PDA

View Full Version : Quarz LF lenses?



Dr Klaus Schmitt
6-Dec-2006, 13:44
Has anyone heard about LF lenses made of quartz? I heard rumours about that (not the Gotar, that is a myth btw.), but would like to learn about that...

Thanks,

Klaus

Bruce Watson
6-Dec-2006, 13:55
Has anyone heard about LF lenses made of quartz? I heard rumours about that (not the Gotar, that is a myth btw.), but would like to learn about that...

I seem to recall reading something in the fuzzy past about quartz in photographic lenses. Something about extended ultraviolet response maybe?

Dr Klaus Schmitt
6-Dec-2006, 14:08
Thanks Bruce,

this is actually what I would like to find out, if there has been photography in the ultraviolet domain once...

Klaus

Marko
6-Dec-2006, 14:19
Hi Klaus,

Perhaps you'll find some of these links interesting:

http://www.sciencephoto.com/html_tech_archive/ultrav.html

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-infrared-ultraviolet.html

http://www.naturfotograf.com/uvstart.html

Marko

Dr Klaus Schmitt
6-Dec-2006, 14:26
Thanks Marko,

these sources actually also led to my question. I'm more interested in the historical aspect of UV photography. What currently is and can be done is known to me.

Klaus

Ed Richards
6-Dec-2006, 14:30
There has been some quartz stuff done for the military. As I understand it, this is more often done with mirror lenses than conventional lenses. Mostly they are interested in telephoto so they can keep better watch on us.:-)

Dr Klaus Schmitt
6-Dec-2006, 14:34
Thanks Ed,

I know some catoptric (mirror only) lenses which perform 200....14.000nm actually (UV to deep IR) wit Zeiss Zerodur front surface mirrors and special UV enhanced coating, but of not much use actually (I have those).

Ole Tjugen
6-Dec-2006, 15:11
I came across an old recommendation to use thin lenses with few elements for UV photography; a 100 years old book recommended using nothing more complex than a Periskop.

Ed Richards
6-Dec-2006, 15:45
Are you interested in collecting them or having one built? There are custom optics firms that can do quartz, again, they usually work for military and industrial contractors.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
6-Dec-2006, 15:55
Are you interested in collecting them or having one built? There are custom optics firms that can do quartz, again, they usually work for military and industrial contractors.

Ed,

I use them. Having one made is a $$$$$ job, so not really an option. I know some companies which do that (in the US and in Europe).

Thanks!

Paul Fitzgerald
6-Dec-2006, 20:14
Hello Dr. Klaus,

Maybe ebay item #3820258639 :eek: (no connection)

The only reference to LF UV photography I have ever read had to do with crime lab photography. I think Kodak issued a book on this back in the 1960's.

Good Luck with the hunt.

Per Madsen
7-Dec-2006, 01:00
I have heard that the Carl Zeiss UV-Sonnar 105 4.3 made for
Hasselblad in the 60 - 70 period was made with flourite and quartz
elements.

Emmanuel BIGLER
7-Dec-2006, 05:55
My 0,02 euro to this discussion about terminology.
Often, people refer to quartz but in fact mean pure silica or fused quartz glass, same chemical stuff = silicon dioxide SiO2.
I am aware of the use of mono-crystalline quartz crystals in optics for bi-refringent plates and of course in electronics for quartz crystal resonators an filters (a huge market), but I am wondering whether mono-crystalline, bi-refringent, non-amorphous quartz has actually been used for fabricating optical lenses.
The ability of mono-crystalline or fused quartz to transmit UV light is strongly dependant on the impurity contents, electronic-grade synthetic quartz crystal can be extremely pure, but most probably my guess is that UV lenses are made with fused quartz or fused silica, plus other crystals or glasses.
Optical lenses in mono-crystalline quartz can of course be fabricated, since synthetic single-crystal quartz plates can be delivered with a diameter of 6 inches (150mm)

Roc Chan
7-Dec-2006, 06:54
We use the uv-Sonnar at work.It cost $8000 in the 1970s.The was also a uv-Nikkor for technical works.I think Cannon and other also produces uv lens.Topon uv lens were uv blocking lens.You need a 18A filter or other uv transmitting filter from Corning or Edmond to block out visble lights to use uv lens.Edmond Optic sell simple Quartz lens that could be use for LF use.Check the technical datas of your film for Uv because not all B/W film are uv sensitive.

