Andrea B. Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 from the Editor: Post to this thread to list lenses which you would like to see tested by a UVP member, ORwhich you are going to test yourself.Post to this thread lenses which you have tested that should be added to the Lens Sticky.Please provide a link to the test topic for that lens.Don't forget to tag your topic with the UV Lens tag!! Link to comment
lost cat Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Here are some lenses I have but have yet to test: Helios 44-2: Older 00xxxx Zebra model, M39 mount. Internal elements observed to fluoresce under UV but is "clone" of Carl Zeiss Biotar which is a "good" lens. Older models should be more UV friendly Industar 50/2.8 Another Russian copy of a Carl Zeiss lens this time the Tessar, also a "good" for UV lens. Soligor Wide 35/3.5 T2 mount. Already listed on the sticky but with Soligors more information is needed to pick the right ones. Carenar 50/2.8 automatic M42 mount. Included in a package deal. Why not? Hanimar 35mm/2.8 automatic. I'm not super confident in this one but a negative result is educational in itself. At this point I will ask if anyone has used these lenses with good or bad results please add your comments. I know the Helios has been tried with poor results but that was a later model perhaps with multi coating. Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 Maybe we should not add too many comments here about how good the lenses are, else this topic will get all jumbled and lengthy. And also be very difficult for referencing. Specific comments about specific lenses should go into a separate topic for each lens and then the lens will be easy to reference with a link. ****************************** I have five 135/3.5 lenses which I will test.They are:Lentar 135/3.5 (T-mount) 5664XXHanimar 135/3.5 (T-mount) 351XXAsahi 135/3.5 Takumar (M42) 3972XXKuribayashi 135/3.5 Petri Orikkor (M42) 362XX [or is it Petri Orikkor 135/3.5 Kuribayashi??]Kyoei 135/3.5 Super-Acall (Petri Breechlock) 716XX [needs adapter for M42] Link to comment
lost cat Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Agreed. I only added images to clarify which lenses I planned to test. It would be better to have the specifics for each lens with an individual thread and just hyperlink there from here. A few more that have UV potential. These are based on this document which shows the basic optical diagrams of the lenses.http://www.abload.de..._tri_v5ev1i.png (Cooke) Triplet Lenses 3/3Zeiss Mikorotar 45/4.5Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8Asahi Takumar 100/3.5Feinmess Bonotar 105/4.5Nikkor-T 105/4Sears (Sigma) 135/3.5 Fujinon-type Unar 4/4Fujinon 55/2.2 Tessar 4/3Zeiss Tessar 40/4.5Zeiss Tessar (C/Y) 40/4.5Zeiss Tessar 80/2.8Industar 61 50/2.8Meyer Primotar 85/3.5Meyer Primotar 135/3.5Voitlander Color Skopar 50/3.5Asahi Macro-Takumars 50/4 (all)Asahi Kogau Takumar 50/3.5Wrayflex Lustar 53/3.5Leitz Elmar 90/4 Elmar 4/3Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 Orthoscope 4/3Wrayflex Lustar 90/4Isco Westanar 50/2.8?Meyer Primotar 180/3.5 Tair 4/3Tair 11 133/2.8Tair 11-2 133/2.8Tair 11A 135/2.8 Hektor 4/3Leitz Hektor 135/4.5 Ernostar 4/4Meyer Helioplan 40/4.5Wrayflex Unilux 50/2.8Asahi Takumar (pre set) 105/2.8Asahi Auto Takumar 105/2.8Pentax (A and K) 135/3.5Zeiss Sonnar (M42/QBM) 85/2.8Zeiss Sonnar (QBM) 135/2.8Mamiya Rolleinar (QBM) 85/2.8Mamiya Rolleinar (QBM) 105/2.8Mamiya Rolleinar (QBM) 135/2.8Fujinon 135/3.5Fujinon Soft 85/4Tamron Adaptall-2 (03B) 135/2.5Nikon E 135/2.8Nikkor Q 135/2.8Konica Hexanon 135/2.5Konica Hexanon 135/3.5Angenieux 90/2.5Angenieux P2 135/2.5 Enhanced Ernostar 5/4Asahi Auto Takumar 85/1.8Asahi Super Takumar 85/1.9Asahi Super Takumar 85/1.9Asahi Takumar (pre set) 135/3.5 http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/585-informal-test-of-two-taks-on-a-k5-13535-and-8545/page__hl__%2Bsuper+%2Bpentax__fromsearch__1Steinheil Quinar 135/2.8Steinheil Quinar 200/2.8Steinheil Quinar 200/4.5Zeiss Sonnar (C/Y) 85/2.8Zeiss Sonnar (CG) 90/2.8Zeiss Sonnar (C/Y) 105/2.8Zeiss Sonnar (C/Y) 135/2.8Pentax (M) 85/2.0Pentax (K) 120/2.8Fujinon 100/2.8 Primoplan 5/4Meyer Primoplan 75/1.9Meyer Primoplan ("Night") 80/1.9Meyer Orestor / Pentacon 100/2.8Meyer Orestor / Pentacon 135/2.8Nikkor (P) 180/2.8Nikkor (Ai) 180/2.8Komura 105/2.0Fujinon 135/2.5Kaleinar-5N 100/2.8Soligor 135/2.8 Sonnar (simplified ) 4/3Meyer Teleogar 90/3.5Zeiss Sonnar 135/4Zeiss Sonnar 135/3.5Jupiter 11 135/4Jupiter 37 135/3.5Steinheil Quinnar 100/3.5Nikkor Q 135/3.5ISCO Iscaron 135/2.8 Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted February 14, 2016 Author Share Posted February 14, 2016 Never heard of a Tair before !! Link to comment
lost cat Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Never heard of a Tair before !! They're Russian. If you like lots of aperture blades you'll like the Tair 11. It has 20! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tair_(lens) Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 What does 20 aperture blades get you? Is the idea to make the point sources of light look more circular? Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted February 14, 2016 Author Share Posted February 14, 2016 It supposedly gets you nice smooth backgrounds when shooting wide open. Good "bokeh", as they say. Link to comment
