Any Sony A7 Shooters Here?

[eye4invisible]

About 10-12 years ago there was a big fad for these old XR and TV Heligons which were used in medical imaging. Then it slowed down a bit. But you still see a lot of experiments with them. Here is a link to one Rodie which was dressed up quite beautifully and given a very useful tripod foot: https://www.dpreview...s/post/60342945

That is one nice-looking, sturdy mount. Certainly helps to have a tripod mount when trying to do close-ups for a steady shot.

 

My Rodie has a protruding plate with huge screw holes, lots of dings, scratched on inventory number from some past user and a cobbled together mount glued on by this kid in Florida who was trying to make a few dollars. And of course it has that chip or flaw. Naturally I love the heavy old thing and will never part with it.

It may grow on me too. I need to take it out more to get acquainted. It's not the rarest of lenses, but it's a nice addition to the family.

 

Must go now and try to figure out how to fit a UV-pass filter to the mount end.

Here's my attempt:

 

Original setup, without filter in front of rear element:

From the bottom of the image to the top:

52-82mm step up ring (I used a dozen or so rounds of black automative self-adhesive tape to make the 81mm mount thread snugly fit into the 52-82mm step up ring)

42-52mm step up ring (superglued to the 52-82mm step up ring, so that it does not unscrew easily)

52-42mm step down ring as a spacer

42-52mm step up ring (to screw onto the EOS or F-Mount adapter)

 

The original setup gave an M42 mount with the rear element protruding about 1mm out of the end of the 42mm thread. This is the new setup with the filter in place:

52-82mm step up ring

42-52mm step up ring

52-42mm step down ring

52mm blank filter ring (from a crappy old Fotga IR filter) as a spacer

52mm blank filter ring (from an el-cheapo UV filter from ebay) as a spacer

 

This gives me an M52 thread for a 52mm IR/UV filter/stack, and the rear element is recessed about 2mm below the thread line, which gives me enough room to screw on the filter(s).

 

Then:

52mm Kolari Vision K550 IR filter

42-52mm step up ring (to screw onto the EOS or F-Mount adapter)

 

Overall I think I've added about 5-6mm of distance from element to sensor for a single IR filter (1-2mm more for an S8612+UV stack). It's still way closer than the old setup on a D3200, so I can still back off of the subject a little to fill the frame on the mirrorless with less apparent vignetting - and I can add an M42 focusing helicoid to make it a more extreme close-up version.

 

This may well also make me decide to keep the lens after all!

[eye4invisible]

Dpon't bother, Andrea. These lenses are next to unusable for UV. (I have, of course, tried :D )

It's still worth trying to mount a filter over the rear element, even if it's not UV. For a full-spectrum converted camera, it would be useful to mount a hot mirror filter, for example.

[Andrea B.]

Maybe my old me was (one of the) reasons for the "speed fad"? Oh well -- at the end of the day, I probably have worse sins to be laid at my door.

 

Certainly in the digital world, on online photo forums, you were the one who started the use of these XR/TR, fixed ap, crazy-fast, industrial lenses. My initial work with Rodenstocks began in '07, I think. And you had posted Heligon work on your old website earlier than that IIRC.

The only sin I can place at your doorstep is that you were the inspiration for me and many, many others to spend scads of $$$$ on cool and interesting old lenses like the Noct, the UV-Nikkor, the manual 50/1.2 and so on. This after we read about them on your old website.

 

*****

 

Andy, agreed. And I'd like to try an IR + Red-pass like a 665 nm or thereabouts.

[Andy Perrin]

On the topic of fast lenses, I tried the SLR Magic 50mm F/1.1 lens recently. The copy I received from Adorama was badly decentered and I had to send it back. It was fairly soft overall, but given I had a defective copy I’m not sure how far I’m willing to read into that. (This was the motivation for buying the Sony Zeiss FE 55mm F/1.8 that I ended up with. Some images from that one are shown in my thread on the A7S from last night.)

https://www.amazon.com/Magic-50mm-F1-1-Cine-Lens/dp/B0751LHGBJ

[dabateman]

Its not extremely fast at f2.8 and I don't know if it will cover a 135 format sensor. But I am constantly amazed by the Sigma 30mm f2.8 Art lens. Especially since I got it used for $70. It performs well in IR, and in UV, and will autofocus on the four thirds and Sony cameras. One of the few Uv capable lenses I know that autofocus. It doesn't go down to 340nm, as I tried and see nothing. But with a 390 filter. Like the SEU or a custom one, you can do UV video. Quite a fun lens. The baader venus does work well with the lens. I am glad Pedro recommended it.