Roc Chan
7-Dec-2006, 07:09
Some EL Nikkor could be use for 350-400 nm uv lights.Pinhole with 18A filter is other method.NASA use pinhole cameras in space.

Struan Gray
7-Dec-2006, 07:23
Old news:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_lenses

Occasionally there are UV projection printing lenses that turn up on eBay (Klaus, didn't we email about one a while back?), but as far as I know the only production lenses with LF-sized image circles are semiconductor lithography lenses. These are monochromatic, fixed repro-ratio lenses of vast size, weight and cost.

Fused quartz (often called "fused silica") and crystalline quartz singlets can be bought from the usual optics houses, as can lenses made from other UV-transparent materials like sapphire and Lithium flouride. As Emmanuel says, with crystals like quartz and sapphire you have to worry about birefringence, so wide-field imaging over a large image circle is intrinsically difficult.

Were it me, and were I desperate to try something more than macro photography with lenses intended for smaller formats, I would try to make a slow primitive lens from a pair of singlets. In the visible the results can be surprisingly good, so if you can calibrate the UV focus shift it should be possible to get reasonable results at small enlargements.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
7-Dec-2006, 14:41
Some EL Nikkor could be use for 350-400 nm uv lights.Pinhole with 18A filter is other method.NASA use pinhole cameras in space.

Thanks, I tested that already, works so so. Pinhole I don't like at all. The 18A I have in different sizes (and others),.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
7-Dec-2006, 14:45
Old news:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_lenses

Occasionally there are UV projection printing lenses that turn up on eBay (Klaus, didn't we email about one a while back?), but as far as I know the only production lenses with LF-sized image circles are semiconductor lithography lenses. These are monochromatic, fixed repro-ratio lenses of vast size, weight and cost.

Fused quartz (often called "fused silica") and crystalline quartz singlets can be bought from the usual optics houses, as can lenses made from other UV-transparent materials like sapphire and Lithium flouride. As Emmanuel says, with crystals like quartz and sapphire you have to worry about birefringence, so wide-field imaging over a large image circle is intrinsically difficult.

Were it me, and were I desperate to try something more than macro photography with lenses intended for smaller formats, I would try to make a slow primitive lens from a pair of singlets. In the visible the results can be surprisingly good, so if you can calibrate the UV focus shift it should be possible to get reasonable results at small enlargements.

Struan, I guess I remember you. That is a great find, never heard about that prehistoric find.

But I've never seen projection lenses for UV. I heard rumours about plastic lenses, but never seen one.

Litho lenses are way to expensive, lack aperture and are only good for monochr. light, as you already mentioned. I have some Zeiss S-Planars here, unuseable monsters, but perfect door stops.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
7-Dec-2006, 14:47
We use the uv-Sonnar at work.It cost $8000 in the 1970s.The was also a uv-Nikkor for technical works.I think Cannon and other also produces uv lens.Topon uv lens were uv blocking lens.You need a 18A filter or other uv transmitting filter from Corning or Edmond to block out visble lights to use uv lens.Edmond Optic sell simple Quartz lens that could be use for LF use.Check the technical datas of your film for Uv because not all B/W film are uv sensitive.

Per, Roc, thanks. The Zeiss (Hasselblad) UV Sonnar 105mm is a very rare and expensive lens, mostly in the hand of collectors now. And only for 6x6.

I'm looking for real LF lenses here...

Struan Gray
7-Dec-2006, 15:07
There was a 600 mm f11 lens offered on eBay.de in January this year which was a one-off made by a company called Befort in Wetzlar and optimised for 400 nm. Supposedly for projection of silk-screen mask patterns. 140mm long and 4kg in weight, so not as beast-like as the lithography lenses.

The listing has gone from eBay, but the seller was called neustradam if you want to follow it up. I have a picture-free copy of the listing: as I remember it looked rather like the longer APO-Ronars.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
7-Dec-2006, 15:27
There was a 600 mm f11 lens offered on eBay.de in January this year which was a one-off made by a company called Befort in Wetzlar and optimised for 400 nm. Supposedly for projection of silk-screen mask patterns. 140mm long and 4kg in weight, so not as beast-like as the lithography lenses.

