Sparticle UV transmission tests of Kuri and Kyoei lens collection

[Cadmium]

Sparticle UV transmission tests of Kuribayashi and Kyoei lens collection.

Of these lenses, the 50mm was well known to be a poor UV lens, the 180mm is also a bad UV lens.

The 35mm seems to be the best, but others are close. You be the judge. WB was taken from one side of the PTFE array holder.

All shot with same ISO 200, F/11 all lenses, AP, spot. Baader U used on lenses. D7000 full spectrum camera. NOTE: The rear clear glass filter of the Kuri 500mm is removed for UV.

 

 

The Kyoei 250mm lens is missing from this photo. It is a semi monster, weighing a solid 4lbs (1.81437 Kilograms), more than even the 500mm Kuribayashi lens (3.5lbs).

The Kuribayashi 50mm lens is missing from this photo also.

[Andrea B.]

Steve, thank you so much for this spectacular Kuri Sparticle Test. Wow !!!

 

I'm amazed by that Kuribayashi 500/8.0. Just the sheer size of the thing. Do you need a separate tripod for supporting that?

 

I added a UV Lens tag to your post so that it will turn up in tag searches.

 

And, I've put it on the list to add a link in the UV Lens Sticky. (It's somewhat difficult to edit that, so I save up a few edits before opening the file.)

 

Remind me what the two windows on the bottom right of the Sparticle are?

[Cadmium]

Andrea, The 500mm mounts on a tripod, just like other big lenses. You don't use a separate tripod.

 

The two bottom windows are BG39 and thin PTFE.

 

I plan on building a wireless flash back for the Sparticle, so I don't have to point it at anything (like the sky).

[Andrea B.]

How do you determine the exposure time for Sparticle shots? Metering is sometimes difficult to apply through a UV-pass filter.

[Cadmium]

Andrea, I usually use aperture priority spot or center weighted, which is what I do with most things that are not visual.

The above shots: "All shot with same ISO 200, F/11 all lenses, AP, spot."

[nfoto]

Perhaps an indication of the exposure time would be a helpful nugget of information too?

 

Not any experience with the longer Kuro lenses (only the 35/3.5 which I can confirm is good for UV), but the similar Petri relatives need substantial stopping down to perform adequately in UV. The 400/6.3 is just barely acceptable at f/11, but going to f/16 helps quite a bit. Its shorter sibling 300/5.5 is slightly better at f/11 though.

 

The longest lens with really good UV performance I found so far is the 25 cm f/4 Nikkor-Q for the early '50s. It came in S-mount for use on Nikon rangefinders with the additional mirror box, can also be used on any 'F' mount camera with the N-F adapter, or search for a version with M39 screw mount. Alternatively, just unscrew the lens head with aperture unit and put it on a bellows for real close focusing. About 2500 lenses were produced in different versions, the latter ones being distinguished by a preset aperture ring but in all other respects seem identical. My sample is the initial version launched in late '51 or '52.

 

Our US members should be able to track down one of these for less than astronomical price as it apparently was much more common (if that notion can be used for an exotic rangefinder lens) on their side of the Atlantic. I got my copy in near mint condition from an estate sale at an unbelievably low price, around USD 125 incl. shipping if memory serves.

[Cadmium]

Perhaps an indication of the exposure time would be a helpful nugget of information too?

 

The tests were shot in this order: 250mm, 180mm, 135mm, 105mm, 80mm, 50mm, 35mm, 500mm.

The aperture priority - spot exposure times are:

35mm = 1/1.3s

50mm = 1.3s

80mm = 1/2.5s

105mm = 1/6s

135mm = 1/1.3s

180mm = 6s

250mm = 1/1.3s

500mm = 1/1.3s

 

Also note that the 48mm/52mm Baader U was used on all lenses, with no resulting vignetting with my D7000 DX crop factor, but I don't know if that changes any overall results.

Center weighted usually works best, but because some of these lenses were so far away from the target to achieve minimum focus distance, I use spot metering to keep the exposure within the Sparticle array.

[Cadmium]

Not any experience with the longer Kuro lenses (only the 35/3.5 which I can confirm is good for UV), but the similar Petri relatives need substantial stopping down to perform adequately in UV. The 400/6.3 is just barely acceptable at f/11, but going to f/16 helps quite a bit. Its shorter sibling 300/5.5 is slightly better at f/11 though.

 

For the most part, the Petri lenses are not made by Kyoei. The 400mm, for example is the same lens as a Lentar 400mm of the same era.

There is one lens that I know of, that you discovered, that is a Petri 35mm, that has no Kuribayashi branding on it, that works the same as the Kuri 35mm.

[Cadmium]

Here is my test using a wireless flash behind the Sparticle.

This uses a modified Canon 199A flash, with the front clear lens removed.

I am using this wireless kit: Yongnuo RF-603N II Wireless Flash Trigger Kit for Nikon DC2

(note: the new model I received has the on/off switches on the side, not top)

This is preliminary, to test the PTFE diffuser.

I am using the Kuribayashi 135mm lens, Baader U, with all manual setting the same for both shots, and identical WB.

[OlDoinyo]

How does the bandpass depth of the Kuribayashi 500 compare with that of the Makowski 500 Katoptar? I would hope that at least the image resolution is better...

[Cadmium]

Clark, I don't have the lens you mention, so I can't say how they might compare.

I don't think the Kuri 500mm is particularly sharp. It is a simple cemented doublet (? I think they call it) design.

I have a few other lenses that work rather well in UV, but none that I would call exactly sharp. Some of the Lentar lenses (same thing as the longer Petri lenses of the 60/70's).