Old Olympus lenses, good for IR

[ulf]

I did some web search for lenses suitable for IR and found something that might be interesting.

My primary source for information is Edward Noble's site:

https://www.edwardnoble.com/hotspots

 

All Olympus lenses here get high ratings.

They look very promising to use for IR, if they also are sharp.

 

Unfortunately Edd's site is not quite clear about details about other resulting lens aberrations, except in text comments about the very good lenses in his list.

 

There is a Swedish site with a blog written by the founder of a major photo equipment web shop.

The Captain's log, where he tests some old lenses very much in detail comments them and show high resolution test images.

(if you click on the test pictures for each lens, they open up to the 100% image of the image.)

 

Interestingly he is doing the testing mostly on Fujifilm high resolution big sensor cameras, so the test information is beyond the normal full frame area.

 

https://www-cyberphoto-se.translate.goog/captains-log?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

 

The article list is long and in chronological order, not easy to find a specific lens but if you do a text search for Olympus many of the Olympus lenses in Edd's list can be found.

They seam quite good and sharp on big camera sensors too.

 

[nfoto]

As Swedish is (formally) my mother tongue, I enjoyed reading the nerdy compilations and comments.

[Lou Jost]

I've been accumulating Olympus lenses over the years based on Noble's and others' web comments. The older silver-nosed black-bodied versions are generally better, apparently because of "poorer" coatings in these older lenses, just as for UV. I'll try share any test results with them here. I am also looking at their UV transmission, though just informally, as I don't have a spectrometer.

[ulf]

Recently I hoarded a few Olympus lenses too use for IR-photo.

I think my lens pile is saturated for UV-photography, but I had few that I know of, with good IR-hotspot behaviour.

So instead of reducing in size, the lens pile grew again. 

---

Just to know if there were some of them that was OK for UV too I made a quick transmission check of a few on the Zuiko-lenses.

 

OBSERVE the test is not done properly regarding absolute transmission levels with a complete integrating sphere setup and thus not as accurate!

However they are reasonably good for a transmission cutoff indication in their lower UV-region, even if the transmission levels are normalised to 100% at around 530nm.

---

The new addition to my lens pile:

 

Zuiko 28/3.5

Zuiko 50/1.8      Cutoff (-1 stop) ca 360nm,  (<-3 stop) ca 340nm

Zuiko 100/2.8    Cutoff (-1 stop) ca 380nm,  (<-3 stop) ca 360nm

Zuiko 135/3.5    Cutoff (-1 stop) ca 380nm,  (<-3 stop) ca 360nm

 

Compare with 

EL-Nikkor 80 old metal    Cutoff (-1 stop) 340nm,  (<-3 stop) ca 311nm

 

For UV the 50mm is acceptable, but not good, slightly better than a Canon EF 40 STM

The two longer lenses are marginal, but still usable for some upper UV, just as many modern lenses.

Any false UV yellow will be less saturated and long exposure times will be seen. 

 

 

[nfoto]

The 28/3.5 Olympus is very marginal for UV in my experience. However, it performs surprisingly well when pushed closer than its near limit.

 

The OM 38/2.8 can probably do upper UV(A) slightly better than the other Zuiko lenses listed by Ulf, but I have no exact measurements  for it.

[ulf]

13 hours ago, Lou Jost said:

I've been accumulating Olympus lenses over the years based on Noble's and others' web comments. The older silver-nosed black-bodied versions are generally better, apparently because of "poorer" coatings in these older lenses, just as for UV. I'll try share any test results with them here. I am also looking at their UV transmission, though just informally, as I don't have a spectrometer.

Can you please expand on this?

Some pictures of the lenses showing what older silver-nosed black-bodied versions mean would also be interesting.

Some of my Zuikos have circular thin mirrored areas by the aperture ring and by the filter thread.

[Lou Jost]

I'm traveling home to Ecuador from the US, and when I get home tonight I'll post pictures. What you describe sounds like the lenses I am talking about.

 

[aphalo]

There is detailed historical information about Olympus OM lenses at: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/index.htm

The 100 1:2.8 performs beautifuly in visible and is very small. At https://www.photo-spectrum.info/2018/04/camera-objectives-for-uv-photography/ you can find photographs of some silver nose OM lenses and a link to some rough assessments of UV transmission I did some time ago.

