PDA

View Full Version : Small, but powerful -- micro LF lenses



xkaes
10-Sep-2017, 12:21
Yesterday, I received my second Minolta (Rokkor mount) to Leica (39mm screw mount) adapter made by Novoflex -- $20.

169565

It was too good a deal to pass up. I already have an adapter -- which is unbranded (right). I think I got it at Cambridge Camera in NYC. It works fine but had a small light leak around the release button which I solved with a bit of black silicone sealant -- which you can see in the photo. The dimensions of the two adapters, such as width and depth are the same, but the Novoflex seems to be much better quality -- at least in appearance.

169566

The Novoflex is tagged "LEIMIN" on the side -- Leica on the rear and Minolta on the front -- while the unbranded model is marked "MIN-LE" on the back.

169567

I attach these to my 4x5 TOKO cameras with Leica to Copal #1 adapter -- in the front. Schneider, and others made these.

169568

Then I throw on an appropriate Minolta macro or micro lens for the magnification I need -- which I will upload in the next post since I am limited to four photos per post.

xkaes
10-Sep-2017, 12:23
OK, then I throw on an appropriate Minolta macro or micro lens for the magnification I need -- Here is a Minolta 12.5mm f2 on the left and a Minolta 25mm f2.5 on the right.

169569

Minolta made three adapters for microscope lenses. The first is tagged "M", is flat, and was produced when Minolta sold Leitz Photar lenses for their cameras. The later ones are M-1 (right) and M-2 (left). The M-1 is basically the same as the M, while the M-2 has an extended, tapered cone, to allow light/flash to get in closer to the subject. Olympus made these types of adapters due to their extensive work in microscopy, other may have as well.

You might think that you can't use a 35mm or microscope lens on a large format camera. Obviously, you can. Whether it fits your film will depend on your film format, the lens' coverage, and the amount of magnification. But even if it doesn't fill your format completely at a given magnification, you can always crop out the edges.

169574

Enlarging lenses can be adapted as well -- REALLY cheap!!!

Two23
10-Sep-2017, 12:50
These actually cover 4x5?


Kent in SD

xkaes
10-Sep-2017, 13:11
These actually cover 4x5?


Kent in SD

You might think that you can't use a 35mm or microscope lens on a large format camera. Obviously, you can. Whether it fits your film will depend on your film format, the lens' coverage, and the amount of magnification. But even if it doesn't fill your format completely at a given magnification, you can always crop out the edges.

Dan Fromm
10-Sep-2017, 13:46
Kent, it is a question of magnification. Coverage increases with magnification. Extension required to get the magnification increases with magnification, decreases with focal length.

There's a world of high performance macro lenses out there, mainly from microscope manufacturers and from merchant lens maker's (think Nikon, Leitz and Zeiss) microscope divisions. The majority of these lenses, up to around 65 mm, are in RMS thread mount. 0.800"x36tpi. Nearly all are best shot wide open.

Many were made to cover 4x5 at their recommended magnifications. The longer ones, e.g., 100/6.3 Zeiss BRD Luminar, 100/6.3 Reichert Neupolar, 90/6.3 CZJ Mikrotars, are usable at distance on small formats. My 100/6.3 Neupolar is surprisingly good, but only on 6x6, at distance.

Joe neglected to mention that his two Minolta lenses, Leitz Photars in all but engraving, are in RMS thread. He also neglected to mention that some of the adapters he mentioned go from RMS to M39x1 (or perhaps 26tpi).

Hint: if you can provide the extension, the 55/2.8 MicroNikkor reversed and shot at f/4 is the best inexpensive macro lens in its focal length range for 2x3 (from 2:1 up to 10:1) and 4x5 (from ~ 3.6:1 up to 10:1) that I've tested. Sharper than my 63/4.5 Luminar wide open. Users on the French LF forum say that the 55/3.5 MicroNikkor is a little better. My wife has one but I've never tried it in this application.

xkaes
10-Sep-2017, 16:06
Joe neglected to mention that his two Minolta lenses, Leitz Photars in all but engraving, are in RMS thread. He also neglected to mention that some of the adapters he mentioned go from RMS to M39x1 (or perhaps 26tpi).

