Spring test of the lenses with new Tangsinuo filters

[photoni]

I tried the new filters from Tangsinuo with different combinations, I realized that graphs are one thing ... a practical test is much better.

 

I tested the compatible lenses with my Sony A7 full specrtum, with a combination of Jason's new TSN575 + ZWB1 filter ... these are the results.

 

The first two photos are with L. Meritar 50mm f2.9
Flash light 40Watt - 1/125 "- f: 16 - 50iso - QB39 (~ BG39)
Flash light 1000Watt - 1/125 "- f: 16 - 1600iso - TSN575 + ZWB1
(the last photo is without UV + VIS + IR filters)

 

then you will have to find out the numbers of ...

Leitz Elmar 50mm f: 3.5 (collapsible of my old Leica IIIF)
Helios 44-2 58mm f: 2
Nikkor-H 24mm f: 3.5
Nikkor-H 50mm f: 2
Nikkor-D 50mm f: 1.8
Nikkor-D 60mm f: 2.8 (micro)
Asahi Super takumar 35mm f: 3.5
Asahi Pentax SMC 35mm f: 2
Asahi Pentax SMC 85mm f: 1.8

 

I have no photographic lens measuring tools

Please ... i await your considerations.

Thanks
Antonio

[colinbm]

Beautiful collection Toni

[photoni]

Thanks @colinbm what do you think of the lenses?
I believe the limits are many
the flash light does not have a large amplitude of UV rays
the combination of ZWB1 + TSN575 cuts a lot after 365 but for me it is enough.

 

I don't have any Sony lenses, I would like to have a 50 autofocus, is there any lens that works fairly well?

 

the best seems to me the  N°9 with Asahi Super Takumar 35mm @ f:16

 

[colinbm]

I have had no experience with these filters or lenses.

[ulf]

1 hour ago, photoni said:

 

the best seems to me the  N°9 with Asahi Super Takumar 35mm @ f:16

Congratulation Tony to that your birthday-lens turned out to be as good as I hoped and expected.

 

Your comparison above is very valuable as it show several different important things for when searching for an accidental UV-capable lens.

Thank you for charing.

It is not only the UV-reach that is important, when choosing lenses for UV-photography.

• The Asahi Super Takumar 35mm have an UV-reach that is sufficient for this type of photography. It would be interesting to se of more UV-reach would improve anything here. I personally do not think so. The lens is quite sharp and I suspect that it might be even better at f/11, or possibly f/8, but then the DOF might suffer.
• All the other lenses has less chromaticity, especially in the yellow parts of the image. That is an indication of less UV-reach.
• The other lenses also show more or less hints of hotspots or flare and have less contrast.

It would be quite interesting to see a new set of images of the same or similar motif, but this time at f/3.5 for all lenses.

(Flash light 1000Watt - 1/125 "- f: 3.5 - 100iso - TSN575 + ZWB1 ??)

 

Then we would see more of the lens aberrations for all the lenses.

 

That aperture setting would be closer to something used for handheld photography in sunlight at a higher ISO if anyone want to attempt that.

For the test, please stay with using the flashes, as similar as the first test to make them comparable.

[photoni]

7 hours ago, photoni said:

Flash light 1000Watt - 1/125 "- f: 16 - 1600iso - TSN575 + ZWB1

Yesss ... with studio flash 1000W ... (I also have a 4000W generator and torch, but at 50cm I think it would burn the flowers)

1600iso - f:16

800iso - f:11

400iso - f:8

200iso - f:5,6

100iso - f:4 ~ 3,5

 

just for comparison I put these two made with the sun ... this combination of filters is problematic freehand

The first test photos with full sun tell me

with tripod f: 11 - 0.5" - 800iso

freedand f: 11 ??? or f:8 - 1/30 "- 12800iso (auto iso)

I don't know if the Baader-U filter is less demanding than the 10 apertures of a BG39?!

 

thanks for the encouragement... I wish I had more time this week.

 

.

 

 

[Andrea B.]

^{Tony, I really enjoyed this lens comparison presentation. It was well done. And easy to see "at a glance" which lens is working best.}

 

^{On a side note:  I LOVE Photo #12. It looks like delicate Easter colors.} 

 

^{Also, you chose such a beautiful array of flowers.}

 

^{Lens #4 and Lens #9 seem to both be sharp and have good contrasts. Lens #5 looks nice also.}

All the lenses seem to have captured the UV-signatures. That's interesting. So if the UV-signature is recorded, then does it matter if one lens has less false color saturation than another? One could always boost the saturation during conversion. 

[ulf]

A good false colour saturation is normally couples with a sufficient UV-reach that gives a better (shorter) exposure time.

If capturing UV-signatures is the only objective, then very many lenses with marginal UV-reach will do.

That allows compromises with usage of wide angle lenses as we have seen several times in the forum.

