Jump to content
Guest kds315

Lenses for UV; a study comprising some 50 lenses (wide, normal)

Recommended Posts

Guest kds315

Because there was no reliable info, some time ago I made some spectrometric

tests for their UV transmission of some 50 lenses I had to buy for that.

EL-Nikkors have been tested seperately and these results have already been

published.

Well, I guess it is the right time now to publish these results also here....

[Most of these lenses don't  have Nikon mount, so using adaptors would only allow

their use for macro work. But some of them can be converted to Nikon mount, either

directly allowing infinity focus or by using a special UV enabled adaptor.]

http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/2010/01/study-of-50-lenses-for-uv-photography.html

post-92-12998351929_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vivek

Another familiar list.  :)

Thanks for all your effort and time, Klaus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh wait...having blonde moment....sorry.....brain fade due to editing....

(i can say 'blonde moment' because i am half-blonde...)

which part of the chart does one read ?

I.E. does Noflexar transmit from 330-400nm or from 300-330nm ??

i'm tired....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm, now shall I look at acquiring such huge gear?

Nah :-X I have not won the lottery, yet....

Klaus you are a gem and genius  8)


Regards

Gavman

Fuji IS-PRO UV/IR, Nikon D90, Fujifilm S1 Pro and Canon EOS 1D MK IV.

Proud owner of a famous overweight Sigmonster 300-800mm lens, and now the Bigmonster 150-500mm lens too!

http://www.BestOfPhotography.com/

http://www.UV-VIS-IR.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChrisLilley

which part of the chart does one read ?

I.E. does Noflexar transmit from 330-400nm or from 300-330nm ??

400 is the start of the visible range (400-700). All of the lenses transmit visible as well. So the dark blue bar shows the place where a lens does not transmit much/any; the end of the bar is the point where transmission has dropped to a specified level; and the clear part (up to and indeed past 400) is where light is passed.

Or to put it another way, short bars are better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kds315

It reads as cut-off wavelength (-3EV was the set limit, eqiv. to 12.5% transmission).

so to the right the lens transmits UV (= longer wavelengths), wheras to the left of the chart

(= shorter wavelengths) the lens blocks UV.

Chris, you were faster than me and explained it were well in laymans terms...THX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vivek

Nikon F mount cameras (something I had known for quite sometime now) are looking less desirable for UV. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kds315

Well with a suitable negative lens built into a Nikon adaptor, it looks a bit less depressing ...  ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Klaus, that's really great chart. Alas, collectors have already driven up the prices for some of those lenses. I guess they like to fondle them and think of the good old days >:D

Bob


Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vivek

Alas, collectors have already driven up the prices for some of those lenses. I guess they like to fondle them and think of the good old days >:D

If that is the case, they ("collectors") had 3-4 years head start on you.  ;)

This list, though it is extensive, is only a drop in the bucket. 

There is still plenty of room for exploration and surprises. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kds315

Looking forward to seeing your list of 50 lenses next then!

We can explore that, if we all help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vivek

You already have one of the lenses I discovered put in your list, namely the Noflexar 35/3.5.

As we had corresponded in other places, the Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2 CL transmits UV better than the CL-E version in your chart.

The point is that there are numerous screw mount lenses (M42 and M39) that have fabulous UV transmission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest moffo

I never expected to see a Zuiko on this list, and it's an affordable one (that I happen to already have...) that is easily converted to F-mount.  I'm afraid this is going to get expensive from here on out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to note that sometimes the same lens has variable UV properties.

eg: Enna Muenchen Lithagon 28mm f3.5

What causes this ?

Does not seem to be dependent on serial number for the EM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vivek

From my experience, this depends on the condition of the glass. It is good to keep in mind these are old, already cheap (when new) and were never babied lenses.

One sample (Ennalyt 28/3.5) when it arrived showed about 3 stops less UV transmission than another one.  A gentle swipe of the surface revealed that it was covered with some thin film that also was blocking the UV severely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest overmywaders

I find many of the lenses on that list are not very expensive.

While the list has many in the 20-50mm range, there are also lots of great UV-capable lenses in longer focal lengths that didn't make the list. I am impressed by a Steinheil Cassar 105/4.5 I bought recently. It, like many other triplets, is very good in UV. In fact, the list has triplets as some of the best performers. I'd be interested in also seeing the stats on the humble Ludwig Meritar 50/2.9, the CZJ Triotar 135/4, and some of the Pieskers in the longer lengths.

This list confirms for me the wisdom of converting my D40 to M42 mount. I'll wager I can find almost all of those lenses in an easy to adapt mount. GAS strikes again.

Thanks, Klaus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UV transmissivity is one thing but focus shift and sharpness are other things. Testing, testing... So many lenses, so little time ;)

Bob


Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vivek

UV transmissivity is one thing but focus shift and sharpness are other things. Testing, testing... So many lenses, so little time ;)

Bob

If anyone recalls the beginning of the WWW (I can't give any links as many outfits are now defunct), there were suggestions like taking out the tip of a Xenon bulb and using it as a lens for UV.. :o

Focus shift:  depends on where you hang your filter and how you view the subject.  Thing of a past (for me).

Sharpness:  Anything and everything is sharper in UV than in visible if the right technique is employed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kds315

Reed: It was made as a test of wide and normal lenses, so no wonder really... ;) ;)

Andrea: I was wondering that too and it could be either variations of coatings applied or aging of coatings.I don't think is is variations of glass types, since that would have a massive influence of performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kds315

UV transmissivity is one thing but focus shift and sharpness are other things. Testing, testing... So many lenses, so little time ;)

Bob

Absolutely, as well as sharpness, contrast, flare resistance, hostspotting,...

THEN, the list narrows down considerably! I'm not done with all that either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.