The listing has gone from eBay, but the seller was called neustradam if you want to follow it up. I have a picture-free copy of the listing: as I remember it looked rather like the longer APO-Ronars.

Thanks Struan,

I know that lens and met the seller, even had it for test, but the UV transmission was not good (no quartz, just glass) and no appropriate correction. Even got the data from the company who calculated the lens (not allowed to publish btw.). Interesting golden coating, but the aperture was stiff also. he further told me that he wanted to use that lens for copy purposes, but the UV transmitted was not enough for correct exposure even with 5000Watt UV lamps (!!).

400nm is not what I would like to use, more 365nm or 254nm

Struan Gray
7-Dec-2006, 15:38
Then I guess you need to get a big piggie bank and start filling it :-)

Dr Klaus Schmitt
7-Dec-2006, 15:45
Then I guess you need to get a big piggie bank and start filling it :-)

Sighh, guess you're right....

Still hoping that one of the older lenses show up; there is a myth that some were made of quartz....

Struan Gray
7-Dec-2006, 15:50
If you are going to go the custom route, don't discount sapphire: it's a lot cheaper than it used to be (boules up to 30 cm in diameter can be grown these days). The high index of refraction means less sharply-curved surfaces and so less spherical aberration in an imaging lens. Use symmetry for 1:1 on 8x10 and you get a usable imaging system that can take photos of bigger things than flower heads and insects.

The downside of the high index is higher reflection losses. But at least the lenses will be scratch resistant :-)

Dr Klaus Schmitt
7-Dec-2006, 15:55
If you are going to go the custom route, don't discount sapphire: it's a lot cheaper than it used to be (boules up to 30 cm in diameter can be grown these days). The high index of refraction means less sharply-curved surfaces and so less spherical aberration in an imaging lens. Use symmetry for 1:1 on 8x10 and you get a usable imaging system that can take photos of bigger things than flower heads and insects.

The downside of the high index is higher reflection losses. But at least the lenses will be scratch resistant :-)

Thanks Struan,

we have a company here in Germany, that makes custom sapphire lenses and I am in contact with them. Maybe a cooke triplet could be made (?). But if my wife finds out, she surely wants a ring too!

Roc Chan
7-Dec-2006, 20:10
Dr.Klaus
Do you have the means to ground and polish lens? Years ago I got some fused quartz lens blanks- type 106-60mm dia.X4mm,and Homo- 50mm dia.X8mm.I was hoping to polish some simple quartz lens(another project,a retirement project)I could give you couple of blanks if you could use them.

Struan Gray
8-Dec-2006, 01:06
we have a company here in Germany, that makes custom sapphire lenses and I am in contact with them. Maybe a cooke triplet could be made (?). But if my wife finds out, she surely wants a ring too!

www.rubisrsa.com do a nice range of colours to match your decor :-)

Synthetic red ruby balls are very cheap (roughly 2-3 € per mm) if you want to go mad on a necklace. They are such high quality that they're easily spotted as 'fakes' though.

Edmund optics sell fused silica UV-NIR achromatic triplets with optional coatings that cover your wavelengths. The longest focal length is 180 mm which should just cover 4x5, although they don't give coverage figures and the suggested applications indicate they will perform like telescope achromats: ie. good on-axis, ugly off. £1500 or so.

They also have quite cheap (c. £100) fused silica singlets in focal lengths from -300 to +500 mm if you want to experiment on your own.

It would be fun if you could make a sapphire/quartz Cooke lens. I have on my shelf here a lens design book from 1948 that runs through the design and optimisation of a symmetrical Cooke (equally-spaced identical outer converging elements, symmetric inner diverging element). I can send you scans if you're interested.

Have fun, and I look forward to seeing the photographs.

Arne Croell
8-Dec-2006, 07:37
Struan already mentioned it, sapphire has the same problem of birefringence that crystalline quartz has. So its only useable close to the optical axis (assuming it coincides with the crystals c-axis, which it should in a lens). Why not calcium fluoride; being cubic there is no inherent birefringence (at least at the wavelengths mentioned, at really short wavelengths things get more difficult), and its UV transmission is even better than fused silica. Maybe Schott Lithotec and Zeiss have a few pieces left that were too small for todays gigantic lithographic objectives?

