Nikon 80mm f/5.6 EL-Nikkor: Nippon Kogaku Japan

[ulf]

Finalized: Work in progress.

Last Update: Nikon 80mm f/5.6 EL-Nikkor: Nippon Kogaku Japan

 

Manufacturer: Nikon

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

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: 805773

* 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:

---

Transmittance Summary

Definitions of the parameters below

• Range: The EL-NIKKOR Nippon Kogaku lens transmits 0-70% in an increasing slope from 315nm to 400nm.
  
• T_VISmax (%) = 88%
  
• T_400nm (%) = 84%
  
• T_365nm (%) = 67%
  This high percentage is an indicator for relatively short exposure time under typical UV-pass filtration peaking around 365 nm.
  

• λ_{UV HMvis}(nm) = 349nm
  
• λ_{UV HM400} (nm) = 348nm
  
• λ_{UV Zero} (nm) = 316nm
  These three values indicate that the lens is UV-capable into the upper UV-B range under appropriate filtration.
  

---

Spectral transmission graphs:

UV-NIR, EL-NIKKOR 80mm f/5.6, Nippon Kogaku Japan

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, Nippon Kogaku Japan

 

UV-Log, EL-NIKKOR 80mm f/5.6, Nippon Kogaku Japan

Numerical Spectra Data available: Yes

 

General comments about the UV-reach:

ffff

 

---

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 focussing:

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:

TBD

 

Sharpness:

I have found the lens impressing sharp.

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

 

Lens distortion:

The lens

 

Chromatic Aberration / fringing in UV:

C

---

Image samples:

UV:

image

Filter:

 

UV, Fringing:

image

Filter:

 

UV, Fringing 100%:

image

Filter:

 

VIS+NIR:

image

Filter:

 

NIR:

image

Filter: long pass 800nm

[Andrea B.]

Ulf, all enlarger lenses have by design some UV capability, so we need not make any attribution of discovery for such lenses.

[ulf]

Ulf, all enlarger lenses have by design some UV capability, so we need not make any attribution of discovery for such lenses.

I think that is not entirely true.

 

I have a APO Rodagon N enlarger lens that I suspect is not even marginal for UV.

When I find it I can measure the UV-transmission and show here. Would such an entry be OK to enter the UV-Lens Data section sa an example Showing a very bad UV-lens?

[Cadmium]

The sticky shows KDS as the 'tester'.

 

While I am looking at the sticky, I disagree with the sticky about the Kuribayashi 35mm f/3.5 lens.

I found those, showed them, way back on the old Nikongear (later named Fotozones?),

all those links are gone now.

The sticky here would seem to indicate that I didn't find the Kuribayashi 35mm,

which was the predecessor to all those Kuri's and Kyoei's being 'discovered' and tested for UV.

[Andrea B.]

While I am looking at the sticky, I disagree with the sticky about the Kuribayashi 35mm f/3.5 lens.

I found those, showed them, way back on the old Nikongear (later named Fotozones?),

all those links are gone now.

The sticky here would seem to indicate that I didn't find the Kuribayashi 35mm,

which was the predecessor to all those Kuri's and Kyoei's being 'discovered' and tested for UV.

 

 

The Lens Sticky *never* lists a “discoverer” of a lens because I don’t believe that we can possibly know who used which lens first for what purpose.

 

What the Sticky does do is to list one of the persons who tested a particular lens for its UV capability and who provided me with some data about that lens. If you were to look more carefully at the listing for the Kuri 35/3.5, you would most definitely find a link which you should have clicked.

[ulf]

I am OK with deleting all notations of discoverer in my posts.

It is not that important IMHO.

 

Not comparable with big things like discovering the sources of the Nile.

[ulf]

I think that is not entirely true.

 

I have a APO Rodagon N enlarger lens that I suspect is not even marginal for UV.

When I find it I can measure the UV-transmission and show here. Would such an entry be OK to enter the UV-Lens Data section sa an example Showing a very bad UV-lens?

I was wrong.

A quick test show that the APO Rodagon N 50mm f/2.8 is marginally UV-capable with a λ_{UV HalfMax}= ca 365nm.

Nothing to waste money on as an UV-lens or even as an entry in the UV-Lens Data section.

[Andrea B.]

Ulf, I was probably thinking too much of early development/printing/enlargement processes which I only know by history and not experience. In more recent processes, UV light might not have been used as much? So there might indeed be some enlargers which don’t pass too much UV past 400 nm? We will leave it as an open question.

