rpierce Posted February 29, 2008 Share #1 Posted February 29, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) What has been the experience with performing UV photography with the M8? I am starting to do some searching on this topic. Some of the info found so far and other questions are below. In one thread, Jaapv posted a nice UV photo using the M8 with a Summarit 1.5/50 made about 1954 when using a B+W 403 filter to pass UVA. It was mentioned that later Leica lenses are coated. Jaapv mentioned the Jupiter lenses may also pass UV. I believe the B+W 403 passes near IR, so a hot mirror filter may also be needed. Bjorn currently favors the use of the Venus or Baader U filter, and I'm trying to find it on the vendors website: http://www.baader-planetarium.com. Is there any particular Jupiter lens (about 28 to 50mm) that might be suitable? Has anyone tried the Venus filter? Thank you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 29, 2008 Posted February 29, 2008 Hi rpierce, Take a look here UV Photography with M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Vivek Iyer Posted February 29, 2008 Share #2 Posted February 29, 2008 This thread from Jaap: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/24272-other-end-spectrum.html shows a nice false color IR image. No UV as indicated by the pale foliage and the grass. You are right in wondering about the IR transmission in the filter used. I have been using the Baader U 2" filter since they introduced it. I even arranged for the filters to be sent to Bjorn who had difficulty in getting them. The discontinued Baader U 1 1/4" filter is not all that great compared to the new one. See:UV/Gear - a photoset on Flickr On how to use the filter properly. Best lens in M mount, thusfar, for UV that I found is the old M-Rokkor (CL) 40/2. Example: Flickr Photo Download: Jupiter-12, etc work but the image quality is poor. The Industar-22 is better. I would not bother with them at all compared to the Rokkor. It is very important that you use an appropriate hood on the lens you use to get the best image clarity. I wish the M8 were cheaper. I bought a few D40x, ripped off the AA/UV-IR cut filters in them and have been using them happily for UV captures. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpierce Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share #3 Posted March 1, 2008 Vivek Iyer, Thank you for the info. I found some of the earlier threads, but not all. Finding an affordable lens that would work looks like the real challenge. Info on the filter is below: The service team at BAADER PLANETARIUM GMBH returned my email about the U-Filter, #2458291. For purchase in the US they recommend their distributer: Alpine Astronomical c/o Bob Luffel 1141 N. Cove Colony Way EAGLE ID 83616 / USA observatory@alpineastro.com http://www.alpineastro.com Part of the email they sent included: "In order to ease the adaptation of this filter onto most any camera lens, we are producing a Universal Filter-Adapter Ring, to convert from the ASTRO-2" Standard (M48) into a more common Photo-Standard of SP 54 mm. This ring is named DSLR 2" FilterHolder M48/SP54 (item no.2408166) and costs EUR 15.- " "This DSLR 2" FilterHolder M48/SP54 is our base for which we manufacture a huge number of Camera-Lens-Adapter-Rings, also including M52(#2958052) /M55('2958055)/M58(#2958058) threads." Depending on exchange rate, customs, fees, etc., the total price would be approximately 266 euro for a filter with one adapter. Thank you for your help, Bob Pierce Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fefe Posted March 1, 2008 Share #4 Posted March 1, 2008 Would a Jupiter-8 from the 50s work for UV photography ? I would actually love to try it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivek Iyer Posted March 1, 2008 Share #5 Posted March 1, 2008 Bob, You are welcome. BTW, the price of the filter (though it is an odd size) is really very cheap for what it can do for UV imaging. This is the Rolls Royce of UV filters with the best IR suppression. The filter as shown here: Flickr Photo Download: Baader U 2" filter with the correct orientation for UV captures is the filter disc housed inside of an old 52mm Hama Polarizer filter with a retaining ring from a B+W filter. I did not buy the Baader adapter as it adds too much length. Fefe, Jupiter 8 etc have poor image quality compared to the Rokkor which is super sharp even wide open for UV. I use it on my R-D1s. Old Elmars could be useful. I have tried the M8 (Jaap's actually) briefly for UV with an Industar-22 and the Baader U 2" filter. The M8 has better UV response (by 2 stops) compared to the Epson R-D1s. And, of course, the image quality is way better (M8's) than that from the Epson. As an aside (well, this is Leica related).. old Milar lenses made for macro photography (made for the Aristophot) do splendidly for UV. