Prime slr lens on a crown graphic??!

[Benjaminxon]

Is it possible?

I've grown weary of the dreary digital age but I've got a couple very nice prime nikon lenses an im wondering (after googling high and low) if there exists or is even Possible a a lens board/adapter that allows for me to utilize my prime lenses on my grown graphic?

Any answers would be wonderful, especially if it includes a, 'yes! And heres a link'

Thank you very much for any information.

[Leigh]

I think it highly unlikely.

The flange focal distance on Nikon F-mount lenses is 46.5mm, which puts the lensboard awfully close to the film plane.

Then there's the angle of view and the image circle diameter. The lenses would certainly not cover 4x5 or even close.

Does the Crown have a focal plane shutter (I think not)? Nikon SLR lenses do not have shutters.

- Leigh

[TheDeardorffGuy]

Are you thinking of using a 50mm Nikkor from your 35mm Nikon? These lenses cover 1x1.5 inches and will not cover 4x5 inches.

[Benjaminxon]

There isn't an adapter with a shutter built in where you could just plug a slr lens onto it? Enabling the prime lens to be utilized on a large format.

[Leigh]

Benjamin,

You need to review my previous response, then do some research to understand the terminology.

You clearly do not understand basic lens functionality and specifications.
Understanding those subjects is critical to selecting lenses for LF work.

- Leigh

[ic-racer]

Which lenses? The focal length will determine if you can use them. I'd say just about any of the Nikkors from 240mm to 75mm should work. As you may know you will have to use the ground glass back for focusing unless you have a cam that matches the focal length of your Nikkor. You will have to locate the appropriate lens boards to use the lenses on the Crown. If you have barrel lenses (process, reproduction or enlarging lenses) without a shutter you will have some difficulty as you know the Crown does not have a shutter either.

[Benjaminxon]

Benjamin,

You need to review my previous response, then do some research to understand the terminology.

You clearly do not understand basic lens functionality and specifications.
Understanding those subjects is critical to selecting lenses for LF work.

- Leigh

Understanding basic camera funtions, all you need is apature, light, and a light sensitive surface. With that in mind, what is stopping a large format camera being fitted with, for example a Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AF-D? A shutter is needed, which could go between the lense and the bellows. Really the flange focal distance doesnt matter if the adapter is build correctly to allow it. Realistically, the biggest issue i could think of is the weight of the larger lenses. Possibly an unfortable set up, especially with a hand held crown graphic. If the adapter doesnt exist then so be it but mathimatically it's viable. Am i wrong? Am I thinking too far out of the box?

[Leigh]

Understanding basic camera funtions, all you need is apature, light, and a light sensitive surface... Am i wrong?
Benjamin,

Yes, you certainly are wrong.

You are so far out in left field that it's impossible to continue the conversation.

As I said previously, you know absolutely nothing about what is required to use a lens on an LF camera,
and since you're not willing to learn, I shan't waste any more time on the subject.

- Leigh

[Benjaminxon]

Benjamin,

Yes, you certainly are wrong.

You are so far out in left field that it's impossible to continue the conversation.

As I said previously, you know absolutely nothing about what is required to use a lens on an LF camera,
and since you're not willing to learn, I shan't waste any more time on the subject.

- Leigh

What implies me not willing to learn? I'm now looking for more, other than 'It won't work.' What would it produce? Why couldn't you make it happen? Best case scenario things would be blurry?



The flange focal distance on Nikon F-mount lenses is 46.5mm, which puts the lensboard awfully close to the film plane.

Awfully close? 69014 Why couldn't the adapter allow the lens to sit farther away?



Then there's the angle of view and the image circle diameter. The lenses would certainly not cover 4x5 or even close.

In my head it makes sense, but without sitting down to do the math I can't point out the specifics. Found this while refusing to learn :-p
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/why.html:
The equivalent of a 24mm in 35mm is a 75/90 lens in 4x5, a 120mm lens in 5x7. Depth of field is a serious problem. The cameras movements become *necessary* to put everything in focus, and even though some subjects cannot be focussed entirely. Start thinking f32 where you thought f5.6 !
What would happen if you were to open the lens entirely and appropriate the correct distance to make it all work. How much of the 5x4 would you lose to a 24mm 2.8 lens mounted to the front?


