Nikon 24mm f2.8 – Which Versions Are Good For UVR?

[Andrew Dayer]

In 2019, @Timber noted that the AI [edit: corrected from AI-S] version of this lens has a useful UV transmission; @enricosavazzi agreed. Main threads are:

 

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/3346-greenwich-area-london-uk/

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/3375-finsp%C3%A5ng-castle-ai-s-nikkor-24-mm-f28/

 

I don’t think there was any quantitative analysis done but it seems qualitatively a good option to go wider, if less deep, than the various 35mm f3.5 options.

 

I’m interested in wide lens with usable UVA transmission, close focus, 52mm filter thread (smaller OK), ideally infinity focus on Nikon F mount, cheap (say up to about GBP 200 / US$ 250). Application is survey of trays of mounted insects to hopefully find phenotypes exhibiting UV reflection and also maybe UVIVF. Identified candidates would then be studied more closely with an 80 to 105mm deep UV cable lens.

 

Looking at available the available info on this lens, it dates from 1977 and was optically unchanged between the original AI (1977 – 1981), AIS (1981-still available!), AF (1986-1994) and AFD (1994-2020) versions. It seems, however, that part way through the AI-S version (serial numbers starting 84x xxx; around year 2000), Nikon added a coating branded “SIC” (Super Integrated Coating) replacing “NIC” (Nikon Integrated Coating).

 

Examples:

serial 767009 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/386687781535

serial 813417 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/404762941544

serial 840587 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/395160588106

serial 856768 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/196200698686

 

I don’t see much difference between these both in terms of the tint to the glass (taken in different conditions, of course) or the bodies (eg printing is apparently the same).

I’ve found mention that the AF version used NIC. I’ve also found mention that the AFD version used NIC but it would seem logical that Nikon would switch the AFD to SIC when the AIS version changed.

 

Does SIC effect UV differently (-ve) to NIC known to be on earlier versions?

 

By preference, I would go for the AFD version for the chip and for use general use with regular camera bodies (with screw-drive). As any change in coating is not documented by serial number, getting a suitable lens means ordering and testing if the coating change is significant.

 

Does anyone have experience with later versions of this lens especially the AFD variant?

Thanks for any help!

 

Main additional sources:

https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0086/

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/

https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF24mm/index.htm

[nfoto]

The older version are so-so regarding their lacklustre UV performance. Perhaps they go below 380nm, but not convinced. I stopped use these many years ago.

 

The AF 24 Nikkor has a very plasticky build and is difficult to focus manually. The AFD might be a tad better in this repect as the focusing ring got a little wider.

[Andrea B.]

Andrew writes: I’m interested in wide lens with usable UVA transmission, close focus, 52mm filter thread (smaller OK), ideally infinity focus on Nikon F mount, cheap (say up to about GBP 200 / US$ 250).

 

After reading Birna's response about the lackluster UV performance, I'm thinking it might be better to stick to a 35/3.5 which is more UV-capable than the Nikkor 24/2.8s even though 35mm would not be as wide as you wanted.

 

Andrew writes:

Application is survey of trays of mounted insects to hopefully find phenotypes exhibiting UV reflection and also maybe UVIVF.

 

A question about photographing dead insects -- would they exhibit the same UV signature (or fluorescence) as would the live versions? We have only a few insect photos here on UVP, so I don't really know the answer to this. Fauna Link.

[Lou Jost]

If this is just for survey work, you can make a single-element wide angle lens out of a 24mm silica plano-convex lens. This would have transmission down to at least 250nm. It is easy and cheap. You might do even better with a calcium fluorite single element, but these are a little harder to find and more expensive.

[photoni]

I have this MODEL, Nikkor-H 24mm f2.8
It is not suitable for UV,  but is good for IR

[Andrew Dayer]

Thanks for your replies.

 

I've edited to correct my original post. Timber stated his lens as 'AIS' but cross-referencing the serial number provided (645394) at http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ suggests that it is AI version made before 1981.

Its a shame that Birna does not regard these as worthwhile for UV given the 'excitement' back in 2019, but one must defer to high authority . I still might get a copy - maybe an early AIS - just because of the look and feel of a 'proper lens'.