Struan Gray
8-Dec-2006, 08:19
Time for a holiday:

http://www.spathfluor.com/_open/open_us/us_op_mines/us_fluorines.htm

http://www.ukminingventures.com/WeardaleMines.htm

Weardale vs. Haute Loire? Tricky choice :-)

FWIW, one reason I have seen given for not using CaF2 is that it is relatively soft, and scratches and imperfections matter more at shorter wavelengths. It is also slightly hygroscopic. In a climate-controlled, clean-room fab neither matters much, and 35 mm lens makers seem to have found solutions that work - but a LF front element might be just a tad too exposed.

Arne Croell
8-Dec-2006, 10:46
Time for a holiday:

http://www.spathfluor.com/_open/open_us/us_op_mines/us_fluorines.htm

http://www.ukminingventures.com/WeardaleMines.htm

Weardale vs. Haute Loire? Tricky choice :-)

FWIW, one reason I have seen given for not using CaF2 is that it is relatively soft, and scratches and imperfections matter more at shorter wavelengths. It is also slightly hygroscopic. In a climate-controlled, clean-room fab neither matters much, and 35 mm lens makers seem to have found solutions that work - but a LF front element might be just a tad too exposed.

Nice URL's, Struan, thanks. The UV transmission of those materials might be variable though. ;-)

You are right about the softness and scratch problems, as the hardness on the Mohs scale is only 4. I don't think its hygroscopic, though - how would those crystals survive in the dripping wet mines? (However, oxygen and OH- groups in the ppm range are a big problem in the grown crystals for Lithography applications). Maybe you had NaCl and KCl crystals in mind, which are also grown for optical applications?
Canon used fluorite crystals in some of their early 35mm extreme telephoto lenses - they were all located inside because of the scratch problem, but I doubt they were hermetically sealed to the environment.

Anyway, I don't know if Klaus wants to do monochromatic photography in the UV or not - if not, he needs at least 2 different UV materials to get a UV achromat. The usual choice there is a combination of fused quartz and CaF2.

Arne Croell
8-Dec-2006, 10:51
Time for a holiday:

http://www.spathfluor.com/_open/open_us/us_op_mines/us_fluorines.htm

http://www.ukminingventures.com/WeardaleMines.htm

Here is the synthetic version:

http://www.schott.com/lithotec/english/index.html?PHPSESSID=bad69d32e09c6c91d082e48bb2c133b4

Struan Gray
8-Dec-2006, 13:33
Nice URL's, Struan, thanks. The UV transmission of those materials might be variable though. ;-)

True. I seem to remember that Abbé used natural flourite in microscope objectives, but I don't know which mine he sourced it from.

Another tidbit on quartz: the (Holy Roman) Emporer Rudolf II collected all sorts of curiosities, including some truly phenomenal examples of quartz carving. Many of them can be seen in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (or could, if it were currently open). They include a large (c. 15 cm across) gold-mounted lens with zodiac signs carved+painted on the surface. I have always wondered what it was for. At the less useful end of the spectrum were things like this:

http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?/staticE/page1812.html
http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?/staticE/page270.html


You are right about the softness and scratch problems, as the hardness on the Mohs scale is only 4. I don't think its hygroscopic, though - how would those crystals survive in the dripping wet mines?

I confess my only direct experience with UV optics has been with trying to get UV light through vacuum windows. There CaF2 is an option, but avoided in favour of more mechanically robust materials if possible. A quick trawl through various datasheets indicated that single crystals were pretty immune, but that powdered CaF2 was hygroscopic. I assumed that defects on the crystal surface or grain boundaries in microcrystalline material can getter water. This would make a scratch age unpredictably, and perhaps act as a nucleation site for further deterioration.

Pure speculation though, and I happily defer to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about. :-)

Dr Klaus Schmitt
8-Dec-2006, 13:49
Struan, Arne, Roc,

thanks for all these overwhelminh hints, yet I can't grind lenses nor do I have someone to that for me, nor would I like to wait that long. Fluoride btw. is extremely hard to work with, very brittle and thus expensive. I talked to a lens company recently and they refused to work with that anymore.

