msubees Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Over view of the lens after removal of the adaptor. i cleaned some oil and dusts the day before. the M42 to Nikon F adatpor, it has a glass. This is suppose to show you that the glass de-magnifies. Detail of the filter holder attachment. With the filter holder open I suspect that the circle was for IR and triangle for UV focus. photo to show the filter holder attachment. I tried to turn the filter holder. it makes a clicking noise when turned clockwise. i tried my best to turn the other way, it wont go. not sure if it is screwed on or not. it should be? the filter (I suspect Baader) also wont dismount from the holder. it would be nice if they are removable so I can test other lenses. Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Zach - I deleted the duplicate post. After you upload your images, be sure to click the Add to Post button for each image.The image will be placed in the post wherever the cursor is when you make the click.I fixed it for you in the above post. Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 This Enna München is an interesting lens. I wonder when these were made?Does the barrel push/pull in/out? I see the added calibration indicator there, the white triangle. But what is the circle for on the f/22 line I wonder? I looked in the Lens Sticky and saw that we had a 135mm f/3.5 listed but not an f/2.8. So I will add this. The flip-up filter holder is permanently affixed? Or can it be unscrewed? How about the filter, can it be unscrewed from the filter holder? Those flip-up filter holders are useful to make "matching" shots in visible, then in UV light. And also because they prevent the potential jostling a lens can get when screwing on a UV filter after focusing in visible light. Link to comment
Alex H Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 It should be possible to remove the filter holder. The lens has standard filter thread, 52mm if I am not mistaken. Link to comment
nfoto Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 On a general note concerning lens performance: a telephoto design tends to perform best at distance. Thus adding extension to make it focus close might reduce the image quality and/or lower image contrast. I assume the M42-F adapter has an optical element (to give infinity focus) and the 'UV' label indicates this is UV-transmitting. Link to comment
msubees Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 sorry I deleted all the comments last night by accident. I did add the photo after each comment. but I was confused after seeing two identical posts (technical error?), I thought I posted only once. the circle i assume was for IR focus (a bit strange why it would be on the same side of UR? since IR is longer than VIS). I tried to remove the filter but cannot. it makes a clicking noise when turning clockwise, when counter-clockwise it was super tight. not sure how it was secured in the first place. the filter also seems to be very tight, not removable... I estimated the mininum focus distance about 5 ft (1.525 M) this morning. I does focus to infinity. both ajustments (F and focus) are turning, not pushing/pulling. Link to comment
nfoto Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 UV and IR can very well focus to the same side of the visible focus plane. In fact, this behaviour is very common. The filter holder AF-1 rotates in clock stops once the threads are tightened. Thus in order to remove the holder, pinch the inner ring while the entire holder is rotated counterclockwise. Link to comment
msubees Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 here is a sample of UV shot of winter aconite, done last Monday. D70,F8,6“, shot in raw, white balance by setting gray point on leaves. Bjorn, how does a Nikkor series E 50 mm F1.8 fair in UV? the table here says it is ok, as good as this lens? I can get that lens for $50 on ebay. Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Certainly shows the UV-capability of the X135 Enna. :) I would love to shoot this flower in UV but I've never been able to find one. Zach, sometimes double posting occurs because you (accidentally or otherwise) use the back button, start re-editing what appears to be an unsubmitted post and at some point hit submit and post again. Somtimes double posting occurs because the server is slow in responding and you hit the submit button again thinking nothing has happened. I've done both these kinds of double postiing, so that's how I know!! :DAnyway, no biggie, I deleted the empty post. So you can now safely edit the first post here if you want to add anything. Link to comment
Alex H Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 the circle i assume was for IR focus (a bit strange why it would be on the same side of UR? since IR is longer than VIS).In theory:- achromatic and superachromatic lenses will have IR and UV focus shift in the same direction.- non-achromatic and apochromatic lenses will have IR and UV focus shift in the opposite direction. © Cmglee, Wikimedia Commons, GNU Free Documentation License. SInce achromatic lenses are the most common, I concur with Bjørn. Link to comment
msubees Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 Come over to Michigan...they are blooming right now...how does the old Nikon E series compare to the Enna Munchen? I would love to shoot this flower in UV but I've never been able to find one. Link to comment
Alex H Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 how does the old Nikon E series compare to the Enna Munchen? Enna reaches down to 320nm, did not you know that when you bought it? - http://www.macrolenses.de/ml_detail_sl.php?ObjektiveNr=364 Link to comment
nfoto Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Never tried the Enna lens. If it has the epithet "München" I would surmise they originate form Munich, Germany. The Nikon SE should be more or less similar in capability according to the few test shots I've done with it. Might not go equally deep into the UV range, but this probably is offset by a better image quality. And it is fairly well established by now that floral signatures in UV are rendered well by any lens capable of going below some 360 nm. say to around 350 nm. What differs lenses are more the contrast and detail sharpness they produce in the UV range, plus of course the UV specialised lenses give 1-2 EV better respons to UV. Link to comment