[Stefano]

16 hours ago, ulf said:

For UV the 50mm is acceptable, but not good, slightly better than a Canon EF 40 STM

The two longer lenses are marginal, but still usable for some upper UV, just as many modern lenses.

Any false UV yellow will be less saturated and long exposure times will be seen. 

Interesting to read of a fairly modern lens with good UV transmission (comparable to the Canon 40 mm pancake). Modern lenses usually offer better image quality in visible light compared to vintage ones because of the improvements in lens design, which to me makes them appealing as "general purpose" lenses. We have already discussed how this means they may perform worse in UV or IR, because simpler lenses usually perform better, but they are still sharper than DIY lenses.

 

Recently many f/0.95 lenses have popped up. They contain a lot of glass which does not inspire confidence in UV transmission, but would be interesting to try.

 

Sorry if this was a bit off-topic.

[Lou Jost]

Here is a silver-nosed Olympus (left) and newer regular Olympus. The front rim of the lens is silver, as is a ring above the aperture ring. This difference between old and new versions applies to almost all focal lengths.

[nfoto]

I have the "silver nose" Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 and apparently it can do some UV. However, there is a colour cast indicating it does not go deep into UV, as expected.

[Lou Jost]

I have no special reason to think these are good for UV either. I am most interested in IR with them.  Some of them have their IR focusing index mark quite close to their regular focusing index mark. That tells us that these have only a small focus shift in the I . That's an important indicator of their image quality for semi-full-spectrum (IR+ vis) photography, and performance with the Kolari IR Chrome filter which I love.

 

I spend a lot of time on eBay looking for lenses with IR indices close to their regular focusing index. It's a cheap way to find new unexpectedly good IR lenses.

[nfoto]

I have used the Olympus 35mm f/2.8 Shift for IR with excellent results.

[enricosavazzi]

An indirectly related matter is which of the current or recent Olympus / OM System Micro 4/3 lenses are good for IR imaging. There isn't a whole lot of information available, but I found a few resources (of course relevant only to those of us who use Micro 4/3 converted cameras). Some of them deal with multiple lens brands, but all the following carry at least some information on Micro 4/3 lenses in IR:

 

https://robertreiser.photography/olympus-lens-infrared-performance/

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4510896

https://kolarivision.com/lens-hotspot-list/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-12

https://petapixel.com/2021/08/26/how-to-choose-the-best-lenses-for-infrared-photography/

https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/reviews/ajax/list/id/2618/?p=3&s=date_desc

 

PS - If the site administrators wish, they are welcome to move this information to a more suitable place. There is a list of UV-suitable lenses in the UVP Technical Zone, but I am not aware of a corresponding list of IR-suitable lenses.

[lukaszgryglicki]

Good idea to also have IR lenses tests just like we have for UV.

I can compile something for GFX lenses, but most of them are rather weak to medium - too modern IMHO.

 

[Lou Jost]

I have lots of data for that, including some special lenses.

[ulf]

If something is set up for IR lenses too, (I like the idea), please try to make it well organised with separate topics for each lens with a structured topic title.

Look at how the UV-lens section is done and how each topic show pictures of the lens and some example images if possible.

Just a bunch of opinions without background facts the way we had for UV-lenses before the current structure was set up was very confusing.

It is important to make the structure in a way that makes it possible to find information from different needs

 

I think an IR section will be more difficult to populate with good lenses, in a comparable way as the problems vary wildly depending on the imaged scene.

Maybe showing problems like hotspots would be good. Then it is important to note all exposure data.

What I hope for is to see some additional information about other non-correctable issues like corner sharpness, etc.

    

[Lou Jost]

As others have said, something is better than nothing, and I think that informed and well-reasoned opinions are valuable while we wait for definitive data to be generated. Look at how useful Bjirn's old Nikon review list has been, without a single supporting photo.

 

However, as Ulf says, it is important to include photos of the actual  lens being discussed. Minor variations can make a big difference to the "accidental" IR and UV properties of lenses, as we all know. This is a widespread problem. For example, there are many posts here that mention the Soligor 35mm f/3.5 lens, but we now know there are several versions, so these posts lose their value.

 

I also think that a community of volunteers should not waste valuable time duplicating information on other sites. The issue of hotspots, in particular, has been extensively treated, though with varying degrees of precision. It would be nice to organize that data, but it might be a waste to try to regenerate it from scratch. On the other hand there is very little info about image quality, corner sharpness, and focus shifts. There is also very little info about dedicated IR lenses for serious photography, apart from those that are known to this community for their UV capabilities. Additional dedicated high-resolution IR+vis lenses do exist.