Arne is right, I don't want to do monochromatic photography, but use the full UV range (and ideally be able to focus with normal light), thus a Cooke triplet would need fluoride + quartz most likely. I talked to a lens designer (Brian C.), but unfortunately he said that this solution would not suffice.

For 35mm work I have enought UV lenses here, but LF would be my goal.

Arne Croell
8-Dec-2006, 14:58
True. I seem to remember that Abbé used natural flourite in microscope objectives, but I don't know which mine he sourced it from.
Yes, for the apochromatic objectives (not for UV). Initially that material came from Switzerland, from the Oltscherenalp near Brienz. In later years, the Zeiss company sought fluorspar material from all over the world, including the Christiania mine in Norway. There is an article in the 1999 "Jenaer Jahrbuch" on Ernst Abbe and crystalline materials, detailing the history.

Roc Chan
9-Dec-2006, 20:35
For historical aspect of UV photography the only references is from a 1974 reprint of a 1911 Encyclopedia of Photography by Arno Press of New York.In pp550"Victor Schumann using a quartz Spectrograph with silver iodide-----but very little gelatine---"this must be the low gelatine Schumann emulsion for UV .There was also Eder that works with UV on silver chloride,and bromide.No first name ,just Eder.Hope this 2 names help

Dr Klaus Schmitt
11-Dec-2006, 02:25
I heard rumours that about 30 years ago there had been an enlarger which used violet/ultraviolet light to allow work in dimmed normal light using special coated paper. The lens they used was made of plastic lenses by USSR factory LOMO (if I can trust teh rumours). Anyone ever heard of those?

Arne Croell
12-Dec-2006, 05:37
I heard rumours that about 30 years ago there had been an enlarger which used violet/ultraviolet light to allow work in dimmed normal light using special coated paper. The lens they used was made of plastic lenses by USSR factory LOMO (if I can trust teh rumours). Anyone ever heard of those?

No , I didn't. But plastic lenses sounds not likely - in the book by Naumann (Naumann/Schröder - Baulelemente der Optik) the most common optical plastics (PMMA, Polystyrene, Polycarbonate) have a reduced transmission (77-88%) already at 400nm. But maybe there are others, I am not a polymer expert.

Ron Marshall
12-Dec-2006, 07:23
You might be interested in this thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=21697

Dr Klaus Schmitt
12-Dec-2006, 14:47
You might be interested in this thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=21697

Thanks Ron,

I have that lens, does 350nm, but that is its limit, and no LF lens (maybe 6x6).

Dr Klaus Schmitt
12-Dec-2006, 14:49
No , I didn't. But plastic lenses sounds not likely - in the book by Naumann (Naumann/Schröder - Baulelemente der Optik) the most common optical plastics (PMMA, Polystyrene, Polycarbonate) have a reduced transmission (77-88%) already at 400nm. But maybe there are others, I am not a polymer expert.

http://www.filmlives.net/files/pmma_uv_691.jpg

Struan Gray
13-Dec-2006, 01:48
If you think quartz and sapphire are birefringent, wait until you try and hold a plastic lens in place with anything other than anti-gravity dilithium crystals.

Marc
13-Dec-2006, 02:50
Klaus,

I have looked into UV lenses for a while now for a couple of different reasons, coming from a slightly different viewpoint. I'm using excimer radiation (248nm) to image mask systems for materials processing. I have also briefly looked into making a UV enlarger for AltProcesses a while ago. I have not looked at pictorial uses as such, but I think this isn't too far off. Just don't expect a performance as of a modern plasmat type desing :)

I have not found any historical lenses (well, I never really looked), and I think at least at the wavelength I am looking at, it would be difficult to make true achromats, purely since I am not aware of any cement that transmits suitably at these wavelengths.

Lens materials I considered (am considering) is fused silica (UV spec), CaF2 and MgF2. I never considered Al2O3 simply due to cost: a standard window is more expensive than a SiO2 lens. With the above materials, it should be possible to make a kind of "airspaced achromat", probably from silica and MgF2. This in turn would allow you to make Dialyte designs or even a Tessar. A Cooke triplet is certainly a distinct possibility. For the enlarger I was thinking a simple Double Gauss design. Keeping the number of elements down is probably key to performance and cost... Do you have access to an optics design system (Zeemax, etc.) Even Linos' free Winlens may be a good starting point.

