Best Basic Gear: Goggles, Filters, Torches

[Andrea B.]

30 Aug 2021 11:36 Mountain Daylight Time UTC -6

 

REVIEW please.....and Thank You.

 

I think I have gotten all the updates in place in response to the comments and corrections received. So please go re-read any areas of concern.

 

Feedback continues to be welcomed, as always.

[diant]

The Convoy S2+ is a rock solid option.

 

I thought so until reading some later negative feedbacks of S2+ referring to its low intensity. But others users told about very good light intensity. I was puzzled. But after some studying the market I've seen that there are at least two different type S2+ torch, now present on market:

1). With Nichia NCSU276A led

2). With Nichia NCSU276C led

There are some other nuances (like number of current drivers and so its total current etc.)

If speak shortly, (1) is old type Nichia with comparatively low efficiency and low radiative output (only 1090mW at working current 700mA).

(2) Very good new Nichia with high efficiency and high radiative output (1470mW at the same working current 700mA).

May be there are vendors who sell S2+ new+ type with Nichia NVSU233B led, but I've not checked this yet.

 

Andy, Andrea, thank you for you practical experience :)

[Andrea B.]

Anton, you also have good knowledge about this UV gear and have made useful suggestions.

 

For practical, non-laboratory purposes, we use the UV torches for inducing visible fluorescence or for shining on a subject while focusing in UV on Live View. So the differences in output between the two Nichia chips is not really going to affect this use for the average photographer here on UVP. That is an opinion, of course. And I always stand willing to have my opinion argued against. :lol:

 

(Also, most beginners are not going to buy the Convoy S2+ torch because it is more expensive than the no-name UV torches sold on Ebay. But that, as they say, is another story.)

 

Nichia chips and other UV chips change constantly in the marketplace. We cannot keep up with those changes. As an example, I have two "ancient" Nichia-chipped, titanium-cased torches from about 8? 10? years ago that I had made up by a member of a torch forum. They work very well all these years later for the stated purposes even though I'm quite sure that old Nichia chip has been vastly improved since I had my torches made.

 

---

 

I should add a comment in the beginner's list about making UV photos using a torch for illumination. Not practical.

 

---

 

I really do not think that the Chinese manufactured UV torches sold on Ebay are using authentic Japanese-produced Nichia UV-Led chips. They could not sell the torches at those prices if they did.

 

---

[Andrea B.]

Please let's remember that this is a Beginner's List. The listed gear is probably not going to be used for scientific work in the laboratory.

[Andrea B.]

Arrrrggggghhhhh...............

 

By the time I get all the Notes and Warnings posted, it makes me wonder why anybody wants to try reflected UV photography anyway!!!!

 

Just a minor note of exasperation, that's all. :rolleyes: :wacko:

 

 

---

 

Professional's List: UV-Rayfact 105/4.5, BaaderU, Baader UV/IR-Cut, one thin BG38 IR-blocker, antique Nikon SB-140 UV and IR flash, Nichia grade A chipped UV-Led torch for focusing, Spectralon white/grey balance standards, Xrite Color Checker Passport, conversion software which can achieve the unusual demands of UV white balance, an extremely sturdy tripod for long exposures, and finally, a converted camera which has no PDAF artifacts, no internal IR-shutter contamination, wide dynamic range and good high-ISO capability. Large doses of patience and perhaps just a very mild evening sedative are also on the Professional's List.

Cost: Literally in the thousands of $$$(US).

 

Somebody asked, so there is my answer to that. :bee:

[dabateman]

 

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Possibly lost in translation? Anyway what I meant was that you need some U glass on the flashlight to cut out any remaining visible light from the LED (of which there is a very small amount, but enough to mess up a fluorescence photo at close range.)

 

Diant this is a concern for me, my lenses and filters as I do attempt UVC imaging. There are a bunch of studies that indicate that solarization is negligible above 320nm. Many will add blocks to avoid the deeper UVC light that causes this.

For Beginners with UVA sources, this will also not be a concern.

Don't USE Germacidal bulbs!

 

[dabateman]

Andrea,

Please add a warning that people should not use germacidal bulbs for UV photography.

That will solve the solarization problem and much harm to many. The BLB bulbs are a good starting point and then 365nm LED bulbs for monochromatic look or for induced fluorescence.

[diant]

There are a bunch of studies that indicate that solarization is negligible above 320nm.

This is all I want to know, great!

 

Don't USE Germacidal bulbs!

David, thank you for your warning! But when I need UVC, I can't escape it and work with it with great care. My first experiments with UVC began in 2004, when I need to excite tryptophan phosphorescence in glass matrix. And now I have a good collection UVC lamp in my home, but of course I prefer to escape any working with it, knowing all danger.

[Doug A]

The recommended Uvex goggles arrived today. May not have a UV camera at the moment, but the 365nm torches are arriving some day. UVIVF will be possible with one of the non converted cameras. Can't wait to give it a try. Thanks again to Andrea B for preparing this beginner's thread.

 

Thanks,

Doug A

[Andy Perrin]

Excellent. At least you know your unconverted camera is well-blocked. It takes a full minute to force UV through it.

[dabateman]

Excellent. At least you know your unconverted camera is well-blocked. It takes a full minute to force UV through it.

 

Actually his Olympus E30 was even better and didn't see any UV at all. That could be great for UV induced fluorescence with a regular lens and his flashlights. Make sure to wear those goggles and your gear is all set.