msubees Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 thanks....debating whether to go with E-50mm or EL 80 mm/F5.6. E series will be simpler....but, if the filter does not come off Enna, then I should refrain from any experiments...that filter is over $200 now. Never tried the Enna lens. If it has the epithet "München" I would surmise they originate form Munich, Germany. The Nikon SE should be more or less similar in capability according to the few test shots I've done with it. Might not go equally deep into the UV range, but this probably is offset by a better image quality. And it is fairly well established by now that floral signatures in UV are rendered well by any lens capable of going below some 360 nm. say to around 350 nm. What differs lenses are more the contrast and detail sharpness they produce in the UV range, plus of course the UV specialised lenses give 1-2 EV better respons to UV. Link to comment
Alex H Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Enna Tele-Ennalyt produces sharp images in UV stooped down to F/5.6-F/8, but I have never tried any of E-series Nikkors so can not compare them directly. Link to comment
nfoto Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I used "probably" and f/8 should bring most lenses into their best performance range anyway. The Winter Aconites by Zach do indicate the Enna is a decent UV performer, though, so no doubt it is to be recognised as a useful UV tool. The Nikon SE still might be better, but one always has to ask whether the struggle for better image quality is cost-efficient. Link to comment
JCDowdy Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Zach,Your X135 appears to do quite well enough by the looks of the image you posted.If I were you, I would use it and save my lunch money for a Coastal Optics UV-Vis-IR 60mm. :D - John Link to comment
msubees Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 no, the seller only said it was close to the Nikor-UV...i bought it in 2008. Enna reaches down to 320nm, did not you know that when you bought it? - http://www.macrolens...ObjektiveNr=364 Link to comment
msubees Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 r u trying to make me feel bad? :D the SE will be $50 + $300 for filter....I paid about $1500 in 2008 with Euro to USD at 1:6:1.0. I refuse to believe SE will be better in image quality unless you have proof. :D I used "probably" and f/8 should bring most lenses into their best performance range anyway. The Winter Aconites by Zach do indicate the Enna is a decent UV performer, though, so no doubt it is to be recognised as a useful UV tool. The Nikon SE still might be better, but one always has to ask whether the struggle for better image quality is cost-efficient. Link to comment
Alex H Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I used "probably" and f/8 should bring most lenses into their best performance range anyway. The Winter Aconites by Zach do indicate the Enna is a decent UV performer, though, so no doubt it is to be recognised as a useful UV tool. The Nikon SE still might be better, but one always has to ask whether the struggle for better image quality is cost-efficient. I am not arguing about that. On the contrary. I was just confirming to OP that I also do not have any comparative shots between Enna and SE Nikkors. One of my favourite UV-capable lenses does not reach 350nm, but it has special use. Suum cuique. Link to comment
msubees Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 ok I got the filter out after some effort. the black sponge seems to be filled with oil? should i remove them and put new ones in?did a quick test of the OD Industries lens, by setting the ISO to 1000 and aimed at my light bulb...for 1 sec (hand held) and got a pink image)...I am surprised that the incandent light bulbs produce some UV? now i need to decide whether to exchange for D40 or D3100+ modification...are there filter that blocks uv+IR but 2" in diameter so it will fit the Nikon filter holder? Link to comment
JCDowdy Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Baader UV/IR-Cut/L comes in 2"see: http://www.adorama.com/AA2459210A.html (disclaimer - not an endorsement, just where I got mine)Yes, incandescent bulbs do produce UV-A1 and a tad of UV-A2 but you have to look hard! :D- JD Link to comment
msubees Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 thanks, I found that one too, after looking at Andrea's filter post. so this cost $119 + $275 to convert, will hopefully make better pictures... what if I want to do IR photo? then I need to block VIS and UV. I suppose I can use a regular UV protector lens for UV, and add one IR leaking filter (floppy disk? unexposed and developed film?). i do not find a 2" filter that blocks VIS+UV for IR shots. something similar to this? 72 mm Infrared Infra-red IR Pass X-Ray Lens Filter 720nm 720 Optical Glass also saw U-340 being used to stop VIS and pass UV. then I need to stack with a UV-blocking filter. Baader UV/IR-Cut/L comes in 2"see: http://www.adorama.com/AA2459210A.html (disclaimer - not an endorsement, just where I got mine)Yes, incandescent bulbs do produce UV-A1 and a tad of UV-A2 but you have to look hard! :D- JD Link to comment
msubees Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 Ole, thanks! quite complex and nothing linear :D In theory:- achromatic and superachromatic lenses will have IR and UV focus shift in the same direction.- non-achromatic and apochromatic lenses will have IR and UV focus shift in the opposite direction. © Cmglee, Wikimedia Commons, GNU Free Documentation License. SInce achromatic lenses are the most common, I concur with Bjørn. Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Here is an example of a useful IR-Pass filter found at B&H. It is the classic Hoya R72.http://www.bhphotovi...Top+Nav-Search=The R72 passes a tiny amount of visible light to produce an IR photograph with a bit of false colour. The Hoya U-340 UV-pass filter glass must be stacked with IR blockers such as Schott S8612 or BG39 glass.You can find them on Ebay. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now