NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Bjørn Rørslett on October 24, 2016, 22:35:26
-
Well, at least I do hope it is good for UV applications !! The optics are dating from early '60s, there is no multicoating and only 4 elements, and none of them are cemented. Filters can be added to the rear end of the lens head yet are protected inside the focusing barrel. All of which taken together is a promising starting point for some severe UV work.
Here is the 400 mm f/4.5 Nikkor-Q with the focusing adapter CU, complete with boxes etc. The price was ridiculously low probably because the less fashionable CU focusing adapter is part of the assembly. However that will not bother me as I already have the more modern AU-1 unit ready for the new lens head.
(http://ultravioletphotography.com/content/uploads/monthly_10_2016/post-2-0-66334500-1477325559.jpg)
The lens is currently in transit so will arrive in a week or two ahead, unless the Norwegian Customs throw their usual spanner into the works. Then days fly by before the item has cleared customs.
The reason I like to put this long lens, incidentally not a telephoto design just a long focal length unit, into service for UV and/or IR is the available long lenses for UV are scarce as hen's teeth. UV extends beyond documentation of botanical subjects, however nice these appear in UV.
(and yes, I already own several genuine UV-Nikkors so no need for more of them)
-
Wow that looks mint! Congratulations ;)
-
Just USD 570 with shipping for a pristine sample, not bad. Not bad at all.
-
Congratulations, Bjørn, looking forward to the results :)
-
I got one of those and did a quick visual check before setting it aside for some time. It seemed to have a weird rendition quite unlike other lenses that pass some UV. I may have a bad sample. In any case, I'm eager to see what you find out, Bjørn!
-
At that low price I'm more than willing to take a chance ... and it being 'weird' sounds promising in my ears !!
I expect it to have significant chromatic aberration in UV, though. But for experimental purposes that'll be OK I guess.
-
looks interesting :o :o :o
i would like to open one up. i hope that i find one in the junk box ::)
-
I'm happy for your find and may the gods of focal shift be on your side Bjorn!
-
With a narrow-band filter attached to the lens head, I hope for the best as well, Klaus.
-
Looking for seeing the result, Bjørn!
-
I have found a really solid way of using the CU-1 focusing attachment for these lens heads without the focusing helicoid being stressed.
The original supports for the CU-1 are nowhere to be found just like the AU-1 they are very scares!
I will be using the beefy lens rail I used for the 6mm F/2.8 Video relay
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3011.msg50284.html#msg50284
It is about 28 cm long so a little shorter than the Cu-1 which is about 30 cm
At the end, close to the camera mount I will mount this Markins York 10-VR L, the roller will let the lens slide back and forth as the lens is focused since it's not an IF,,,
-
I will of course modify the York to enable fully adjustable height setting, the Markins have chosen a clamp arrangement that can rotate, and I want to eliminate that since their design doesn't allow for linear movement of the lens itself. In my setup the rail will be parallel to the lens.
-
Superb, Erik. That appears a most viable solution.
There is a bonus 600/5.6 Nikkor lens head in store for you ... And probably a CU unit as well, once I get my new 400 and the current AU-1 is modified to host multiple CPUs.
-
I can hardly wait to put my hands on it,,, should be good for [IR] I guess? Again Very generous of you Bjørn ;D
Looking forward to the multiple CPU challenge also ;)
-
No idea, but you'll find out in due time.
Anyway, I have two 600/5.6 Nikkor lens heads and only need one of them. You have none. It's really that simple.
-
I finally got the adapters to use a Teleskop-Express filter drawer with Baader Venus filter to test my copy of this lens, in particular the hypothesis that poor performance (that I had informally noted by holding a 48mm Baader Venus filter in front of the 122mm opening at the front of the lens in live view!) is due to chromatic aberration within the range of UV wavelengths that reach the sensor. Other aberrations could also be a factor, of course.
First, in visible light. Sony A6000 with Sachtler ENG 2 CF HD and Burzynski ballhead for support. ISO 1600, 1/1600 at f/11, electronic first curtain, 10-sec. timer, hands off entire assembly. Taken indoors looking through a single-pane window. Focused in magnified live view on the needles in the upper left. This is a crop of actual pixels from near the center of the image.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3927/32570244903_415901b788_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RC825B)Abies vis mono crop (https://flic.kr/p/RC825B) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Next, in UV. Sony A6000 with Lifepixel broadband conversion and a Baader Venus filter. Same support, timer, and focus technique. ISO 1600, 1 second at f/11 to attempt to reduce aberrations.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3868/33228675862_fed195fe6a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SCiDEw)Abies UV mono crop (https://flic.kr/p/SCiDEw) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Poor performance in the latter photo wasn't just a support issue compounded by a long exposure. It really did look that bad in live view, and no focus efforts on any subject in live view were satisfactory.
I reduced the second image to monochrome since I don't yet have a UV color profile for this camera. So the first image is also in monochrome to match. Due to the behavior of the die-based Bayer filters over the pixels, renditions of "color" in UV using standard sensors don't have the same direct mapping to wavelength that exists in visible light.
Conclusion: The lens should be tested with narrow-pass UV filters to see if better results can be obtained.
My copy is #410257. The subject is California red fir (Abies magnifica).
-
It's that extra layer of glass you added -- the window.
I'm not sure what lens you are referring to though? Is it the UV-Nikkor 105/4.5?
If so, then that lens is corrected and you should not see aberrations like this.
Unless shooting through a window.
Nevermind the crossed out stuff!!!!I now realize that you are talking about the 400-Q. ;D
But still -- don't test a lens shooting thru a window.
-
Few (actually, none) suitable UV test subjects around here this time of the year. From what I learned so far is that the lens, 400 mm f/4.5 Nikkor-Q, is really sharp its vintage considered, and there is some CA that may or may not cause issues. For visible light shots, the CA mostly is not objectionable and can be cured in the processing. For IR, the lens shines and turns in very sharp images with no traces of a hot spot. However, for false-colour work where upper part of the visible range is mixed with IR, the difference in focus becomes a real problem unless one can stop down almost all the way. Thus I'll continue to rely on my trustworthy 200-400/4 ED AIS instead for that line of work.
As I stated first, no real experience with UV so far. It might work.
-
It's that extra layer of glass you added -- the window.... don't test a lens shooting thru a window.
This was a quick test to look for gross problems. I try to avoid using a very long lens in a residential area because it can create the wrong impression, so I shot into my very small back yard from inside my residence.
But you're right - shooting through a window will cause aberrations for any kind of light, and now that I think about it I expect it would affect shorter (UV) wavelengths more than the visible ones. What I should do it take the whole setup, the reference standards, and a suitable UV subject to another location. That will need to wait for a bit.