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fefe Posted March 1, 2008 Share #6 Posted March 1, 2008 Thanks, my girlfriend was actually asking about UV photography yesterday (after I offered her a nice orchis) and I told her that I thought I needed some of these lenses made of cristal as regular glass was filtering UV. I am happy to be wrong and will try to come up with something . I own an old J-8 thus my question. I am going to look for your suggested Baader U filter, but would a B+W 403 stacked with a regular IR block work (the ones we use on the M8 anyways when we just want visible light, or do they also filter UV)? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivek Iyer Posted March 1, 2008 Share #7 Posted March 1, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) The amount of cash I have spent on UV pass filters alone is much more than what the M8 was on its debut. I would not waste any money on a UV pass filter and an IR cut filter, etc. Even if you find a combination that transmits only UV and no visible or IR light, a stacked filter always has poor optical quality. Besides, all other filters are uncoated. The Baader U 2" filter purportedly has >100 layers of coatings. This makes it stronger physically and environmentally very stable. The physical and optical stability (or the lack thereof) of other bandpass filters are known. Again, the multicoated CL M-Rokkor 40/2 is the best UV lens for M mount. I use several UV lenses (UV-Planars, UV-Nikkor, etc) on my Nikon cams but there are fewer lenses for the M mount. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fefe Posted March 1, 2008 Share #8 Posted March 1, 2008 Thanks again, and great UV set on flickr. I have been looking at the Baader website and practicing my long forgotten German. I was trying to understand what diameter their "camera" adapter was. It seems to work for a number of diameters if I understand the picture correctly but they don t seem to list all of them. Next step I guess is looking for an old 40 f/2 Rokkor but those don't seem that common (at least a search on the bay returned nothing) so I will probably try with some cheap old russian lense at first while looking for a better option. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kds315 Posted March 5, 2008 Share #9 Posted March 5, 2008 fefe, if you have a problem with Baader, I have distribution rights for them, and yes Vivek is absolutely right, the best UV transmitting filter for the time being. I also have been experimenting a lot with others filters but they all sit around unused since the Baader 2" U Filter arrived (and I confess I'm a bit guilty that a 2" version exitsts...). Regarding mounting, I made special filter rings for that but you could also get you a 48mm standard filter thread mount adaptor ring to fit your M-lenses, works great. About lenses, Vivek is correct about the Rokkor lenses (40mm, 90mm and the 28mm - all ca. 360nm; Vivek you know why I smile reading your contribution... ) but also some of the Zeiss ZM-lenses work quite OK (50mm, 35mm, 25mm - ca. 360nm) and very sharp. The 90mm Elmar is not great for UV due to its design, I have that also. I have the russian Jupiter-12 (35mm - up to 350nm), Orion-15 (28mm - up to 330nm) and Russar-2 (20mm - not yet measured, I guess ca 340nm) - all of them not as sharp as modern lenses. The modern CV lenses don't work, also (nearly) not the famous CZ Contax (converted for M) Biogon 21mm. I have a second Rokkor 90mm should you need one btw. Here some example(s) I took quite some time ago (a differential UV-VIS btw.): 28mm: 90mm [shot with the poor mans M8 - the RD1] Hope that helped... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kds315 Posted March 5, 2008 Share #10 Posted March 5, 2008 Here some quick test using the Russar 20mm. The vignetting is quite bad, though: Russar 20mm VIS, UV The previous page on the bottom shows some results using the Jupiter, but not that great. Cheers, Klaus Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 5, 2008 Share #11 Posted March 5, 2008 Vivek, I believe you tried my Summarit for UV transmission, but cannot recall how that went? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivek Iyer Posted March 6, 2008 Share #12 Posted March 6, 2008 Jaap, No. Only the Industar-22 and 4 or 5 shots. You had the same combo and tried it yourself. I do not recall you trying the Summarit at that time. We talked about a few things (including the nice B+W IR filter you had on one of your lenses). I have a very rare book by one Dr. J.J.M. van Santen (from the Hague) in old Dutch (no ISBN or even year of publication that I can find in it, from the references, it appears to have been written in between the two world wars. I will be happy to lend it to you.). I attach a shot of the cover here. Page 67 in the book shows a reflected UV shot (Leica 3D, Elmar f/3.5 at f/6.3, Schott UG-1 filter on Isopan ISS, 21/10 DIN). Old B&W emulsions had little red and no IR sensitivity (while having excellent UV sensitivity) so there was absolutely no worries of any IR contamination. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/46636-uv-photography-with-m8/?do=findComment&comment=502509'>More sharing options...