 

The generally held belief is that enlargers are good in the upper UVA range, say 370-400 nm with some few reaching deeper (as you have just shown).

 

I do think it is better to leave out attribution of “discovery” for most lenses, although links to other peoples tests or examples are of course acceptable.

[Andrea B.]

With enlarger lenses, the flat field characteristic makes them more suitable for close work than landscapes.

 

I remember at least two users who have gotten a kind of center brightness akin to a hotspot (but not quite) with some El-Nikkors, the 80, IIRC. One of Andy Perrin’s topics here shows this in some landscape views.

 

Third thing is that many enlarger lenses have a windowed aperture setting which must be taped over or blocked when used for UV. We should remind readers about that where applicable.

[ulf]

Andrea,

 

Good points all of them.

I have mostly done close up photography with enlarger lenses and have little experience using them for landscapes.

 

---

I think another type of post suitable for the UV-Lens Data section can be a comparison-post with a few lenses having something in common.

Then I think the transmission graphs and links to the single lens data posts will be enough.

We have to figure out a good digest title format.

 

To compare the two EL-NIKKOR 80mm lenses maybe a title like this can be OK:

"Comparison, EL-NIKKOR 80mm old and older"

 

Is this OK?

[Andy Perrin]

Maybe this shot, Andrea? It was with the Noflexar, though.

https://www.ultravio...epsie-new-york/

 

Also the Noflexar:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/1863-buzzards-bay-wareham-massachusetts/

 

Both show a shift, but that's at 35mm and it's not an enlarger lens.

[Andrea B.]

Ulf, yes, start with any title. As your effort progresses, we can make amendments when/if we think necessary.

 

For example, it finally occured to me how to label the T and lambda data: https://www.ultravio...dpost__p__41521

(Also please review the post immediately preceding the linked post.)

[Andrea B.]

Andy, yes, that is a good example of wide-angle vignetting combined with a dichroic filter.

Somewhere though, you have a photo made with one of the EL-Nikkors which I am remembering showed some problems??

 

I've *always* had vignetting problems with my Noflexar. Although not quite as colorful as yours. La! I think that can be repaired in Photo Ninja.

 

---

 

Note: All the extraneous comments about formatting, etc. will be removed when the Lens Data topic is finalized.

[Andy Perrin]

I can’t recall any filter problems with my EL-Nikkor. I had a problem with my first copy of the lens itself that showed a lot of haziness near bright objects but that was the lens, not the filter.

[Andrea B.]

ah, OK. I'm remembering (rather hazily myself it seems) something else, then.

There's so much stuff now on UVP, that I can no longer keep track of it all like I could a couple of years ago.

[ulf]

Andrea, I think you had some problems with it during the SEU2 evaluation

[ulf]

Replaced the transmission graphs with updated versions including copyright info.

Improved measurement dynamic range due to usage of a fifth measurement setup and processing to merge data into the composite graph.

 

I really do not think we need to know the transmission of lenses down to OD4, but it is fun to see how much I can push the different measurement methods.

I will try to do the same for the other lenses when I can.

[Andy Perrin]

It would be interesting to do a diabatic graph maybe. If you push it all the way to OD4.

[Stefano]

But what about data charts (with numbers)? Are you going to implement them?

[Andy Perrin]

I thought he was just going to post the raw data as excel or txt?

[Stefano]

Yes, I mean RAW (or processed) numeric data.

[SteveE]

As I don't have Excel, except at work, I would vote for CSV text files for tabular data.

[ulf]

I hope to get help creating a tool to convert the spectrometer data to a more usable format, not dependant of the measurement program I use for my graphs.

 

If I release the data I want to have some control over the spread and will only make the data available after a direct request from UVP-members.

The data will not be posted directly on the forum to be available for any external leacher.

 

When / If I get the data converted and ready to be shared I will add a line in the lens data post that might look like this:

 

Numerical Spectra Data available: Yes

[Doug A]

Thanks @ulffor all the effort you put into these tests. I finally found a mint 80 from Japan and look forward to using it. Does anyone know why Nikon picked a 32.5mm mounting thread? Every enlarger I've seen uses 39 or M42. 

 

Thanks,

Doug A

[nfoto]

Oh? I thought the filter thread was 34.5mm. But memory is known to fail me sometimes.