Yes, the Minolta 25mm and 12.5mm -- and Photars -- have an RMS thread. Minolta adapters convert it to a Minolta Rokkor mount. But other camera manufacturers -- and others -- have made RMS adapters to Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Leica 39mm, and other mounts. These are easy to get. There are a TON of RMS lenses out there that can be used on LF cameras. But 12.5mm is about as close as I need to go.

Bob Salomon
10-Sep-2017, 16:07
Yes, the Minolta 25mm and 12.5mm -- and Photars -- have an RMS thread. Minolta adapters convert it to a Minolta Rokkor mount. But other camera manufacturers -- and others -- have made RMS adapters to Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Leica 39mm, and other mounts. These are easy to get. There are a TON of RMS lenses out there that can be used on LF cameras. But 12.5mm is about as close as I need to go.
The Schneider M Componon macro lenses all came in 39mm Leica thread.

xkaes
10-Sep-2017, 18:22
Many, but not all, of the Componon 28mm and 35mm enlarging lenses came in a 25mm x 0.5mm thread.

Bob Salomon
10-Sep-2017, 18:26
Many, but not all, of the Componon 28mm and 35mm enlarging lenses came in a 25mm x 0.5mm thread.

M Componon lenses were not enlarging lenses. They were macro lenses that basically replaced the Zeiss Luminars once they were discontinued.

xkaes
11-Sep-2017, 04:23
M Componon lenses were not enlarging lenses.

I never said they were, but since I referred to enlarging lenses earlier in this thread, I thought I would clarify.

Schneider made a special M-Componon 28mm f4 lens designed for macro use. The main difference between it and the "regular" 28mm f4 Componon is that it came with a 29.5mm rear thread designed specifically to fit into a Copal #0 shutter – not an enlarger. Also, it has an odd f-stop ring running from 1 - 2 – 4 – 8 – 16, instead of the usual 4 – 5.6 – 8 – 11 – 16. These two differences can tell you if it is the regular Componon or the M-Componon, besides the fact that the M-Componon is clearly engraved "M-Componon". Some suggest that the M-Componon has a different optical design for better high magnification results, but if you look at the lens diagrams, you can see that the symmetrical design of each is the same.

Bernice Loui
11-Sep-2017, 09:37
Spoke to the folks at Schneider decades ago at a trade show about M-componon. They are indeed a reverse mounted Componon (or why Schneider kept the root designation) intended to be used in shutter for much greater than 1 to 1 image ratios. Identical performance can be achieved by reverse mounting a Componon.

Zeiss Luminar was part of the Zeiss Ultrahot system. Zeiss Ultraphot has a 4x5 camera designed in.
http://www.photonicmicrodevices.com/images/DSC04431.JPG


Difficulty with macophotography-imaging, lighting due to the small distances between optic and subject. There is also the other serious problem of set up stability and shutter vibration. These problems are nicely addressed by the Zeiss Ultraphot system, Zeiss Tessovar and Wild M400-M420 Macroscope (one of the best macro photo image systems. Lives on today as re-packaged/deigned Leica Z6 and Z16).
https://www.si.edu/mci/images/Microscopy/Macro02.jpg

All three of these can be used with 4x5 sheet film with trade-offs in degraded image quality.
Sheet film for macro work often results in degraded image quality and depth of focus-depth of field problems.


Bernice

Bob Salomon
11-Sep-2017, 10:12
I never said they were, but since I referred to enlarging lenses earlier in this thread, I thought I would clarify.