[Andy Perrin]

I think most lenses can do the 390 filters, so I’m not sure I would call that particularly UV capable? I mean, the Sony 55mm/1.8 I mentioned will also do that much. It is autofocus.

[Lou Jost]

On 9/20/2018 at 8:00 AM, eye4invisible said:

I have no doubt that it transmits UV well, being an x-ray lens, but realistically it doesn't yield enough sharpness to make it truly useable/practical as a UV lens - perhaps for artistic shots only. It's definitely not one to lug around in the field.

These "X-Ray" lenses are interesting and misunderstood. When used as designed, they are very sharp! They aren't made to image x-rays; they are made to image the blue-green phosphor plate that is illuminated by x-rays. So there is no reason to think they would be especially good at transmitting UV, though uncoated versions might be good for that reason.

 

They are permanently optimized for infinity focus. They are meant to be used in pairs, one facing the other, as coupled lenses. The second lens is made to project an image on a small sensor. That one is the "TV" lens. Here's a thread about them on photomacrography.com, with diagrams and data sheets from Klaus:

https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35693

 

[nfoto]

I second that. The "X-ray" optics can deliver amazingly sharp images. The main issue is that the register distance often is annoyingly short, so even the Z mount with 16mm register adds too much. Only the longer focal lengths will properly focus to infinity. I've seen astro setups using the 65mm/0.75 Oude Delft, going to great lengths to make a shutterless "camera" or more precisely, a film container. With the Z system I can get the 50/0.75 to focus to about 4m, which is distant enough to show the excellent optical performance of these industrial lenses. I'm using my 100mm f/1.6 Rodenstock for regular photography though, as this lens allows infinity focus with ease.

[Lou Jost]

Another way to deal with their short register difference is to use them as designed, as one of a pair of coupled lenses with the large front elements facing each other, but replacing the second one (the "TV lens") with any regular fast tube lens that has the same register distance as your camera. This gives extreme macro.

 

The x-ray lenses vary widely in design parameters, and many are designed to image through thick glass. The glass is required for sharp pictures.

[nfoto]

In fact I tried something similar to your suggestion, but dropped it as the setup became very heavy and cumbersome for field use. Perhaps I could retry in the studio. A good idea anyway.

 

As to the use in UV, the Rodenstock 50mm designs have very thick, high index elements and it takes a lot of UV illumination to get anything useful using these lenses. Lack of coating notwithstanding. However, I managed true UV captures with the Rodenstock 100mm f/1.6 lens.

 

 

Nikon Z5 full spectrum, 100/1.6 Rodenstock XR-Heligon, Baader U. The filter was rear-mounted into the bespoke focussing helicoid. Subject is Tussilago farfara and the UV signature is exactly as expected. This Rodenstock delivers very flat field which is benefical at the shallow depth of field at f/1.6 for close-ups.

 

Exposure data ISO 400, 1/4 sec under clouded sky. The UV-Nikkor (operated at f/11) required 2-4 sec. but light levels could well have declined as these images were shot later in the afternoon. Anyway the 100 Rodenstock is a refreshing alternative for the often boring task of making UV flower pictures. In terms of pleasant bokeh, however, neither the UV-Nikkor nor the Rodenstock can be considered ideal as the bokeh rendition is on the harsh side. One cannot win on all frontiers.

[Lou Jost]

Nice result!

 

My extreme macro setup is vertical, so it is easy to pile giant lenses on top of each other!

[nfoto]

1 hour ago, Lou Jost said:

Nice result!

 

My extreme macro setup is vertical, so it is easy to pile giant lenses on top of each other!

 

 

My preference for photomacrography also is vertically inclined. However, why use these heavyweights when far smaller optics can be used? (my original response was intended for field use, where weight restrictions are often more severe).

[Lou Jost]

The X-ray lenses are special because some are made to shoot through thick glass, and I need that sometimes (actually I need the ability to shoot through liquid, which amounts to the same thing). Also, these are extremely fast lenses, so they give higher resolution than traditional approaches in the range of 1x-3x.

 

Definitely not useful in the field, though.