Lens comparisons: El Nikkor 80mm, OD. Industries and X135

[JCDowdy]

Zach,

 

I also have the Vivitar 35 3.5 and find the UV performance comparable to other "accidental" wide angle preset 35's such as the Soligor, Optomax and Lentar and others. There were two types of Vivitar 35 3.5 preset lenses both on a T-mount, which one do you have? No telling who made them but according to the lens history buffs supposedly one can tell by the serial number.

 

Andrea, that is three of us now admitting to this lens B).........

[msubees]

.

[Andrea B.]

Yeah, that Vivitar 35/3/5 is nifty.

 

But at this point I have so many 35/3.5 UV-capable lenses that I cannot possibly shoot them all. B)

I need to start selling some of them off.

 

Or perhaps I should glue them all to a canvas and make a 35/3.5 art collage out of them.

 

(I'm just kidding. )

[Alex H]

Or perhaps I should glue them all to a canvas and make a 35/3.5 art collage out of them.

 

I build pyramids...

[Andrea B.]

Way cool, Alex !!!

And a nice 'product' shot as well. How did you accomplish the nice white background? Do you have a white backdrop or perhaps a light cube?

 

In the long boring winter I tend to prowl Ebay for possible UV lenses to test and play with.

This last winter reaped a heap of inexpensive UV-capable items and a lot of fun learning about them.

 

But some of these lenses have been hard to kit up with filter mounts and adapters - like the little Omegar and Omegaron enlargers. My most outstanding issue on unkitted lenses is a very nice copy of that Exakta mount Zeiss UV-Objectiv. This lens with its shorter focal flange distance needs to have a non-Nikon camera, methinks. But which one? My Lumix GH1-broadband is showing its age a bit. Maybe it is time to look into a Sony. But which one?? B)

[Alex H]

I have two white wooden boards that I use for the background, one to put things on, and another placed in the back at an angle. Flash bounced off the ceiling makes it work perfectly.

 

You seem to be gathering a nice collection of specialized UV-lenses, Andrea. If you even have any duplicates you want to get rid off - send me a message B)

 

I do not know what your requirements are for the UV camera. Do you want APS-C or full-frame? 12 Mp, 24 Mp, 36 Mp?

 

I still use NEX-6 but planning to upgrade to A6000, which is also a mirrorless 16 Mp APS-C camera (Sony changed camera naming recently). I would like to have full-frame body, but I am waiting for substantial price drop on A7 (24 Mp).

[Andrea B.]

I feel that more megapixels (16-24) is better for close documentary work. Whether they are on a smaller or larger sensor probably does not matter as long as the camera is reasonably capable of a good image between 100-800 ISO and has reasonably good "dynamic range" (can hold highlights). The Nikon D600, for example, has been superb for UV work with its 24MP and good ISO and dynamic range capability.

 

I got the nice Pentax K5 for a broadband conversion so that my M42-mount UV-capable lenses could have a home which permitted them to focus to infinity because I wanted to try some UV landscape work. Then, of course, my summer season proved to be so busy with floral documentation that I have managed to make exactly two landscapes so far, but that's another story.

 

A nice UV-Objectiv lens was offered to me for sale in an Exacta mount, so now I'm looking for a camera which can serve as its home and be useful for a couple of other lenses which require a flange focal distance under 45.56mm (Pentax) and 46.50mm (Nikon). I'm pretty sure this new cam will be a Sony because they make the good sensors.

[JCDowdy]

....... I'm looking for a camera which can serve as its home and be useful for a couple of other lenses which require a flange focal distance under 45.56mm (Pentax) and 46.50mm (Nikon). I'm pretty sure this new cam will be a Sony because they make the good sensors.

 

I have been schemin & dreamin about the Lumix DMC-GH3K. Probably mostly because of system familiarity, I suppose, but specs sure look good.

[Andrea B.]

The GH3K is sweet - nice features, but I urge caution if you are wanting to use it for UV shooting.

For $1000 you can buy two used Pentax K5 bodies, and the K5 has a far superior sensor than Lumix cams.