Schneider made a special M-Componon 28mm f4 lens designed for macro use. The main difference between it and the "regular" 28mm f4 Componon is that it came with a 29.5mm rear thread designed specifically to fit into a Copal #0 shutter not an enlarger. Also, it has an odd f-stop ring running from 1 - 2 4 8 16, instead of the usual 4 5.6 8 11 16. These two differences can tell you if it is the regular Componon or the M-Componon, besides the fact that the M-Componon is clearly engraved "M-Componon". Some suggest that the M-Componon has a different optical design for better high magnification results, but if you look at the lens diagrams, you can see that the symmetrical design of each is the same.
When the Luminars were discontinued Linhof switched to the M Componon series of lenses for their Macro Lensboard/Shutter system which was a Technica lensboard with a tapered tube mounted to it and a Copal 0 shutter mounted to the front of the tapered tube. The tube was tapered to aid in getting lighting closer to the lens for front lighting. The shutter had the Leica screw thread and the M Componon lenses, from 28 to 80 mm, all screwed directly into the shutter with no need for adapters as the Luminars required. All of the M Componon lenses, in all focal lengths, that we imported and sold had standard aperture scales.

Greg
11-Sep-2017, 10:26
Since the 1970s, I have been doing LF Photomicrography and Photomicophotography. Following are some of the lenses I have used and my experiences using them.

19mm f/2.8, 35mm f/4.5, 65mm f/4.5, and 120mm f/6.3 Macro-Nikkors
These have been my go to optics for photomicrography 99% of the time. Used on a Multiphot 95% of the time with the 4x5 format. My samples were purchased in the 1970s and early 1980s from adds in SHUTTERBUG (remember that monthly classified ads "newspaper"?). No one really knew what they were, so they went for only a couple (or even less) of hundred dollars each. Now they go for for over $1,000.00 each, and in my opinion are worth purchasing at the current going for prices if you are really serious about pursuing Photomicrography. Still use them to shoot 4x5 chromes until I find a Better Light digital back at a fair and reasonable price. At first had to bracket 2 or 3 exposures when I was using my Horseman 4x5 exposure meter back. Once I acquired a Sinar Gossen "spot" metering back, rarely shoot bracketed exposures.

30mm f/3.5 Topcon
For me this was my "on location" really close-up nature photography lens. Used it on a Rollei SL-66. A real bargain to be had when you find one of them up for auction.

Zuiko Auto-Macro Lens 20mm f/2
Used one for a while but ended up selling it since I also owned a 19mm Macro Nikkor. Image quality similar to the 19mm Macro-Nikkor, but didn't like its Bokeh when shooting 3D objects.

Leitz 120mm f/4.5 Summar
Had the opportunity to pick up a Leitz 12cm f/4.5 Summar at a truly bargain price. So... tested it against my 120mm f/6.3 Macro-Nikkor. Was a bit surprised at the results. Diffraction as one uses smaller apertures is the Achilles heal of resolution in the realm of Photomicrography. I was amazed at the seemingly absent effects of diffraction as I stopped down the Summar. For flat specimens, resolution wise, the 120mm f/6.3 Macro-Nikko was the winner hands down. But for shooting 3D objects, the 120mm Summar seems to defy the laws of diffraction. Subjectively, the 12cm Summar can be stopped down 2 stops further than the 120mm Macro Nikkor before resolution takes a real hit. If you're into close-up photography with your 4x5, in my opinion the Leitz 12cm f/4.5 Summar is the ultimate optic.

I would really love to include Photars and Luminars, but I have used them infrequently over the years, so someone who has had more experience using them would be a lot more qualified to comment on them.

Thank you Bernice Loui for confirming that M-Componons were reverse mounted Companions. This was rumored back when, but Schneider would not confirm it, and none of us had any M-Componoins to compare.

Attached is part of a page from my 1961 Burke & James catalog. It lists some interesting optics. What I find interesting is the phrase in the upper left "Infinity corrected Lenses for Photomicrography".

Dan Fromm
11-Sep-2017, 10:46
Folks, if you want to learn about the wretched things in some depth, consult some of the books on closeup/photomacrography that are now listed in my list of useful links. You'll have to buy the books, but at least I give the information you'll need to do that and microreviews.

Mark Sawyer
11-Sep-2017, 11:49
...Some suggest that the M-Componon has a different optical design for better high magnification results, but if you look at the lens diagrams, you can see that the symmetrical design of each is the same.


...Spoke to the folks at Schneider decades ago at a trade show about M-componon. They are indeed a reverse mounted Componon (or why Schneider kept the root designation) intended to be used in shutter for much greater than 1 to 1 image ratios.

