TTArtisan 100mm F2.8 lens. Does it work for UV?

[Stefano]

This lens has an old Cooke triplet design, with just 3 elements in 3 groups. It produces bubbly bokeh.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ttartisan.com/%3FLens/185.html&ved=2ahUKEwjDi8f54NWAAxVdcvEDHYpcAzEQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2q5PGRTeKkQ3_qzGmvYf4G

 

https://www.techweekmag.com/news/photo/new-ttartisan-100mm-f28-lens-with-bubble-bokeh-effect-unveiled/

 

A simple design sometimes means deeper UV-reach. Maybe this lens is a good candidate.

[Fandyus]

I suspect that it most likely has modern coatings, being a modern lens. I wouldn't get my hopes up.

[Stefano]

Probably it does, but it only has one thin flint element (flint glass is usually the one that limits UV transmission).

 

I guess we will know if and when someone tests it.

[dabateman]

Its only $150.

I was actually thinking about it. Its also an M42 mount lens, but it says it can be mounted to Nikon F-mount cameras.  So not sure if its T-mount or if a special adapter would be needed.

I do have a bunch of 100mm ish lenses, so don't need another.  But maybe.  If I do buy it I will let you know.  But I am still on a autofocus kick, and its manual only. Unless your camera can use an autofocus adapter,  none of mine can.

[nfoto]

The old Nikkor-T 105mm f/4  (late '50s, early '60s) is a triplet and has simple coatings. It doesn't do well in UV.

[Fandyus]

6 hours ago, nfoto said:

The old Nikkor-T 105mm f/4  (late '50s, early '60s) is a triplet and has simple coatings. It doesn't do well in UV.

I can say that my Zeiss Triotar 135/4 (also a triplet) doesn't do too well either. There's a ton of fine beige dust inside though so that might have something to do with it.

[ulf]

A few of the Novoflex Bellows lenses have a really good UV reach. I have measured all models of Noflexar 105mm and 135mm.

I have not yet tested them with UV photography.

I think they primarily were intended for macro work but can reach infinity on suitable bellows.
They are often rather cheap, but you need a bellows or suitable helicoid to use them, adding to the cost.

I did some quick searches to show the lenses I talk about:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313&_nkw=noflexar+105&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_odkw=noflexar+135&_osacat=0

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313&_nkw=noflexar+135&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_odkw=noflexar+105&_osacat=0

 

[photoni]

@Stefano I don't really like long focal length photographic lenses

I bought an EL-Nikkor 80 f5,6 but it is very long and dark and I never use it.
If you are interested in medium telephoto I have seen that the old lenses for enlarger (Componon-Durst), they work well

even the cheap Astron 150 f 4.5 (a triplet for graphic projects) works well with UV

[Stefano]

I'm interested in a modern lens, I don't like to rely on lenses which are no longer manufactured.

 

Some weeks ago I bought a Canon 40 mm f/2.8 pancake, and I quite like it for general purpose UV photography. For this kind of photography a lens that transmits to 340-350 nm is OK.

 

If I wanted to go deeper I would build a fused silica lens, like the ones I designed.