 

Many only do UVIVF, as reflectance is tricky.

[Andrea B.]

Added entries for

• Best UV Illumination
  
• Next Best UV Illumination
  
• Best UV for Beginners, Intermediates and Advanced
  

[Doug A]

Added entries for

• Best UV Illumination
  
• Next Best UV Illumination
  
• Best UV for Beginners, Intermediates and Advanced
  

 

Looks great. Very easy to read and understand. In the filter specifications there are ratings of OD 5 and OD 6. I've seen this in other threads. What does it mean, and are higher or lower numbers better?

 

Thanks,

Doug A

[Andy Perrin]

Looks great. Very easy to read and understand. In the filter specifications there are ratings of OD 5 and OD 6. I've seen this in other threads. What does it mean, and are higher or lower numbers better?

 

Thanks,

Doug A

That's the amount of blocking of stuff that's outside the passband (the wavelengths the filter is intended to pass). OD5 means that the filter transmits 0.00001 = 1/10^5 of the unintended light, or 0.001% maximum outside the passband. Obviously bigger number is better because that means it transmits less unintended light. It should be OD4 or better for most filters that you would use for imaging purposes.

[Cadmium]

OD = optical density.

For example, using a Schott Diabatic graph, 1E-05 = OD5, etc..

OD5 is basically what you want, you could use less like OD4, but once you get to OD3 you will almost always start to see a leak of what you want to suppress.

Anything stronger than OD5 is usually never needed, and it will reduce other parts of your filter transmission that you don't want to reduce. So the OD sweat spot is usually right around OD5 / 1E-05.

 

I made a conversion graph for OD a while back, here is is:

 

---

 

For beginners I recommend stacks, because you can use the same filters for various combinations to create different results. You get more possibilities from less filters, and more creative experimentation.

For UV:

Hoya U-360 2mm thick

Schott S8612 2mm thick

 

For UV+Blue+Green:

Hoya U-330 1.5mm

Schott BG3

 

For IR:

Schott RG715

Schott RG850

[Andy Perrin]

Cadmium, I don't understand this graph. What is the curve, and what does it have to do with wavelength? The y-axis makes sense to me, it's the x-axis that is confusing.

[Cadmium]

It is just comparing the Schott 1E notations to OD and % transmission.

I don't know what the X axis was, I will look it up, been a while.

[Andy Perrin]

Ok so ignore the wavelength and the curve and just look at the writing.

 

The 1e-5 etc. notation is common notation in computers, not invented by Schott. Wiki says examples of it are known back to 1958.

[Cadmium]

I found it.

I made a fake filter called "Test %", with progressing transmission %, those are the X numbers. Loaded that into the Schott Optical Density.

The wavelength is not important, it is only a progression % transmission that gets converted to OD on the graph.

I can send you the 'fake' filter data for that if you like.

I only intended it to show me a quick view of 1E/OD/% translation.

[Guest]

Why is there no mention of Baader U 2" filter, it should be on the top of the list ?

 

A $350 dichroic, mirrored, thin-ringed filter is not a UV-pass filter for beginners. It has to be turned when you get it, it is easily scratched, the ring is easily bent. You need to know how to deal with dichroic discoloration and possible flare or reflection artifacts. You have to know when to add an extra IR-blocker to it.

 

I wasn't aware of your filter before I invested in Baader U-filter. Wish I had known.

 

If you front mount get a DSLR holder for each filter and keep it on for good. This will protect the thin ring since it mounts recessed, and makes it easier when handling. The filter still fits in its plastic container with the holder installed. The only thing is that it adds about 10% to the price.

 

Link to DSLR filter holder.

 

https://www.baader-p...__from_store=en

[Andrea B.]

I wasn't aware of your filter

 

Don't understand?

 

 

The BaaderU is my primary use filter. Just be careful with the darned thing. The Hyperion rings are great on something like the UV-Nikkor but they vignette quite a lot on wide angle lenses. The original BU mount also has a ridiculous tendency to get stuck tight in step rings.

[dabateman]

I wasn't aware of your filter

 

Don't understand?

 

 

The BaaderU is my primary use filter. Just be careful with the darned thing. The Hyperion rings are great on something like the UV-Nikkor but they vignette quite a lot on wide angle lenses. The original BU mount also has a ridiculous tendency to get stuck tight in step rings.

 

Blaze means the Andrea U filter named after you I think.

All filters have there pluses and minuses.

The Baader venus u filter I think produces the highest contrast images in UV.

[Guest]

Yes, I mistakenly thought it was a filter produced and marketed by the site owner.

 

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

 

http://uvroptics.com/index.php?news

[Guest]

The BaaderU is my primary use filter. Just be careful with the darned thing. The Hyperion rings are great on something like the UV-Nikkor but they vignette quite a lot on wide angle lenses. The original BU mount also has a ridiculous tendency to get stuck tight in step rings.

 

Hyperion DT ring is just a glorified stepper with an added plastic ring to it doesn't get jammed on the DSLR holder. Yes, I agree the threads on the backside of the Hyperion are rough and the end of the tap. You can use a Tiffen Series 7 adapter instead of the Hyperion.

 

The DSLR filter holder allows the 2" filter to sit all the way recessed and acts as a reinforcement to the thin ring. The recess is beneficial, because the DSLR holder does not add any additional air gap to the equation.

 

 

[Cadmium]

BlazerOne, That is a really nice holder!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/124829509420?hash=item1d106b272c:g:FBkAAOSwYfddS6jr