 

 

 

[ulf]

Lou, those comments are spot on.

 

What I want to avoid is getting too simple statements without any background data, like "lensXXX is good", without mentioning that it is good for IR, when wide open on a cropped image from a micro 4/3rds camera  and only with a Kolari Chrome filter, because that is the only IR setup used by the poster... Too little background facts make an opinion rather worthless. 

 

I think it is a good idea with a group effort to build this information collection.

 

If we consider the usage of the information, I can directly define three different questions to be answered and for sure there are more.

Example:

1. I am considering getting lensYYY and wonder if it will work well enough for me regarding hotspots, corner sharpness and focus shift. I saw that it is supposed to be good at some forum.
2. I am looking for a really good, very wide lens for IR + VIS. Are there any viable candidates. 
3. I have found a lens in my collection that I hope will be OK for IR. Have someone tried it with good or bad results?

When building a section like this it is important to have a good framework to expand on for the section to be usable.

Also not fill it up too quickly as it will be difficult to rearrange if it is swamped with too much information.

 

Ideally, if information about a specific lens that is added from different contributors, (good!) there should be one single entry-point, to make it easy to share and compare findings.

Findings could be in the form of direct experience or useful links like the one I found on Captains Log about some of the Zuiko lenses.

 

I do not think it is that important with spectrometric transmission measurements, like the ones I made for the UV-capable accidental lenses.

Maybe we could define some setups for testing some important aspects for IR photo in a consistent repeatable way that are not difficult or expensive to build.  

[Lou Jost]

Yes, that makes good sense. In addition, contributors should be specific about whether they are talking about macro or landscape/astro results. These are completely different fields and probably no lens will be good for both.

 

As an example, I would mention the Nikon slide and negative scanner lenses extracted from their CoolScan machines. The later ones take infrared images of the slides or negatives and use these to eliminate dust and scratches on the RGB image. So here we have a lens that is designed to image both IR and vis with very high resolution and perfect corners (and maybe focus both IR and vis in the same plane, which would be fantastic), but they probably can't even form an image at infinity.

[enricosavazzi]

20 hours ago, ulf said:

[...]

I do not think it is that important with spectrometric transmission measurements, like the ones I made for the UV-capable accidental lenses.

Maybe we could define some setups for testing some important aspects for IR photo in a consistent repeatable way that are not difficult or expensive to build.  

I agree on the first point. I have yet to see a single lens designed for VIS that does not transmit enough NIR (unless it has a built-in NIR-cut filter, like the lenses of GoPro cameras).

 

Some sort of easily standardized IR tests would help to compare results. Samples of real-world NIR images do help, but lens problems like hotspots may not pop up on all images. Even using a lens for actual NIR imaging for a couple of weeks may not reveal any lens problems, and erroneously lead one to conclude that the lens is fine for NIR. Ideally we need to establish some easily replicated test setup that is likely to expose these lens problems.

[Lou Jost]

I'd like to propose that Edward Noble's hotspot tests, or some variation on them, would make a good standard, especially since he already has so much data.

https://www.edwardnoble.com/hotspots

 

[Lou Jost]

One application where IR tranmission matter is full spectrum infrared + vis imaging. Then the relative amount of IR versus visible light affects the colors. I've found that some of my lenses make much nicer colors than others when making FS or IR Chrome imagery. 

[nfoto]

The 28/3.5 Olympus OM does upper UV(A) easily and image quality is quite acceptable. The example below with my Nikon D3200 (built-in Baader U; thanks Vivek Iyer) and focus stacking. The dandelions have a well-known UV appearance and this seems to be rendered quite well I think.

 

 

The 28mm f/3.5 also does IR, but my main IR experience with Olympus lenses is with the 35mm f/2.8 Shift,

 

Here with D40X and R72 filter,

 

 

There apparently is no IR hot spot detectable at f/11 or larger. Perhaps f/16 behaves differently, but I haven't used that configuration for my own shooting.

 

Interestingly the 35 Shift Olympus appears to be slightly sharper in IR than in visible light. For the latter application it is good but not a spectacular performer.

[lukaszgryglicki]

Great images!