Seen on the 'Bay: 4, count 'em, four UATs

[Andrea B.]

I have never seen 4 Ultra-Achromatic-Takumars 85/4.5 lenses offered on Ebay at the same time !!!!!  LINK

A bit pricey, though.

The buy-it-now prices are (US)$6999, (US)$6499, (US)$5622. And one lens is at auction.

 

I note that the $5622 version carries this remark: Glass may have slight marks, anomalies (haze) and/or blemishes that will not affect picture quality. Please don't anybody pay $5622 for any lens with haze or blemishes. 

 

Just so you know, the original filters sold with a UAT were intended for use with film. Too leaky for digital.

[Andrea B.]

So, did you buy one of those UATs yet?

[dabateman]

Andrea,

I don't need a second one. Mine didn't come with filters or caps. But was in great shape. 

I am resisting those cheap UV Nikons.  I wonder if I will see one at $3300 again.

 

Now we need other rare UV lenses listed. 

 

Did you see that Rayfact has a new 25mm f/2.8 C-mount UV lens?

Its not the same as all the other 25mm ones with various re-branding.  But I can't tell if its macro only.

 

https://redbook-jp.com/redbook-e/en/r23a/n1.html

 

 

[Doug A]

The UAT 85 has more UV reach than the metal Nikon EL-Nikkor 80 in UV. Does it optically out perform the EL-Nikkor in the 330-380 range? Yes, I've bid on an UAT.

That Rayfact 25 UV looks very interesting.

Thanks,

Doug A

[dabateman]

13 hours ago, Doug A said:

The UAT 85 has more UV reach than the metal Nikon EL-Nikkor 80 in UV. Does it optically out perform the EL-Nikkor in the 330-380 range? Yes, I've bid on an UAT.

That Rayfact 25 UV looks very interesting.

Thanks,

Doug A

Yes it has more reach.

Yes I find it optically better.

Funny though, what I tried to quantify as a UV T stop value is worst for the UAT than the EL 80 in the 370-400nm range. More 370-400nm uv light will pass through a EL 80 than a UAT. About 1/3 to 1/2 a stop. This surprised me. 

So if you're using sunlight and running around the back garden you will have faster shutter speeds with the EL80. But it will be more blue.

[Doug A]

Thanks for the info @dabateman. Didn't win the auction. I'm a Pentaxian, but, have a hard time spending more for this lens than a 105 UV Nikkor. I'll just watch the offers and keep trying. The EL-Nikkor 80 performs well. I don't have to own an UV lens.

Thanks,

Doug A

 

[Andrea B.]

Sorry you didn't get the UAT Doug. 

The prices on these UV-dedicated lenses seems to go up and down over time.

Do you have a Noflexar 35/3.5 in M42 mount? That is a good one for Pentax bodies. I think you can still find one for under $500. The BaaderU vignettes on it, so best used with a Schott/Hoya U filter and some BG glass.

[ulf]

16 hours ago, Andrea B. said:

Do you have a Noflexar 35/3.5 in M42 mount? That is a good one for Pentax bodies. I think you can still find one for under $500. The BaaderU vignettes on it, so best used with a Schott/Hoya U filter and some BG glass.

The rear lens element is also very small, small enough that it can take a putty mounted 15mm lens.

 

Fandy found these narrowband 980nm filters a few years ago;

https://www.ebay.com/itm/134566341816
They are really cheap and also leaks a bit at shorter wavelengths.

That can easily be fixed.

If combined with a 950nm long pass ionic filter they work very well and can show the black water effect that Andy told us about a few years ago.

The longpass filter can be put at the front of the lens. 

[Doug A]

On 3/11/2024 at 2:23 PM, Andrea B. said:

Sorry you didn't get the UAT Doug. 

The prices on these UV-dedicated lenses seems to go up and down over time.

Do you have a Noflexar 35/3.5 in M42 mount? That is a good one for Pentax bodies. I think you can still find one for under $500. The BaaderU vignettes on it, so best used with a Schott/Hoya U filter and some BG glass.

I have two 35 UV lenses. The Igoriginal in T mount and the M42 Super Takumar. The Igoriginal vignettes some with the supplied 52mm filters. The Pentax with 2mm Hoya U360/Schott S8612 doesn't vignette. 

 

@ulf I will check out the 15mm filters. I have another lens to try. What kind of putty is used to adapt lenses? 

 

The bid on the UAT was just a whim. I will likely try again.

Thanks,

Doug A

[ulf]

7 hours ago, Doug A said:

I have two 35 UV lenses. The Igoriginal in T mount and the M42 Super Takumar. The Igoriginal vignettes some with the supplied 52mm filters. The Pentax with 2mm Hoya U360/Schott S8612 doesn't vignette. 