 

Of course if you want to shoot UV video, the the Lumix is great for that.

[JCDowdy]

You really seem to like your K-5, I certainly value your opinion.

Like I said my yearning is doubtless largely due to system familiarity, what little of that I may posses

I am not prepared to drop a grand on anything (else) for the time being, and prices always change.

Thanx!

 

PS

Is it true that Sony makes the Olympus µ4/3 sensor?

[Andrea B.]

Don't know about that sensor, JD.

Maybe ask the guys over on Fotozones in the Oly section.

 

BTW, don't get me wrong. I like the Lumix cams for a lot of things. They are so easy to set for white balance. And I love their menus and settings. They are easy to use. As long as you stay in the ISO 100-400 range you are going to get a very good photo.

 

One of the best art series I ever made was with my broadband GH1 used without a filter. And mentioning that now reminds me that I really should get that series printed. I've gotten so far away from my art (so-called !!) while working on the UV signature documentation.

 

So much to do always !!!

[msubees]

I dream of the day that i do not need a tripod, and get nice images with ISO3200 (or higher, if using F8, since this morning I tested and it takes ISO1600 and F4 to get 1/20). I can wait for 2 years max B) :D

[Alaun]

Well, I think the Panny GH3 is already surprisingly good, though a bit OT but

 

this one taken at ISO 6400 1/50s with the Nikkor105 and Baader U

 

[JCDowdy]

Never have never tried to run ISO up that high. I am surprised it is not just total noise, not that it isn't rather noisy, but I am usually timid to go above 200!

Andrea said stay at 400 or less and I have been laboring to stay on base 160 or 200.

Gee - I gotta loosen up!!

[JCDowdy]

Speaking of cameras another object of my need greed is the Oly OMD EM-5. Sorry but I think they are simply the best looking camera out there.

Of course Dallas who runs FotoZones champions them, but I am unsure how the problematic the IBIS system would be for adapted UV-lenses.

However, another NikonGear UV regular Boon Tang recently advised me of his new web site where one can covet his fully kitted out Full Spectrum converted EM-5.

I got GAS so bad, be careful it IS contagious!

[Alex H]

Never have never tried to run ISO up that high. I am surprised it is not just total noise, not that it isn't rather noisy, but I am usually timid to go above 200!

Andrea said stay at 400 or less and I have been laboring to stay on base 160 or 200.

Gee - I gotta loosen up!!

 

I regularly use ISO 1600 on my NEX-6. Properly exposed and with little noise reduction I personally have no problems. Other people can be a bit more picky.

 

How big do you print/display your pictures, John?

[JCDowdy]

Higher-ISO UV is still rather uncharted territory for me. I am normally only evaluating images on screen and actually down scaling, decreasing resolution or significantly cropping for insertion as figures into technical documents or emails. No big prints such as artists need, so I am likely unnecessarily constraining myself somewhat. Apparently I need to explore higher ISO UV.

[JCDowdy]

Speaking of UV-capable 35/3.5 lenses,

 

Boon TANG over in the UK has recently posted a review of ten lenses on his new site.

 

He also compares the Baader-U with a shorter and narrower band 330AF20.

[Andrea B.]

Good. I'm happy to see Boon's 35/3.5 tests !! We all seem to have basketfuls of these 35/3.5.

Boon's set of 35/3.5 lenses is a near clone of mine. And of Klaus. And of Enrico. And of Igor.

And of . :D :D :D

 

I would of course like to have seen such a comparison against a dedicated UV lens.

Probably not much difference, but still this needs to be demonstrated by someone.

(Not me. I am a terrible tester.)

 

**************

 

Higher-ISO UV is still rather uncharted territory for me.

Always useful to shoot a series at all ISOs. Use good illumination. Then prep the set for white balance and size reduction. See how far you can push ISO for your particular set up and editing needs. Some noise "disappears" when size is reduced. High ISO noise interferes with detail, so results can vary depending on the subject you are shooting, of course. This would all hold true also for Visible shooting too, of course.