Alex H Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 It supposedly gets you nice smooth backgrounds when shooting wide open. Good "bokeh", as they say. When shooting wide open, aperture blades do not interact with light rays passing through the lens, and hence do not affect anything. It is stopped down when it matters. Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted February 14, 2016 Author Share Posted February 14, 2016 I got that wrong for sure !!! Thanks, Alex, for the elucidation (pun?) :DI was just thinking about those smooth blurred backgrounds I've seen and assumed wide open.Don't use that much in my close-up work. Link to comment
Alex H Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 A few more that have UV potential. These are based on this document which shows the basic optical diagrams of the lenses.http://www.abload.de..._tri_v5ev1i.png What is the purpose of this long list, if I may ask? Some lenses on this list have already been tested for UV. Besides, it is not explicit at all, and shows only limited number of lenses that fit each design specification. Simple list of "triplet" and "tessar" lenses can take many pages. Link to comment
lost cat Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 What is the purpose of this long list, if I may ask? Some lenses on this list have already been tested for UV. Besides, it is not explicit at all, and shows only limited number of lenses that fit each design specification. Simple list of "triplet" and "tessar" lenses can take many pages. The purpose is to add to a centralized database of various lenses potential for UV transmission. At this point the only evidence for their suitability of the lenses listed above is their optical setup. it's not much but gotta start somewhere. As more information is discovered it can be added in. The bigger picture is to expand the list of good lenses and document those found to be unsuitable. The more lenses that are certified as useable for UV (and their performance documented) the more choices are made available. There is an argument to be made that there are many lenses already on the sticky. That's true but many are so hard to find and or expensive they may as well not exist for those with a limited budget. Also the sticky has lots of 35mm lenses but few with a wider view. If you notice a lens on my list that has already been vetted please let me know. Link to comment
Alex H Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 You are not the first to try this. There are reasons why some focal length are missing from the Lens Sticky. There are about 5 or 6 lenses in your list that have been tested for UV photography - the information is freely available on the internet, including this forum. Link to comment
Cadmium Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 The Kuribayashi set should all be included in the sticky as deep transmitting UV lenses, the 35mm, 105mm, 135mm, 180mm, and the 500mm (with rear UV blocking glass removed for the 500mm).The Kuribayashi 50mm should not be included, it does not transmit UV deeply, it is a poor lens for UV, it is not made by Kyoei either. The 50mm is pictured in the second and third photo. There should be a delineation between the Kuribayashi lenses and the Petri lenses.Also, although the Kuri group is made by Kyoei, be warned that not all Kyoei lenses are good for UV.One that especially comes to mind is the Kyoei 35mm f/3.5 which looks like the Kyoei/Acall brochure photo below.This Kyoei Lens, is quite poor for UV: Kuribayashi (and Kyoei with no silver on the focus ring), great for UV: Of the Petri lenses, the only one I find worth mentioning is the 35mm breech lock bayonet mount (Bjorn/nfoto), it transmits UV the same as the Kuri 35mm, but I have not compared the focal shift.The longer Petri lenses 135mm, 200mm, 400mm are identical in most ways (other that the mount) to the common Lentar lenses in those same focal lengths of that era. A Lentar with M42 mount can be much easier to work with. These don't transmit UV quite as strongly as the Kuribayashi group above, but do transmit about the same depth. And lets not forget about that cute little 35mm f/3.5 Aico enlarger lens (also Prinz).(of course you will need some method of focusing enlarger lenses, like a helicoid) The D.O. Industries 50mm f/4.5 enlarger lens is already listed in the sticky, but how can you beat this price for a deep transmitting UV lens?http://www.surplussh...Category=Lenses Link to comment
nfoto Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I have myself fallen into the trap of thinking the 35/3.5 Kyoei Acall would be excellent for UV and convenient with the M39 mount. The latter is of course true, but the first assumption definitively is not. I have compared Petri and Kuri versions of the 35/3.5 (both in Petri mount) and found no clear difference between them in terms of UV capability. Their UV focus shift is modest. The Kuri might be slightly better built, though, but neither qualify for a workmanship prize. Link to comment