If you want to go the homegrown route, good sources for optics are CVI techoptics on the Isle of man. Custom optics, and AR coatings for whichever wavelengths you want. One off lenses are a bit more expensive though... If you can stick to standard focal lengths things aren't too silly. I found Kingsley's book on lens design quite useful while I was looking into this.

Our project for the imaging lens is on hold at the moment (more important things to deal with), but I'd like to resurrect this at some point.
I hope I haven't gone too far off topic...:)

Marc

Arne Croell
13-Dec-2006, 05:29
Klaus, thanks for the graphs. I didn't know there was a special UV-PMMA, as well as another plastic.

Struan, stress birefringence in plastics could be a problem, no question. Anything injection molded will show it. Not sure about the value of Delta n for that vs. the natural birefringence in the crystal materials in question.

Marc, OSLO has a freeware version of its software, called OSLO Edu, which allows up to 10 surfaces (includes the image plane and the aperture plane), that is a maximum of 4 freestanding lenses. That allows a dialyte, a simple double Gauss, a Triplet or a Tessar construction.

Struan Gray
13-Dec-2006, 06:44
Struan, stress birefringence in plastics could be a problem, no question. Anything injection molded will show it. Not sure about the value of Delta n for that vs. the natural birefringence in the crystal materials in question.

A rough figure culled from people who try to make acrylic waveguides on the surfaces of silicon chips is a difference in refractive index of about 10^-4 for a 1-2% strain. Pure acrylics will also have at least that degree of birefringence from residual molecular orientation. The latter can be reduced with co-polymers, but at the expense of UV transmission.

Quartz and Sapphire have a natural birefringence about a hundred times stronger. The figure for acrylic is of the same order as that for optical glasses, but of the opposite sign. Acrylics are softer, so the same deforming force gives more birefringence.

As I understand it though, the real problem isn't the birefringence per-se, it is that both the stress and orientational birefringence tends to be non-uniform. Good enough for eyeglasses (and, I think, the lenses on Kodak Disk cameras :-), but I would be doubtful about LF lenses working at short wavelengths.

Vivek Iyer
13-Dec-2006, 09:36
Quartz lenses- would mostly be of an ancient origin. If someone makes an UV lens (for any format), there are special glasses available that should do.

See for example: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5547904.html

Does anyone know of the practical feasibility of photographing with light <300nm without vacuum? Apart from the transmission of shorter wavelength UV through our atmospheric surroundings, there is also this minor problem of the sensor (or film) sensitivity to UV below 300nm.

Struan Gray
14-Dec-2006, 02:25
Vivek, there are lots of solutions for solid-state UV detectors below 300 nm, and regular silicon photodiodes work fine provided their packaging does not absorb the radiation. Research into better detectors is mostly concentrated on making the sensor blind to visible light, or specific to particular absorbtion lines for, say, pollution detection.

Analogue film is trickier because the gelatin absorbs a lot of the light. Low-gelatin emulsions or bare silver halide crystals on a support used to be the way of coping with this, but these days everyone uses solid state detectors.

As a rough rule of thumb physics experiments move into vacuum somewhere between 300 and 200 nm. There are bright UV lasers for cutting and welding that operate at low wavelengths in air, but even with them you try to keep the in-air path length as short as possible. For photography you have to also consider your light source: the black body solar spectrum cuts off pretty sharply before you get to 200 nm, even before you take into account atmospheric absorbtion.

Vivek Iyer
14-Dec-2006, 04:17
Struan, Yes. Barring some special formulation (may not be accessible nowadays), B&W film (or plates) won't work below 300nm.

Solid state sensors: Truly astonishing developments! Back thinned CCD sensors can do as low as 160nm! Currently, only very small area chips of this kind are easily available (for a price, of course!). These are all monochrome devices.

As for practical photography below 300nm outside a lab, and for longer distances, I do not see any hope at all. Terrestrial imaging at infinity may not be possible.

So, who needs Quartz? :)

rob
14-Dec-2006, 08:16
Doesn't x-ray which has shorter wavelength than UV expose silver BW film?