So why would someone reverse-mount a symmetrical lens? I must be missing something here... :confused:

Dan Fromm
11-Sep-2017, 14:11
Mark, Joe McGloin clings to the silly belief that enlarging lenses are symmetrical. Silly because a perfectly symmetrical lens is optimized for 1:1. That's not enlarging. The typical enlarging lens is optimized for anywhere from 5x or so to 10x or so, has to be somewhat asymmetrical. If you think about it for a moment you'll see why reversing the lens for taking at magnifications above 1:1 will get the most out of its optimizations.

Greg
11-Sep-2017, 14:12
6 elements
4 groups
front and rear elements are similar but not symmetrical

Mark Sawyer
11-Sep-2017, 15:17
Thank you, gentlemen! I'm a bit out of my area with enlarging lenses, so let me see if I'm getting this right... Enlarging lenses are made for 5x to 10x, but the light is travelling through the lens from the rear cell first, so to use them as 5x to 10x on a camera, you reverse them so the light is still entering through the rear cell first? And in normal configuration front-cell first) on a camera, they would be optimized for more normal (near-infinity) use?

BTW, it looks like Schneider went through at least one tweak on the Componon layout:

Dan Fromm
11-Sep-2017, 15:36
exactly

xkaes
11-Sep-2017, 17:21
I'm not "clinging" to anything. I never said that enlarging lenses are all symmetrical. Of course not. Any enlarging lens with an odd number of elements (and there are many) can't be symmetrical.

But these two look darn close.

169623

What I said was, whether using a taking lens or enlarging lens for macro work, you should check the lens design before attempting to reverse it -- assuming you physically can -- because reversing a symmetrical lens accomplished nothing!

Dan Fromm
11-Sep-2017, 23:09
You're clinging. The front and rear cells' inner elements aren't identical..

LabRat
12-Sep-2017, 01:31
One interesting observation I made while servicing 35mm pro lab slide dupers (that used enlarging lenses) was that when used at exactly 1:1, most standard enlarger lenses (Componons, etc) started to get quite mushy, but if I backed off the distance slightly to allow some frame edges, the images became tack sharp, so I figured that was the limit of forward mounted lenses on these... Managed to reverse some lenses, but some didn't fit inside the lens cone, bellows or fixed mounting, so I added a +2 close-up lens on these, and they finally shot very sharp...

Just a thought...

Steve K

xkaes
14-Sep-2017, 09:30
Managed to reverse some lenses, but some didn't fit inside the lens cone, bellows or fixed mounting, so I added a +2 close-up lens on these, and they finally shot very sharp...

Just a thought...

Steve K

You are right on target. I should have thought of that. Just because I don't need to do that, doesn't mean that it will not be a big help to others. I'll add your idea to my "supplementary lenses" page -- http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/close-up.htm. Thanks!!

And, of course, when using a "close-up filter" as you suggest, it is best to use the best quality "supplementary lens" as possible. Most have only one element, but some have two, a few three, and a couple have four! This is important to keep the edges of the image as sharp as possible.

Here is a great website that lists, probably, 99% of the 2+ element "close-up filters". Single element optics can be used, but quality will not be at its best:

http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html

If you happen to have any additional information for the list, I'm sure the author would appreciate it. I was about to give him info on a couple of Minolta items that he didn't know about.

Bob Salomon
14-Sep-2017, 11:22
You are right on target. I should have thought of that. Just because I don't need to do that, doesn't mean that it will not be a big help to others. I'll add your idea to my "supplementary lenses" page -- http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/close-up.htm. Thanks!!

And, of course, when using a "close-up filter" as you suggest, it is best to use the best quality "supplementary lens" as possible. Most have only one element, but some have two, a few three, and a couple have four! This is important to keep the edges of the image as sharp as possible.

Here is a great website that lists, probably, 99% of the 2+ element "close-up filters". Single element optics can be used, but quality will not be at its best:

http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html

If you happen to have any additional information for the list, I'm sure the author would appreciate it. I was about to give him info on a couple of Minolta items that he didn't know about.
Multiple element + lenses are called achromats and they are much more expensive then single element close up lenses.