Nikon 80mm f/5.6 EL-Nikkor: old metal version

[ulf]

Finalized: Work in progress.

Last Update:

 

Nikon 80mm f/5.6 EL-Nikkor:. old metal version

 

Manufacturer: Nikon

Manufacturer's lens designation: EL-NIKKOR 80mm f/5.6

Currently manufactured: No

Lens type: Enlarger lens for film up to 56mm x 72mm ( Ø100mm )

Focal length: 80mm

Aperture range: f/5.6 – f/45, Manual, 8 blades

Design: 6 elements in 4 groups

Flange Focus distance: 70mm

Recommended magnification range*: 0.067x – 0.5x.

Optimal magnification *: 0.2x

Mount: M39 x 26tpi thread + hidden 32.5 x 0.5mm thread behind a built in step ring.

Sensor format/coverage: up to 56mm x 72mm ( Ø100mm ) at 0.2 x magnification

Front filter: 34.5 mm x 0.5 mm

Introduction year: pre 1960?

S/N of test object: 933700

* Definitions reversed from normal enlarger definition, referring to the motif not the negative-plane

 

Lens review (VIS), on the web:

Lens Manual on the web: http://www.savazzi.n...El-Nikkor_2.pdf

 

Image of test object:

Unfortunately the lens is buried and hidden by my DIY focussing and aperture-control build. It was too difficult to disassemble for any photos.

Except for the text on the front ring this lens looks almost identical to the older EL-NIKKOR 80mm f/5.6 Nippon Kogaku Japan presented here:

https://www.ultravio...pan/#entry41477

 

Transmittance Summary

Definitions of the parameters below

• Range: The El-Nikkor Old Metal lens transmits 0-70% in an increasing slope from 310 nm to 400nm.
• T_VISmax(%) = 73%
• T_400nm(%) = 70%
• T_365nm(%) = 60%
  This high percentage is an indicator for relatively short exposure time under typical UV-pass filtration peaking around 365 nm.

• λ_{UV HMvis}(nm) = 341nm
• λ_{UV HM400}(nm) = 340nm
• λ_{UV Zero}(nm) = 311nm
• These three values indicate that the lens is working even for some upper UV-B photography with some filters and a few for this, suitable cameras.

Spectral transmission graphs:

UV-NIR, EL-NIKKOR 80mm f/5.6, old metal version

The transmission measurement accuracy into the end of NIR range is less good due to limitations in the light source.

 

UV, EL-NIKKOR 80mm f/5.6, old metal version

 

UV-Log, EL-NIKKOR 80mm f/5.6, old metal version

General comments about the UV-reach:

reach

 

---

Filters and how to use them on this lens:

The front filter thread is rather odd, but suitable adapter can be found at RafCamera:

https://www.ebay.com...amera?_bkw=34.5

 

It is also possible to use rear mounted filters, either in lens mount adapters for mirrorless cameras like Sony A-series etc, or placed directly in the camera.

 

An alternative, if space in the camera allows, is to putty-mount a filter directly against the lenses rear element mount ring.

The rear lens element is recessed and thus safe and the ring provides a good reference plane for orienting the filter normal to the optic axis.

 

My Omega 330W80 Improved Ø25mm, is mounted in a 27mm-filter ring and works well to mount as it is.

 

---

Handling and focusing:

This lens needs to be combined with a helicoid or macro bellows to set desired magnification.

With short enough minimum length of those it is easy to obtain focus at infinity even for DSLRs with long back-focus distance.

https://www.ultravio...__fromsearch__1

 

Flare and sun-stars:

NA

 

Sharpness:

I have found the lens impressing sharp all over the image field, but have no actual measurements.

My main usage has been for closeup UV and UV+VIS photography.

 

Lens distortion:

The lens

 

Chromatic Aberration / fringing in UV:

CrA

---

Image samples:

UV:

 

Filter:

UV, Fringing:

 

Filter:

 

UV, Fringing 100%:

 

Filter:

 

VIS+NIR:

 

Filter:

 

NIR:

 

Filter: long pass 800nm

[Andy Perrin]

When using rear mounted filters it is important to realise that they shift the focusing to infinity as the filter-glass gives a shorter optical path length mimicking a forward shift of the lens.

In this case, while it's true the rear filters shift the focus, I don't know how important it is because it's on a helicoid anyway.

[nfoto]

One just have to remember to focus *after* the filter is added.

[ulf]

Correctly noted. Thank you.

This is a spillover from the Sunex I missed to delete. That comment deleted.