Vivek Iyer
14-Dec-2006, 08:47
Doesn't x-ray which has shorter wavelength than UV expose silver BW film?


Yes. Gelatin, plastic base, etc do not absorb X-Ray.

Ron Marshall
14-Dec-2006, 09:38
Quartz lenses- would mostly be of an ancient origin. If someone makes an UV lens (for any format), there are special glasses available that should do.

See for example: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5547904.html

Does anyone know of the practical feasibility of photographing with light <300nm without vacuum? Apart from the transmission of shorter wavelength UV through our atmospheric surroundings, there is also this minor problem of the sensor (or film) sensitivity to UV below 300nm.

Vacuum UV begins at 200nm and UV ends at about 30nm. A pure nitrogen atmosphere will pass UV below 200nm, as it is the oxygen that is opaque to UV.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
14-Dec-2006, 10:00
Are we getting a bit lop-sided here now? My orginal question was for LF lenses which would allow for up to the 254nm mercury line (which I intend to use for ease of lighting).

Vivek Iyer
14-Dec-2006, 10:38
Vacuum UV begins at 200nm and UV ends at about 30nm. A pure nitrogen atmosphere will pass UV below 200nm, as it is the oxygen that is opaque to UV.

Yup! That just poses a small problem of Ozone generation! :)

Vivek Iyer
14-Dec-2006, 17:27
Are we getting a bit lop-sided here now? My orginal question was for LF lenses which would allow for up to the 254nm mercury line (which I intend to use for ease of lighting).

Klaus, the UV-Sonnar will cover 4x5 at close distances.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
14-Dec-2006, 17:39
Klaus, the UV-Sonnar will cover 4x5 at close distances.

Thanks Vivek,

I thought it would only just cover 6x6cm.

Vivek Iyer
14-Dec-2006, 17:51
I would definitely give it (your sample that is) a try. Mine does anyway.

See: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Eaap

Dr Klaus Schmitt
14-Dec-2006, 18:03
I would definitely give it (your sample that is) a try. Mine does anyway.

See: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Eaap

OK, thanks. The weak after Xmas might be just right for things like that.

Vivek Iyer
14-Dec-2006, 18:21
Klaus, Another real solution would be to get rid of the focus barrel from an UV-Nikkor.

The 105/4.5 lens (without the long focus mount) should cover 6x9 comfortably.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
15-Dec-2006, 08:38
Klaus, Another real solution would be to get rid of the focus barrel from an UV-Nikkor.

The 105/4.5 lens (without the long focus mount) should cover 6x9 comfortably.

Quite an expensive idea to test out the "...should cover...", guess I'm not willing for the time being to do surgery like that. But thanks for the idea.

Vivek Iyer
15-Dec-2006, 08:59
Buy a normal 105/4 Micronikkor, get rid of the focus bits an try it for yourself.

The 105/4.5 UV-Nikkor is slightly a different design but is more likely to cover a larger area than the 105/4 Micronikkor due to its concave front element.

This is a lot "cheaper" than getting a new lens custom made to cover a large area.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
28-Dec-2006, 12:32
Group,

I have updated my database www.macrolenses.de (http://www.macrolenses.de) with some special lenses for reflected UV photography (most 35mm, one 6x6):

Nikon UV Nikkor 105mm (http://www.macrolenses.de/ml_detail_sl.php?ObjektiveNr=298)
Coastal Optics 105mm (http://www.macrolenses.de/ml_detail_sl.php?ObjektiveNr=299)
Zeiss UV-Sonnar 105mm (http://www.macrolenses.de/ml_detail_sl.php?ObjektiveNr=301)
Zeiss UV-Planar 60mm (http://www.macrolenses.de/ml_detail_sl.php?ObjektiveNr=303)
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon 60mm (http://www.macrolenses.de/ml_detail_sl.php?ObjektiveNr=302)
Tochigi UV 105mm (UV Nikkor 105mm replacement) (http://www.macrolenses.de/ml_detail_sl.php?ObjektiveNr=300)

I'm NOT looking for those, but for Quartz LF lenses!!

Enjoy!

Ernest Purdum
30-Jan-2007, 16:11
I was just looking through an old Zeiss listing and came across this one.

