see photos...

He has a 24mm UV lens for mirrorless APS-c. Body looked much more modern than the clone lenses. It is a 3 element design. https://www.ebay.com/itm/24mm-F-3-5-UV-lens-for-Sony-E-Mount-NEX-APS-C-cameras-Ultraviolet-photography-/272305146038?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0 Unfortunately it vignettes on full frame mirrorless body. Thanks, Doug A

Believe @lukaszgryglicki was suggesting high speed lenses might make up for their poor UV efficiency by collecting much more light. A brute force method. Has anyone tested this? Is it possible for a 50mm F1.2, wide open, to match the UV range of a Kyoei 35mm F3.5? Thanks, Doug A

I carry Pentax K-1 full spectrum with Ioriginal 35, Nikon El-Nikkor 80 & 135 for UV. This also includes Igoriginal ZWB1/BG39 52mm filter stack, two helicoids, and Vivitar UV converted 283 flash. Unfortunately, I haven't fixed the major hotspot the 35-90 helicoid causes with the EL-Nikkor 135. The Pentax bellows is immune to hotspots and accompanies the 135. For IR the Pentax 18-55 ( the 16-45 hotspots), 55-300 cover most everything. I have a Kolari IRChrome filter for the 16-45 ( it doesn't cause major hotspots, but only covers down to ~24). There is room for some consolidation. I have a Pentax 24-35 that does well with IR and would replace 16-45. I need to modify one of the flashes to convert from UV to IR and UV fluorescence. Fixing the 35-90 helicoid would allow leaving the bellows home. How much stuff do you carry. Thanks, Doug A

From way back in the Ponder & Best Vivitar days. Lens has single yellow coating and 3 elements. Click stop aperture setting to F22. Standard 39mm mounting thread. Lens needs helicoid or bellows to focus. Unfortunately, there are no front filter threads. Until I come up with a slip on filter adapter the lens has to be used on my Pentax bellows with filters mounted internally. This lens reproduces UV yellow as well as the Igoriginal 35mm and old metal Nikon El-Nikkor 80mm. Thanks, Doug A Link to original post with photo:

Testing of Sigma 30mm f2.8 dn lens prior to UV adventures I followed Pedro Aphalo’s post on using his Olympus EM1 (thank you Pedro), and found a used Sigma 30mm f2.8 dn lens at B&H photo in New York - it rattled a bit out of the box, but B&H is reputable here in the US, so went ahead and tried it out. In the visible as my UV filter hasn’t arrived yet. Olympus EM1mk2, full conversion by Kolari Vision. Kolari Vision Hotcut filter (figured it would mimic the glass they pried off the sensor… :-)) Used a 10mm tube - focused at about 2” from subject to filter. Shot wide open at f/2.8, iso 200, 1/20 sec with ambient indoor light. Focus bracketing in camera, 10 shots at differential = 7. Stack processed in Photoshop. I focused initially probably too far into the head as the fuzzies closest aren’t quite in focus. More practice needed…. Dandelion head looks like my grandson's haircut.... Result for the Sigma 30mm DN in visible is pretty good I think on my rig. The lens seems to be ok, and autofocus works. Now I’m off the the garden center to find a florescent flower with my little Kolari UV flashlight to work UVIF with tonight. The flashlight probably isn’t very strong.. need to get specs from KolariVision. It works well on a highlighter and vaseline though, but I probably need more research on proper UV light sources.

This recent paper is very interesting: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26443-0 The pillars are 705nm tall, and they can image in the full visible light of 400-700nm. The images aren't bad. They claim 214lp/mm resolution at 12 cm. So endoscopes is the first user case. But I can see this for macro and micro photography in the future. Definitely a big step forward into paper thin sensors and lenses.

Read that U 360 is good to 350nm. My camera, Igoriginal 35 and El-Nikkors go to 330nm. Should I be considering U 340 instead (with S8612)? Thanks, Doug A

OK, I'm out of luck, I have Soligor 35/3.5 lens (No. KA63858), reported to have a good UV transmission. - I try to use it with M42-Nikon-F glassless adapter and I can't focus to infinity (this is expected). I can focus from very close to maybe a meter away or so. - I try to use some no-name M42-Nikon-F adapter (with correction glass) and I can focus in quite similar distances, maybe just a bit farther (so there is some correction but too small?). When I look through that "correction" glass it seems to have some coating - gives bluish reflections (which is already bad - I want it uncoated) and I'm able to focus my eyes through it - with a bit of patience (like I'm able to see in focus through glasses that have say +1/-1 diopter) - I try to use other no-name M42-Nikon-F adapter (with correction glass) and it seems to be "too strong" - no matter what distance is chosen on the lens, there is no focus - it looks like it is constantly "beyond the infinity". When I look through it - I cannot focus, when I look from distance - it is inverse of magnifying glass - it looks like it has no color hue, maybe it is uncoated. But why two correction optics supposed to correct the same thimng are so different? Is there any (can be expensive, no problem) adapter that does it correctly, at least mainly for widest lenses (like 35mm)? In the other thread (https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/5043-daguerreotype-achromat-64-mm-f-29-art-lens/&do=findComment&comment=52236) I was given a link (https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/kuribayashi-petri-orrikor-lenses-for-uv.292651/) that specifies BOWER ABSN Nikon Mount to M42 Screw Mount adapter is good for 35/3.5 clones and is also good in UV transmission. The problem is that I cannot find that adapter anywhere. Are there any other *working* M42->Nikon-F adapters with correction optic having good to excellent UV transmission? I wonder one more thing - M42 is a bit less than Nikon-F mount diameter (it is 43mm afaik), also M42 FFD is 1mm less than Nikon - I wonder why there are no adapters that just allow to "screw in" M42 lens 1mm deeper into Nikon-F mount... will it hit the mirror? Is there only 1 mm or less distance inside the F-mount to hit the mirror? Or is 1mm not enough to make a thread that allows putting M42 lens "1mm inside" the Nikon-F mount?

Seller offered me a Spiratone "Kyoei" 35mm F3.5 for $147. I have the Igor clone. Is there any reason for me to buy the Spiratone? Does it outperform the clone? I have 24 hours to decide. Thanks, Doug A