 

This works like a group effort, with many observant eyes! Great!

[Andrea B.]

Ulf, thank you again for these measurements. It is so good to have these charts.

 

I was wondering about that little bump between 300-310 nm? Is that just "noise" or is some transmission occuring?

[ulf]

Ulf, thank you again for these measurements. It is so good to have these charts.

 

I was wondering about that little bump between 300-310 nm? Is that just "noise" or is some transmission occuring?

 

Yes It is just noise, no transmission here in the real world.

I have truncated tha data too far into the UV.

The bump should have been cut away.

Also the slight bend below and slightly above 1% is wrong. That is due to an offset caused by crosstalk.

The real λ_{UV Zero} is a few nm higher.

 

Today I think I have found yet another method to reach deeper into the noise to see a bit further of the attenuation, eliminating crosstalk effects.

My full spectrum graph is a composite of four separate measurements and a fifth setup and processing will improve both the dynamic range and how deep into the UV I can see.

At least I hope that will work. So far I have just made such measurements on the Nippon Kogaku-lens.

If theory holds after testing a few more lenses I will update the Log graphs and λ_{UV Zero} values

[ulf]

The the improvement of dynamic range for the cut-on works.

Also improved the VIS and NIR measurements.

Updated the graphs and λ_{UV Zero}.

The same methods are applied to my other new lens posts too

[lukaszgryglicki]

just bought this lens and (probably) all stuff needed to use it on D600 mono/full spectrum. I'll post my results once I manage to assemble all of this.

 

[diant]

Ulf, I want to joint a common voice and repeat: you do a great work! I thank you very much.

 

How do you think, if we take two different samples of the same lens, how similar will be they spectra? Sometimes this thought come to my head: will a different samples of the same lens give us a similar spectra?

 

Strange thought... And I understand that though different samples may be made (and really was made) in different time, with different melt batches, but if the sorts of glasses remained the same, spectra should be the same too. But if a factory performed a change (replace) some sorts of glasses (keeping a lens properties in general the same)? In this case will a different samples give us similar spectra in UV???

[Stefano]

I don’t have an answer for that, but look at how close the curves of a Soligor and a Prinz Galaxy lens are: https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/3412-relative-transmission-measurement-of-two-35mm-lenses-prinz-galaxy-and-soligor

 

[dabateman]

3 hours ago, diant said:

Ulf, I want to joint a common voice and repeat: you do a great work! I thank you very much.

 

How do you think, if we take two different samples of the same lens, how similar will be they spectra? Sometimes this thought come to my head: will a different samples of the same lens give us a similar spectra?

 

Strange thought... And I understand that though different samples may be made (and really was made) in different time, with different melt batches, but if the sorts of glasses remained the same, spectra should be the same too. But if a factory performed a change (replace) some sorts of glasses (keeping a lens properties in general the same)? In this case will a different samples give us similar spectra in UV???

 

Well mine has similar cut off as Ulf's.  As seen here:

 

My curve is not completely correct to look like Ulfs though.  So don't read too much into it. But the UV cut off is similar. 

[diant]

48 minutes ago, dabateman said:

But the UV cut off is similar. 

Absolutely, I see.

[lukaszgryglicki]

How about those values close 200nm - is this a noise or there is a real transmission around 200nm?

 

[nfoto]

Pure noise.

[ulf]

19 hours ago, diant said:

How do you think, if we take two different samples of the same lens, how similar will be they spectra? Sometimes this thought come to my head: will a different samples of the same lens give us a similar spectra?

I have been hoarding 80mm El-Nikkors and have had three marked EL-Nikkor and two marked Nippon Kogaku.

Now I have two of each to keep some spares.

The two types measure rather similar within a few percent for each type. The difference seen in my measurements for the two variants are persistent. I think without any real facts that they are due to different coating designs.

 

As the ambitious measurement as presented in my tests here is quite complex and time consuming I have not done that for all five lenses, but when comparing the essential UV-region they agree reasonably well just as David can see in his measurements above.

[ulf]

3 hours ago, lukaszgryglicki said:

How about those values close 200nm - is this a noise or there is a real transmission around 200nm?

 

To clarify, the graph David show is only valid for the shape of the UV-cutoff and general trend up to 800nm.

It is measured without some essential measurement components needed to display absolute transmission.

Spikes and low level wiggles in the shorter wavelengths are false data just as the wiggle and spikes in the upper range.

 

I got similar graphs in my setup before I got my integrating sphere and strong UV light source. 