Cadmium Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Two have the same name, so just so no one gets confused about which lenses are which, here are all four lenses together.The two Kyoei lenses are easy to get confused about if going by the name, but the one on the far left end is not good for UV.Some have made the mistake of purchasing that lens for UV.The lens on the far right end is the Petri lens with the breach lock mount.The two lenses in the center are identical other than branding and focus ring pattern style. Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 What would you use the 500mm Kuribayashi lens for? Taking UV pics of the moon? I was thinking birds, but it's f/8 so wouldn't that mean you'd have to use a pretty long exposure to get much of anything? You're taking light in over such a narrow range of angles, so that has to decrease the intensity, doesn't it? (Forgive me if I'm confused about some of this — I'm still getting the relationship between exposure time, aperture, and ISO straight in my head, at least in a practical sense.) Link to comment
nfoto Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 A long lens can used for whatever purpose the long lens is good at ... UV landscapes come to mind. I have done some UV work with a 1000 mm lens. Exposure as such as nothing to do with the angle of view of the lens. Link to comment
lost cat Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 You are not the first to try this. There are reasons why some focal length are missing from the Lens Sticky. There are about 5 or 6 lenses in your list that have been tested for UV photography - the information is freely available on the internet, including this forum. Are you referring to the list I linked to or my edited version? I did make an effort to exclude lenses already on the sticky. If I listed some already tested please let me know which ones they are and I will highlight them as already tested with a link to the data. From there they can be added to the sticky. The D.O. Industries 50mm f/4.5 enlarger lens is already listed in the sticky, but how can you beat this price for a deep transmitting UV lens?http://www.surplussh...Category=Lenses How's $10 for an El Nikkor 50/2.8? Link to comment
Cadmium Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 How's $10 for an El Nikkor 50/2.8? Hi Lost Cat, The El-Nikkor 50mm is a good UV lens, especially the older metal versions (center in photo) but even @ f/4.5 the D.O. Industries 50mm (right in photo) transmits UV stronger and deeper than the older El-Nikkor 50mm @ F2.8, and the newer plastic version of the El-Nikkor 50mm (left in photo) doesn't transmit UV as deep or strong as the older version.By the way, all three of these lenses have the same mount (M39) and filter threads (40.5mm). Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 The Lens Sticky tends to lag behind our posts about UV-capable lenses. I do work on it as I have time. :) This winter I did get most of the UV Lens tags in place so that now I can run a Tag Search and more easily add info.I also added a reference to this Tag Search in the Lens Sticky.When I get back from this current Field Trip I will have some time to work on more updates. I would also like to add more detailed info from Steve's post about the Kuri & Kyoei lenses. Link to comment
Cadmium Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Not to worry Andrea, enjoy the moment where you are now. :-) Link to comment
lost cat Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Hi Lost Cat, The El-Nikkor 50mm is a good UV lens, especially the older metal versions (center in photo) but even @ f/4.5 the D.O. Industries 50mm (right in photo) transmits UV stronger and deeper than the older El-Nikkor 50mm @ F2.8, and the newer plastic version of the El-Nikkor 50mm (left in photo) doesn't transmit UV as deep or strong as the older version.By the way, all three of these lenses have the same mount (M39) and filter threads (40.5mm). Does it now? How would that translate to exposure times between the 50/4.5 and the 50/2.8? How's the image quality compare? Link to comment
Alex H Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Larger nominal aperture (F/2.8) means thicker glass, which means stronger attenuation in UV, which means longer exposure when both lenses are used at the same aperture setting. Link to comment
Cadmium Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Does it now? How would that translate to exposure times between the 50/4.5 and the 50/2.8? How's the image quality compare? Yes it does. :) I don't have any direct exposure or image comparisons between those lenses.Some have tested and compared it much more than me. You may want to ask Alex, he knows lenses much better than I, and he may have more experience with the D.O.I. 50mm. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now