[photoni]

On 4/19/2022 at 3:30 AM, Andrea B. said:

 

^{Lens #4 and Lens #9 seem to both be sharp and have good contrasts. Lens #5 looks nice also.}

 

@Andrea B. I forgot
N°1 - N°2 L. Meritar 50 f:2,9
N°3 Leitz Elmar 50 f:3,5 collapsable
N°4 Nikkor-H 50 f:2
N°5 Helios 44-2
N°6 Micro Nikkor-D 60 f:2,8
N°7 Nikkor-D 50 f:1,8
N°8 Pentax SMC 85 f:1,8
N°9 Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 35 f:3,5
N°10 Pentax SMC 35 f:2
N°11 Nikkor-H 24mm f:2,8
N° 12 L. Meritar, no filters

 

I am surprised that the N ° 8 Pentax 85 f: 1.8 (6 elements in 6 groups) is good

grazie

 

 

 

On 4/19/2022 at 7:23 AM, ulf said:

If capturing UV-signatures is the only objective, then very many lenses with marginal UV-reach will do.

 

@ulf Exactly !!!

I just wonder what difference in speed and depth of color there are with "specialized lenses" and "normal lenses"

with reliable and certified filters such as S8612 + UG11 or Baader-U ... !!! ???

 

If I understand correctly it is superfluous to have an expensive specific lens with an S8612 + BG39 stack (or UG5 vision like bees) ... or Chinese filters  :-)))

[ulf]

3 hours ago, photoni said:

 

@ulf Exactly !!!

I just wonder what difference in speed and depth of color there are with "specialized lenses" and "normal lenses"

with reliable and certified filters such as S8612 + UG11 or Baader-U ... !!! ???

 

If I understand correctly it is superfluous to have an expensive specific lens with an S8612 + BG39 stack (or UG5 vision like bees) ... or Chinese filters  :-)))

A few year ago, (18-07-01), I made a comparison shoot between 

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/4489-kuribayashi-105mm-f35-kc-petri-orrikkor/

and

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/4393-leitz-100mm-f45-focotar-ii/

 

The motif was a flower with strong false yellow reflectance (UV) and the lenses was stopped down to the same 1/f value.

The exposure speed difference 6s against  13s reflected the difference of the transmission almost exactly for the two lenses at 365nm.

 

 

The depth of colour did not differ that much as the Focotar-II still allow a rather wide range of UV wavelengths, even if it attenuates them in an unusual way.

A more marginal lens will give a more narrow band of wavelengths and less chromaticity. 

 

The images above are screen shots from FastRawViewer without any colour enhancement beside a simple one click WB.

 

 

[Andy Perrin]

I just purchased the Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar 35/3.5! It came this morning. Can't wait to try it out. My copy looks gorgeous.

[ultrainfra]

On 4/21/2022 at 2:01 PM, Andy Perrin said:

I just purchased the Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar 35/3.5! It came this morning. Can't wait to try it out. My copy looks gorgeous.

I just ordered one from Japan in beautiful shape with the original teleconverter (the kind that goes on the back of lens) for M42 . How did you end up liking yours? Have any photos in UV taken with it you wouldn't mind sharing?

[Andy Perrin]

When I tried it, it was okay but seemed unremarkable, I'm sorry to report. 

[photoni]

unfortunately I don't have good equipment to make comparisons.

I have Chinese filters like ZWB1 and 2 + TSN575 (not a Baader U2 and S8612).

I don't have good lenses, probably the best for UV is a Soligor KA 35mm f3.5.
But Asahi Super Takumar 35mm f3.5 has the best contrast, sharpness ... and least blur of all (no a swirl bokeh)

 

[ultrainfra]

2 hours ago, Andy Perrin said:

When I tried it, it was okay but seemed unremarkable, I'm sorry to report. 

For UV photography or in general? 

It seems to be the best lens shown in the original post, and will certainly be better than the Sony kit lens (the 18-55mm f/3.5-f/5.6 APS-C e mount lens) which is a 12 element lens with the typically poor UV transmission you'd expect from such a modern lens. I was originally going to buy a Mamiya/Sekor 55mm F/1.8 lens, but after a bit of research I found out it has thorium doped glass. Not concerned with the modest radioactivity in and of itself, but a side effect of the radiation is that electrons can become trapped between atoms and visually this causes yellowing, which would make it a poor transmitter of UV. Though UV light exposure can de-yellow the glass, I opted to just get a different lens (the Asahi). A bit of a tangent, but kind of interesting (to me anyway!).

I'll have a Helios 44-M-4 lens in a day or two as well. I didn't buy it with UV in mind but for the swirly bokeh, but it will be interesting to see how it will do in UV. 
 

[Andy Perrin]

For UV photography, I meant. It just wasn’t as sharp as Photoni’s copy.