"Quartz-Anastigmat f4.5

Rapid special lens for criminological and scientific photography particularly with ultra-violet light"

It goes on to list two sizes, 12 cm and 25cm. There were also two types; one corrected, and one not corrected, for color. They were mounted in shutters.

In the front portion of the catalog it says:

The objectives of this class transmit not only the visible but also the ultra-violet light down to extremely short wave lengths - about 200mu. (Note - no Greek on my computer.) We make these objectives in two types. One is entirely of quartz and is therefore not corrected for colour; the other contains an additional lens of another material for the purpose of chromatic correction. Both types are supplied with a relative aperture of f4.5 and focal lengths of 12 and 25cm. The objective is corrected in such a manner that it gives the best performance at a scale ratio of about 1:5 and can be used for a field of about 35 degrees. Both types of objective are unsymmetrical anastigmats consisting of three separate elements. In the case of the chromatically corrected quartz anastigmats the center ilement consists of three component lenses."

They also mention a special leaflet.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
30-Jan-2007, 16:50
I was just looking through an old Zeiss listing and came across this one.

"Quartz-Anastigmat f4.5

Rapid special lens for criminological and scientific photography particularly with ultra-violet light"

It goes on to list two sizes, 12 cm and 25cm. There were also two types; one corrected, and one not corrected, for color. They were mounted in shutters.

In the front portion of the catalog it says:

The objectives of this class transmit not only the visible but also the ultra-violet light down to extremely short wave lengths - about 200mu. (Note - no Greek on my computer.) We make these objectives in two types. One is entirely of quartz and is therefore not corrected for colour; the other contains an additional lens of another material for the purpose of chromatic correction. Both types are supplied with a relative aperture of f4.5 and focal lengths of 12 and 25cm. The objective is corrected in such a manner that it gives the best performance at a scale ratio of about 1:5 and can be used for a field of about 35 degrees. Both types of objective are unsymmetrical anastigmats consisting of three separate elements. In the case of the chromatically corrected quartz anastigmats the center ilement consists of three component lenses."

They also mention a special leaflet.

Thanks Ernest,

appreciate that a lot, was not know to me until know. If not too much asked for, I would appreciate a scan of that?!

Thanks, Klaus

Ernest Purdum
30-Jan-2007, 17:34
Klaus, I tried to answer you earlier, but I guess it didn't work, here goes again. My scanner is garbage, but I will take some photos during my next shoot and send them to you.

Regards,

Ernest

Dr Klaus Schmitt
31-Jan-2007, 02:40
Klaus, I tried to answer you earlier, but I guess it didn't work, here goes again. My scanner is garbage, but I will take some photos during my next shoot and send them to you.

Regards,

Ernest

Thanks a lot Ernest, appreciate that a lot!

Cheers, klaus

Dr Klaus Schmitt
1-Feb-2007, 02:42
Thanks for the shots Ernest.

How come my emails to you bounces back ?

Cheers, Klaus

Ernest Purdum
1-Feb-2007, 06:36
Klaus, I have no idea what would causing an email bounce. My email address is ernestpurdum@aol.com. Is that the one you were using?

Best regards,

Ernest

Dr Klaus Schmitt
5-Mar-2007, 11:27
Group,

I was able to auction a Goerz Quartz Syntor 6.8/180mm lens. It looks like a normal Syntor, but has an inscription which reads "Identisch mit Quarz-Anastigmat No. 321244".

Anyone some info on that lens?

Thanks, Klaus

Dr Klaus Schmitt
14-Dec-2009, 18:13
Funny that after so long time I finally found such a lens, and just a few days later also a front cell of that Achromat-Quarz-Anastigmat 1:4.5 f=12cm (thanks again Ernest for the scans!). According to THIELE that lens was made 18.08.1930 in a batch of 25, in total 52 were ever made (2 + 25 + 25), mine was from the last batch. The achromat cell I found was the first ever made of that type on 15.03.1929, in total 11 (1 + 10) were made.

Dominique Cesari
16-Dec-2009, 09:31
S'il vient ā point me souviendra
(if I can achieve it, one will remenber of me - an XVI th century motto)
A niece piece to add to your highly regarded collection.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
16-Dec-2009, 10:59
Merci Dominique - a fine motto, I should make that mine!!