rpierce Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share #13 Posted March 6, 2008 Klaus, When you mentioned that the Zeiss ZM lens (50, 35 and 25mm) were usable for UV, did you mean the current design, for example, the one listed at B&H: "25mm f/2.8 Biogon T* ZM Manual Focus Lens for Zeiss Ikon and Leica M Mount" ? I would guess the modern coatings would eliminate these for UV, but my knowledge of the history of the different lenses and the companys is very limited. Thank you for your help. Bob Pierce Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kds315 Posted March 6, 2008 Share #14 Posted March 6, 2008 Klaus, When you mentioned that the Zeiss ZM lens (50, 35 and 25mm) were usable for UV, did you mean the current design, for example, the one listed at B&H: "25mm f/2.8 Biogon T* ZM Manual Focus Lens for Zeiss Ikon and Leica M Mount" ? I would guess the modern coatings would eliminate these for UV, but my knowledge of the history of the different lenses and the companys is very limited. Thank you for your help. Bob Pierce Yes Pierce, exactly those. Cheers, Kaus Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 6, 2008 Share #15 Posted March 6, 2008 Vivek, I see that it is indeed time for a Baader filter for me. Any recommendations? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kds315 Posted March 10, 2008 Share #16 Posted March 10, 2008 Jaap, No. Only the Industar-22 and 4 or 5 shots. You had the same combo and tried it yourself. I do not recall you trying the Summarit at that time. We talked about a few things (including the nice B+W IR filter you had on one of your lenses). I have a very rare book by one Dr. J.J.M. van Santen (from the Hague) in old Dutch (no ISBN or even year of publication that I can find in it, from the references, it appears to have been written in between the two world wars. I will be happy to lend it to you.). I attach a shot of the cover here. Page 67 in the book shows a reflected UV shot (Leica 3D, Elmar f/3.5 at f/6.3, Schott UG-1 filter on Isopan ISS, 21/10 DIN). Old B&W emulsions had little red and no IR sensitivity (while having excellent UV sensitivity) so there was absolutely no worries of any IR contamination. Thanks for that tip Vivek, I found a copy in Hilversum in an bookstore for used books. Cheers, Klaus Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fefe Posted March 25, 2008 Share #17 Posted March 25, 2008 Hi, I just received my Baader U filter and a few adapter ring. I will test this as I come home with the lens I have (I got a cheap uncoated I-22 to do some tests and have a great J-8 I'll try it with too). For now I have only tested it quickly with a Nikkor PC 85mm which happens to have a 48mm filter thread ( but am loosing about 12.5 stops with it so I assume its transimission is quite poor). However despite having ordered all the accessories I thought would be usefull with it, I didn't succeed in having the purple side exposed to the light (only succeeded in getting the gold one) as I don't manage to mount the filter reversed in their adapter. Once I'll have all this figured I think I'll be looking for a rokkor, and will contact you about the 90mm one . Thanks Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fefe Posted April 4, 2008 Share #18 Posted April 4, 2008 I did a few tests with the lenses I had around since I recieved my filter. The first thing is that the M8 tends to underexpose by about 1.5-2 stops when using the Baader U-filter. Once this is corrected I measured the UV transmission of a few lenses under a quite intense sun (1/1500 - f16 - ISO 160), half reflected by the sea: - 50mm uncoated FED (Elmar copy): -8.5 EV - 35mm Summicron ASPH: -10 EV - 50mm Nikkor S.C: -11 EV - 50mm Jupiter 8: -10.5 EV - 85mm Nikkor P.C: -11 EV Just as a comparison the IR sensitivity was -6 stops. All of them producing reasonably good and detailed images besides the FED, for my flower pics I'll start with the 85mm which happens to take the filter without any step-up rings and the cron for the rest as with the light I have here it will be possible to hand held shots with it. I'll still try to get my hands on one of these M-Rokkors if I am not satisfied with the results. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 4, 2008 Share #19 Posted April 4, 2008 You could try a Summarit or Xenon as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fefe Posted May 2, 2008 Share #20 Posted May 2, 2008 I finally got to spend time playing around with my Baader U-Filter. I ended up using mostly my Nikkor P.C. 85 f2 as it was both an easy focal length to take flower pictures, the filter screws in directly and It provides very detailed and sharp images in UV. I used 4PM sunlight for a UV source and got results I like. in UV (Baader U-filter) in IR (B+W 093) Visible light Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.