 

@ulf I will check out the 15mm filters. I have another lens to try. What kind of putty is used to adapt lenses? 

 

The bid on the UAT was just a whim. I will likely try again.

Thanks,

Doug A

I use this:https://www.amazon.com/UHU-Patafix-Removable-Reusable-White/dp/B01CL5S22E
I do not know exactly how sensitive the 980nm filter would be for cleaning after such a mounting, as I made a special ed-printed rear mount filter holder for my lens, but I have used that putty for mounting many other types of filters.
They are easy to wipe clean afterwards with a microfibre cloth afterwards.

As those filters are so cheap they could be seen somewhat like consumables if they do not fare well of the mounting.

 

A quick snap from today:

[lukaszgryglicki]

Wow the "black water" :)

I think I'll order some 1 um filter if I can find any with 52mm for 82mm filter thread so I can use it with most of my lenses.

[ulf]

3 hours ago, lukaszgryglicki said:

Wow the "black water" :)

I think I'll order some 1 um filter if I can find any with 52mm for 82mm filter thread so I can use it with most of my lenses.

Ideally you should use a narrow band bandpass filter with 976 within the passband as Andy showed here:

 

They need to have a reasonable OD for VIS.

Such filters are available at Thorlabs with a diameter of 25mm. 

https://www.thorlabs.de/thorproduct.cfm?partnumber=FBH980-10
If you want something for 52mm or 82mm filter thread the must most likely be custom made.

A "nice to have" filter of that type, to work with most of your lenses will then be very expensive.

[lukaszgryglicki]

Right, this is the general issue with many filters, it's next to impossible to get them even in 52mm standard thread, 82mm is a dream.

 

[ulf]

Also a hard-coated dichroic BP filter often have problems when front mounted and will definitely not work well at the front of wide angle lenses with a big FOV. 

For me the black water phenomenon was interesting to explore, but I am quite content having just one 35mm lens working for that.

 

There are just a limited number of motifs that are usable with a distinct blackness of the water.
A bathtub, a sink or a swimmingpool are some of them that works.
Ideally you want a bright background surface and enough water-body for the light to pass to get a good blackness.

The water should not have a lot of bubbles like in a violent fountain.  

[Andy Perrin]

Fountains are fun! I disagree Ulf, the bubbles didn’t make that much difference. 
 

 

[ulf]

OK, I have to change my mind about that.

 

The three or four I tried wasn't interesting. This one is!

I'll have to give it another try.

I'm not sure there are any suitable fountains close by, but as the lens is small enough to bring along most of the time it can.

Thanks for the eyeopener Andy.

 

Is that black pattern in the grass water that is flowing?

The bright grass in the background makes it interesting.

[Andy Perrin]

The black pattern on the grass is soil - part of a labyrinth surrounding the fountain, which is at the center.

[dabateman]

On 3/13/2024 at 11:24 AM, lukaszgryglicki said:

Right, this is the general issue with many filters, it's next to impossible to get them even in 52mm standard thread, 82mm is a dream.

 

Lukas, you don't always need 52mm filters. I just tested the Nikkor EL 80mm f5.6 lens, with 990nm band pass filter positioned behind the lens and there wasn't any vignetting.  

Using Gfx-M65 mount adapter,  25-55mm M65 helicoid, M65-52mm adapter,  Rafcamera 52mm adapter with central 25mm filter thread, 52mm to M42 adapter,  M42 to M39 adapter and then EL 80mm f5.6 lens. The filter is just behind the rear element.  

Any other lens with small rear element would also work.

My 990 band pass was better than my 970 band pass for darker water. 

Makes sense as the sensor sensitivity is dropping off higher into IR, so the 990nm is probably mostly a 980nm filter and the 970nm is probably contributing more 960nm than 980nm light.

 

[Andy Perrin]

My filter for the fountain pic was a 980nm thorlabs 25mm rear mounted, and it seemed to do well enough. The lens was the same EL-Nikkor 80mm/5.6. No vignette was observed. 

This is the same configuration taken two days ago:

 

[colinbm]

Beautiful photo Andy.

[dabateman]

Great photo Andy. 

I forgot to mention that I testedmine on a 720nm converted Fujifilm 50R camera. Biggest stress test for a 25mm filter. 

I am happy with the result.  Now I can play with my other 1.25 inch and 25mm filters with the gfx system.  Although I only have a normal visible camera (50S) and an IR converted camera (50R).

 

[Doug A]

18 hours ago, Andy Perrin said:

My filter for the fountain pic was a 980nm thorlabs 25mm rear mounted, and it seemed to do well enough. The lens was the same EL-Nikkor 80mm/5.6. No vignette was observed. 

This is the same configuration taken two days ago:

 

 Creepy photo @Andy Perrin. Love the composition. Would make a great album cover.

Thanks for sharing,

Doug A