I am sure David is well aware of that, but want to explain for those with less experience in interpreting graphs from spectrometers.

[lukaszgryglicki]

I was thinking the same, just wanted to confirm.

 

[dabateman]

10 minutes ago, ulf said:

To clarify, the graph David show is only valid for the shape of the UV-cutoff and general trend up to 800nm.

It is measured without some essential measurement components needed to display absolute transmission.

Spikes and low level wiggles in the shorter wavelengths are false data just as the wiggle and spikes in the upper range.

 

I got similar graphs in my setup before I got my integrating sphere and strong UV light source. 

I am sure David is well aware of that, but want to explain for those with less experience in interpreting graphs from spectrometers.

Yes,  thats why I said don't read too much into the graph and only look at that cut off. 

Wow 5 lenses. I have just one. I haven't doubled up on any lenses yet. But I have built quite a few fused silica ones. 

[diant]

18 hours ago, ulf said:

As the ambitious measurement as presented in my tests here is quite complex and time consuming I have not done that for all five lenses, but when comparing the essential UV-region they agree reasonably well just as David can see in his measurements above.

Ok, Ulf, thank you.

 

BTW, there exist EL-Nikkor 4/40mm (the shortest one in this line). It covers FF and is built on the same scheme (6/4) as EL-Nikkor 5,6/80mm. And it would be a good UVA performer were it be among the old EL-Nikkor series. But unfortunately it exist only in new EL-Nikkor series and has MC at least (and may be new flint glasses additionally).

[lukaszgryglicki]

Got all stuff, able to mount and focus to infinity (El Nikkor 80/5.6 old metal version).

 

Nikon D600 FS with bayer or FS without Bayer + F->M42 adapter + fixed length M42-M42 extension (about 5 mm) + M42 helicoid 12-17mm + M42->M39 step down ring + El Nikkor 80/5.6 + M34.5x0.5->M52x0.75 conversion + M52-M55 step up + M55-M58 step up + Kolari UV-Pass 58mm.

 

With this setup I can focus from about 3m to past infinity, without fixed length M42-M42 extension (from about almost infinity to much past infinity) and with other fixed length tubes from very close to few meters away (but not to infinity). Another helicoid 17-32 is on the way, so it will give more flexibility.

I can also replace 34.5->52->55->58->58 Kolari-UV-Pass with 34.5->52->52Hoya U-340 (but I have no Hoya U-360 and S8612both 2mm yet) so with Hoya I cannot surpass IR yet.

 

I can also mount El-Nikkor 70/4 (plastic version) but this needs no extension tube at all - just the 12-17mm helicoid directly between F->M42 mount conversion and the lens. 70/4 uses other thread to mount filters - 40.5x0,75mm (instead of 34.5x0.5mm) - this one is a lot more standard and conversions 40.5->52 are dirt cheap and common (34.5x0.5 needed to be ordered from Russia for about $40)

 

The "only" problem now is that it is 5:45 PM and it is dark, so I see almost nothing through both UV filters :P

 

[Andrea B.]

Ulf, there are two copies of the Log version graph in the first post.

[ulf]

9 hours ago, Andrea B. said:

Ulf, there are two copies of the Log version graph in the first post.

Corrected

 

[photoni]

Thanks @colinbm for the flickr link you gave me.
I bought this ring 34.5 > Ø52 mm

https://rafcamera.com/adapter-m34-5x0-5m-to-m52x0-75f

@ulfNow I have to figure out which stack to use to get the most out of this new new lens.

 

.

[colinbm]

I hope you have some good shooting with this one.

[ulf]

Here is how I did:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/2396-long-focusing-helicoid-for-small-lenses/#comment-17389

The links to the parts in the post are long outdated so I searched for some active parts that might work well:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/144407730677

https://www.ebay.com/itm/234403540911

 

I glued one of the extension tubes into the bottom of the helicoid with epoxy glue.

It looks like I used the shortest in the set of tubes to glue into the helicoid and the medium length mounted at the back of the lens for this build project.

 

It might be a good idea to buy more than one set of those tubes. They are handy to have in house for different projects. 

It is sometimes also a good idea to add some matting or black flocking material inside such tubes, bit for this setup there has been very little difference.

 

This arrangement will ideally let you both reach infinity and get quite close for macro.

Good luck

 

The knurled front ring on the lens is a now obsolete Manfrotto Xume magnetic lens ring that mates with a matching filter ring.

They were not cheap, but very handy for quick filter changes.