CoastalOpt 60 mm f/4 Apo - want to buy

[Andrea B.]

Thanks to Enrico and Birna for the additional information about the Coastal 60.

 

I'll note that Brian did confirm the hotspot issue which occurs when using the lens for macro work. Also JenOptik did confirm it. Everyone (Enrico, Birna, Brian, JenOptik) agrees that either extension tubes or a long lens shade mitigates the macro hotspot issue. So please remember that there is a workaround for the Coastal 60.

 

I do not recall historically exactly who first figured out the workaround, Enrico or Birna. Or which workaround was discovered first, extension tubes or lens shade. But "props" to both for whichever.

 

The CO60 is the only currently manufactured lens which is UV-Vis-IR corrected. The currently manufactured UV-Rayfact 105/4.5 is not corrected into the IR. Although IR focus shift is minimal for the UV-Rayfact, it is there. The UV-Rayfact "reaches" further into the UV than does the CO60.

 

So if you are going to spend a giant trainload of $$$/Euros/Pounds on such a lens, take some time to decide which little quirk will bother you least and what you really want from such a lens.

[enricosavazzi]

I do not recall historically exactly who first figured out the workaround, Enrico or Birna. Or which workaround was discovered first, extension tubes or lens shade. But "props" to both for whichever.

I believe both can take the credit. I published the workaround on my site in 2013, but expressly mentioned that I did not test the workaround on full frame. Birna did the latter testing and verifying (which does require different, wider lens shades than APS-C). Besides, the workaround is fairly obvious to anyone who has some experience with lens flare and hotspots (in my case, I learned it the hard way with the Olympus OM 20 mm for photomacrography in the 70s or 80s, and see similar problems all the time in custom equipment for photomacrography and even commercially produced lenses), so I would not be surprised if others discovered the workaround on their own.

[Andrea B.]

Hi Enrico -- Thank you for the history update.

[dabateman]

Thank you Birna for the explanation. That makes sense as focus shift is a pain to deal with and very few users will use this lens in UVB, let alone UVC, like me.

At least it's good to know for me to avoid.

Actually the focus and sharpness probably increased sales.

 

There is still the Resolve 60mm macro, although only in C-mount.

https://www.resolveoptics.com/228-000-60-mm-f3-5-uv-forensic-lens/

 

But Andy did get decent coverage on a 135 format sensor with its copy KSS version:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/3402-60mm-f35-c-mount-uv-lenses-on-ebay/page__view__findpost__p__28956

 

So an option on Nikon Z-mount and Sony E-mount.

[Andrea B.]

I would like to remind readers that for good transmission in the UV-B or UV-C range then you might want to look at either the UV-Rayfact 105/4.5 (twin of the old UV-Nikkor) OR the Coastal 105/4.5.

 

The Coastal 60/4.0 has very poor transmission below 310nm nm (rapidly slopes down to 10% and below) and does not go above 60-65% elsewhere. This lens is good for what it does, but is rather over-hyped, IMHO.

 

In contrast the Coastal 105 transmits between 70-80% all the way to about 260 nm and is still at 60% at 250 nm. For that kind of reach and high transmission in UV, I think it might be OK to give up correction in IR. Many lenses can handle IR. So very few can reach past 300 nm. (Not that most of us can put together the safety gear and lighting to shoot there. But that’s another story.)

 

---

 

This evening when looking at the JenOptik PDFs about the CO60, I note that they have removed all information about the hotspot problem. I think that this is irresponsible. They should be supplying tubes and lens shades for free whenever anybody lays down $7000(US) for that lens.

 

---

[lukaszgryglicki]

Yep, I decided to skip CO60 totally, and eventually in the far future consider UV-Nikkor or other option...

[Andy Perrin]

To be honest, unless you want UVB capability, it’s not really worth spending that much for a lens. The UVA spectral variation can be caught well with much cheaper lenses and the additional light is not that much under sunshine. These lenses are nice because they are so well corrected in UV, yet the EL-Nikkor line are also very sharp and not much focal shift.

[Cadmium]

I am very happy with the UV-Nikkor 105mm F4.5. You can sometimes find mint copies that are much less expensive than the 7grand price. They are not 60mm, but you can comfortably stand back from flowers and capture very sharp images.

If you want something that is wider angle, then try to find a Kuribayashi 35mm f/3.5.

[lukaszgryglicki]

If I would found UV-Nikkor for $4, I'll buy it just now. But I would rather stop dreaming.

[nfoto]

I purchased my first UV-Nikkor in 1990 or thereabouts, actually not "purchased" at all, since it followed included in another photographic setup I acquired at that time. So in fact that UV-Nikkor didn't cost me at all. I got the second UV-Nikkor, a near mint second-hand sample, around 2004 for less than $1000 if memory serves. Both lenses are with me now and both have stood up to hard use over all these years. One of them has been relubricated which I consider ordinary maintenance of any optic 20+ years old.

 

My Coastal 60 is, as I said before, one out of three prototype items, and has been with me since early 2007. Although its outward appearance would indicate a very sturdy and robust lens package, it is far more prone to the dangers of field work than the UV-Nikkors and at one point in time, after 13+ years, literally fell apart. Jenoptik repaired it for me, but they were less than happy about the incident.

[enricosavazzi]

Some time in 2005 or 2006, I passed up on a UV Nikkor 105 and Nikkor UV flash kit for about 100,000 円 in a second-hand shop in Kyoto (for comparison, 900 円 bought an average workday restaurant lunch there at the time), and instead ended up spending more than that on a second-hand Tamron 300 mm f/2.8 in Nikon AF mount. At that time I was mostly interested in bird photography and was just beginning dabbling in NUV and NIR. In retrospect the UV Nikkor might have been a better choice.

[Andrea B.]

It's always difficult to say looking back. But Enrico, if you enjoyed the bird photography for several years, then money was well spent on that 300/2.8.

 

********

 

I think I got my first UV-Nikkor in 2006 or 2007. IIRC, the price then was around $3800(US). Birna chipped it for me a few years ago in Scotland. The Coastal Optics 105/4 from a surplus store was around $1800. It's not too pretty, but works great.

[lukaszgryglicki]

Got UV-Nikkor #200008 (8th made) instead.