Andrea: The issue with the 35mm f3.5's was that with an M42 - AI adapter (ie Nikon F), the focal range was too restricted to cover the expected 3 foot square or so of a tray of insects. And it meant going back and trying to make sense of the various - not always consistent - info about good and bad variants of the lens. But, news to me, as most of these are T2 threads under the M42 adapters, infinity focus is possible and so they might be useable. Actually getting the adapters adjusted to the focal length needed for each lens is trying; an adapter that's perfect for my T2 Galaxy 135mm f3.5 is way out for the Optimax 35mm. I'm looking to get some 0.2mm shims to see if that works - right now I'm using bits of folded paper wedged into the T2-AI adapter; effective unless it rains!

Andrea: dead insects - good question. Binary answer is yes, mine still do. I've seen decades-old butterfly wings show UVIVF. I'm looking at wasps, bees and hoverflys, and they definitely can retain UV responces postmortem. My personal collection of sun bleached windowsill victims does, anyhow. The nuanced answer is that we don't yet know much about UVR/UVIVF in these insects and so don't know quanitatively how they change with storage as pinned or wet preserved specimens. I might infer that a dead specimen showing a UVR pattern is worth investigating further in a living specimen. Negatives are harder to prove but its a start.

 

Lou: thanks; might be beyond my limited skills! Better for reproducability if I use commercially available products.

Tony: thanks for that. One would expect older lenses might be better but it seems that Ikuo Mori started from scratch with the 24mm AI version with no cemented groups inspite of nine optical elements.

 

[ulf]

The coverage is a function of both working distance and focal length.

If you can move the camera further back even a 50mm lens would be OK.

You are talking about trays of insects, that implies a rather flat motif and then a setup with an enlarger lens would be ideal.

 

Several of the Leitz Focotar 50mm lenses have excellent UV Reach and quite high image quality.

This is one of the later versions that is good:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/4383-leitz-50mm-f45-focotar-from-1969/

The best of the 50mm Focotars is the Focotar-2, but that is rather rare and more expensive.

 

You might abandon the thought of getting a lens do it all lens for this and skip the ability to reach infinity.

Then a Focotar will be ideal for the task. Many good enlarger lenses have very good image quality.

Search the forum about Focotar. I have posted several topics about that lens.

To cover 3 x 3 foot on a 24 x 36 sensor you will get a working distance of ca 175cm. I just checked that with a Focotar 50mm on my Sony A7 III.

 

If you can accept somewhat less UV reach and no infinity focus a the Canon FD 50mm macro is a really good lens that will be less complicated to adapt.

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/4458-canon-50mm-f35-fdn-macro/

Together with this adapter I think it will be a good solution:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003656159277.html

 

For at specialised task like this you might have to think outside the Nikon F 24mm-box! 

 

 

 

[Andrew Dayer]

Thanks Ulf.

 

Short reply as it's late. Agree enlarger lens would a better place to start if I can get enough field of view and focus - right now I'm using a crop sensor.

 

I have a Soligor 50mm enlarger lens I've not yet tried else there's the 50mm el-nikkor f4. Might be ok to prove a set up.

 

The Focotar 50mm is worth a look - thanks for your work back in 2018. Very much appreciated quantitative assessments. They seem expensive but not impossible.

 

I wonder if any of the half frame enlarger lens have any UV depth? I've a couple of 30mm ones to try. Shame there's not a UV 'colour' chart to easily estimate UV depth (as far as I know). I don't see myself justifying the cost of a spectrometer even if I knew how to use it.

[dabateman]

I remember my Quantaray 24mm macro in F-mount being ok for UV. I can't remember what the cutoff was, but maybe around 380nm.

They should be dirt cheap still and might be worth trying. 

[Andrew Dayer]

Thanks @dabateman

Quantaray looks like a house brand used a US retailer; they're pretty rare over here (UK).

Looks like I can't mount 30mm enlarger lenses readily on Nikon F body and get focus and a decent field of view. With a crop sensor, I can't get enough view with 50mm either so it looks like risk a Nikon 24mm AI/S or do my best with a 35mm f3.5.

[enricosavazzi]

I still have, and occasionally use in UV landscape imaging, the 24 mm Nikkor - not because it is especially good in UV, but simply because I failed to find a better one (and then called it a day on buying unknown legacy lenses to test). There is no doubt that several of the legacy 35 mm f/3.5 found to be good in UV are better than the 24 mm, but when a full-frame 24 mm is needed, I simply have found no better alternative at this or a lower FL among the legacy lenses I tested (I did find several worse ones).

[ulf]

The loss of transmission range when the focal length becomes shorter than 35mm is simple to explain. 