Does the Crown have a focal plane shutter (I think not)? Nikon SLR lenses do not have shutters.
We covered the fact that there could be a shutter sitting right behind the lens. built into the adapter.

Why don't you come and visit me in left field. It's warm and cozy..

[Tim Meisburger]

Hi Ben,

Every lens projects a circular field of an image on the film plane. That is called the image circle, and every lens has an image circle diameter determined by it design. If the image circle is not big enough to cover the format of the film, you will end up with a circular image in the center of the film, and the rest of the film will be black (actually clear, the print will be black). When people speak about the "coverage" of a particular lens, they mean will the image circle cover the particular format. Some lens will cover 4x5, but if used on 5x7 the image will have rounded corners because the circle is not big enough to cover the format. Lenses designed for 35mm only need an image circle big enough to cover a 35mm negative, so if you mount one on a 4x5 you will get a small circular image in the center of your film. Try it, and you will be able to see it on the ground glass. Or take a lens and hold it near a light wall across from a brightly lit window and you should get a circular image of whats outside the window projected on your wall. The size of the circle will tell you what the lens will cover.

Coverage is affected by distance and f-stop to some degree as well, so people will often talk about a lens with soft corners unless stopped well down.

Hope this helps.

Best, Tim

[el french]

Despite what everyone says, you'll find your DSLR lens will work really well on 4X5. There really are only three problems or issues to deal with:

1. No one makes adaptors, but you can easily make one using parts from the inexpensive extension tubes from ebay. Just cut a large enough hole in a lens board and epoxy the lens adaptor end of the extension tubes to the lens board.
2. A Packard shutter can be used in front of the lens, if you can figure out a mount.
3. All of your subjects must be within 6 inches of the lens as it won't focus any further than that and have an image circle that covers 4X5.

[petrochemist]

Despite what everyone says, you'll find your DSLR lens will work really well on 4X5. There really are only three problems or issues to deal with:

1. No one makes adaptors, but you can easily make one using parts from the inexpensive extension tubes from ebay. Just cut a large enough hole in a lens board and epoxy the lens adaptor end of the extension tubes to the lens board.
2. A Packard shutter can be used in front of the lens, if you can figure out a mount.
3. All of your subjects must be within 6 inches of the lens as it won't focus any further than that and have an image circle that covers 4X5.

Whilst this is a good general assessment of the situation, I don't think the last point is quite right.
Yes, Suitable coverage will only be achieved in macro work where you have considerable extension, but the distance to the subject will be a function of focal length.
A DSLR fisheye lens will probably need the subject inside the lens to get enough coverage (unless reversed). Some long telephotos might get enough coverage at distances a bit more than 6". Ideally of course you want long focal length lenses that are NOT telephoto designs, but I doub't this will apply to any of your SLR lenses.

It may be possible to use something along the lines of a tele-converter to increase the coverage of your SLR lenses - but bear in mind the most DSLR lenses have insufficient coverage even for 35mm being intended instead for cropped sensors.

Mounting LF lenses on a DSLR is much the easier problem :)

[Proteus617]

Won't it be almost impossible to stop down a DSLR lens on 4x5 as the aperture is controlled by a linkage on the mount?

[Jim Jones]

Benjaminixon, you can use Nikon lenses on a Graphic, but only for limited purposes. Naysayers just didn't think far enough outside the box. I occasionally use a 21mm (Leica, not Nikon) lens reverse mounted on a Graphic or view camera for macro photography. It gives about 4X or more magnification on film. Due to very shallow depth of field, it is most useful on flat subjects. The lack of a focal plane shutter is usually just an inconvenience, not an insurmountable obstacle. The shot can be set up and then all lights extinguished before the dark slide is withdrawn. Exposure is controlled by the lights, not the shutter. Photographers have been doing this for a century and a half.

To reverse mount a small camera lens on a Crown, attach a filter ring (with the glass removed) to the lens board with the threads on the front of the board. This might be the most difficult part of the whole project. I use an old Anniversary Graphic and view cameras that take the same wooden boards. With these, it's easy to inset the ring in a rabbeted recess in the board and epoxy it into place. Epoxy might not hold a ring on a Crown board. The metal around the hole in a Crown board can be thinned so a second filter ring can be used as a retaining ring.

[Dan Fromm]

Sorry to come in late on this discussion. Ben, Leigh and I often disagree but this time he's nailed you squarely.