Down to 35mm it is possible to use optical designs and lens materials that can transmit UV-A reasonably well if the lens elements for the least UV-transmitting  glass materials are not too thick.

 

When the focal length becomes shorter, more advanced glass materials and designs are needed, to maintain the needed mount to film distance and leave space for the SLR-mirror.   

That is why there are no? wider legacy lenses than 35mm, designed for 24 x 36 mm film, has been discovered, that have more than marginal UV performance.

 

 

For legacy lenses the AR-coatings are not that disturbing for UV-range, so even lenses like the EL-Nikkor 80mm with 6 elements are OK or good.

[Andrea B.]

Andrew, just use a 35/3.5 and take two photos to cover the insect tray.

(How big are those trays anyway?)

[Andy Perrin]

Ulf, I was under the impression from long-ago discussions on this forum and the Nikon forum that for the EL-Nikkor line, they may even have been designed to intentionally pass a small amount of UV and this explains their exceptional performance (among the supposedly “accidental” lenses).

[Lou Jost]

8 hours ago, Andy Perrin said:

Ulf, I was under the impression from long-ago discussions on this forum and the Nikon forum that for the EL-Nikkor line, they may even have been designed to intentionally pass a small amount of UV and this explains their exceptional performance (among the supposedly “accidental” lenses).

Yes, that's in their specs. They aren't "accidental" UV lenses. They are corrected for wavelengths down to 380nm (in other words, they focus 380nm light in exactly the same plane as visible light). This is more than just a matter of transmission (though they do that too).

 

Older Fuji enlarger lenses have the same property.

 

The Nikon FAX-Nikkors are corrected down to 350nm!

 

 

[Andy Perrin]

Lou, on this board there has long been a crude division between so-called “accidental” UV lenses (Andrea calls them “UV capable” in the stickies) and dedicated UV lenses such as the UV Nikkor. That is what I was referring to.
 

The partially corrected enlarger lenses fall into a middle category, really, with correction into the long side of the UV-A and presumably coatings - to bring things back to Ulf’s comment - that match. 

[Lou Jost]

51 minutes ago, Andy Perrin said:

Lou, on this board there has long been a crude division between so-called “accidental” UV lenses (Andrea calls them “UV capable” in the stickies) and dedicated UV lenses such as the UV Nikkor. That is what I was referring to.
 

The partially corrected enlarger lenses fall into a middle category, really, with correction into the long side of the UV-A and presumably coatings - to bring things back to Ulf’s comment - that match. 

Andy, yes, I've seen that division here, but it is still not very clear to me. Since these enlarger lenses are really designed for UV (not very deep UV, but UV nevertheless) as well as visible light, it seems inaccurate to say that their performance in that region is "accidental".  Likewise the FAX-Nikkor210mm really is intentionally corrected through to 350nm, so I have a hard time calling it an "accidental" UV lens. On the other hand, these are still very different from  dedicated deep-UV lenses like the UV Nikkor.

[Andy Perrin]

I think you understand me though, even if you don’t like the word choice. It was my point to begin with that they ARE partially designed for UV that started this tangent. 

[dabateman]

I hadn't heard of the fax Nikkor lenses before.

They are not cheap and rare though. The can also be used for large format UV imaging.  So an option for us strange folk using Fujifilm gfx cameras. 

 

This is interesting 

[Lou Jost]

Thanks for that brochure. I had seen other brochures about it, but this is the first time I have seen an explicit reference to high UV transmission glass. Though what they say makes no sense...the amount of UV transmission is not related at all to quality of color+UV aberration correction.

 

I have the 210mm FAX-Nikkor, which I found for a very low price on eBay after watching for a year or two. I enjoy it very much for large-format work though it has some CA at f/5.6. I can't think of any other lens that is corrected for visible and 365nm light over such a large image circle. It should also make a good tube lens for infinity-corrected microscope objectives that are corrected for UV and visible light. I have not yet tested that though.

[nfoto]

Hm. I own the 160mm f/5.6 FAX-Nikkor and hadn't in mind any potential use as a tube lens. As I do have a UV micro lens, perhaps I should look into the commbination of the two?

[Lou Jost]

I think it is worth a

35 minutes ago, nfoto said:

Hm. I own the 160mm f/5.6 FAX-Nikkor and hadn't in mind any potential use as a tube lens. As I do have a UV micro lens, perhaps I should look into the commbination of the two?

I think it's worth a try....