The Nikon F mount's flange-to-film distance is 46.5 mm. A lens in F-mount whose flange it more than 46.5 mm from the film plane can't be focused on infinity. The 4x5 -- I assume that's the size you have -- Crown Graphic's minimum flange-to-film distance is 52.4 mm. You're nailed.

A lens in F mount can be attached to a lens board but for the lens to focus to infinity on a 4x5 Crown Graphic the adapter will have to have negative length. Such things exist, they're called recessed lens boards, but there are none for 4x5 Graphics. You're nailed again.

As has been pointed out, lenses for 35 mm cameras are designed to provide good image quality over a 43 mm circle. When one is put on a 4x5 camera it will give a good image 43 mm in diameter. It may illuminate -- put light on -- a larger circle but there's no guarantee that image quality will be acceptable outside of the circle the lens is designed to cover.

ic, there are ways to put a shutter on a barrel lens that won't add extension but they're not inexpensive. And neither are shutters that run on time. The OP wants to play around, not make a major investment. BTW, 35 mm snapshotters and their digital equivalents have a very different concept of "inexpensive" than LF users do.

proteus617, Nikon, in their infinite wisdom, offer two short extension tubes that allow F-mount Nikkors to be stopped down off the camera. E-2, which is push to open, and BR-4, which is push to stop down. I sometimes use a BR-4 with a double cable release.

[Frank Petronio]

This guy has to be a troll, it reminds me of the time I told people my view camera was broken because the images were upside down and people fell all over themselves to explain basic camera optics.

If he is not a troll, then he should buy a basic book on photography or, better yet, duct tape his Nikkor to his Crown and try to focus.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

You might use such a 35mm lens on a view camera with extra extension via the bellows to use it for extreme macro close-ups. It's likely the only scenario where the image circle made by the smaller format lens will be adequate for use with 4x5 and yet the Crown won't be ideal. This is something others have no doubt experimented with, and well within the realm of possibility.

[petrochemist]

To reverse mount a small camera lens on a Crown, attach a filter ring (with the glass removed) to the lens board with the threads on the front of the board. This might be the most difficult part of the whole project. I use an old Anniversary Graphic and view cameras that take the same wooden boards. With these, it's easy to inset the ring in a rabbeted recess in the board and epoxy it into place. Epoxy might not hold a ring on a Crown board. The metal around the hole in a Crown board can be thinned so a second filter ring can be used as a retaining ring.

There is another option for reverse mounting lenses that can be made to work on a large format camera. Combine a standard SLR lens mount on the inside of a lens board, so the lens is within the bellows! :)
SLR mounts for such insane projects can be taken from cheap Chinese extension tube sets (there are sets under $10).
In use you'd obviously have to be careful not to bring your lens to close to the rear standard, but to get a decent image the lens to film distance will want to be reasonable anyway.

Of course the result will still only be of use for macro, so might not be of any interest to the OP.

[Dan Fromm]

There is another option for reverse mounting lenses that can be made to work on a large format camera. Combine a standard SLR lens mount on the inside of a lens board, so the lens is within the bellows! :)


How, pray, does one get to the lens to adjust its aperture?

More seriously, the standard way to use a lens made for a 35 mm camera for macro work on a larger format is to reverse the lens in front of a leaf shutter. This allows the lens to be oriented correctly for working about 1:1, allows timed exposures, and allows the use of flash. The 55/2.8 MicroNikkor shot this way at f/4 is very competitive with a wide open 63/4.5 Luminar, is much less expensive, and is easier to find.

[Darin Boville]

Maybe a troll, but I never thought of using SLR lens for macro on a view camera. Aside from the convenience issues, are there technical advantages to using one vs using a regular macro lens designed for LF?

--Darin

[TheDeardorffGuy]

Ok.....Just for the hell of it I took the mount off a dead Nikon F and machined a larger hole in a Calumet recessed lens board and mounted it on a 1940 Speed Graphic. I put my 50mm 1.2 on it and focused it just fine. It gives an interesting image on the glass. The shutter is erratic since I have not used the camera for 30 years or so and I'm out of film right now, But it does work.

[Dan Fromm]

Maybe a troll, but I never thought of using SLR lens for macro on a view camera. Aside from the convenience issues, are there technical advantages to using one vs using a regular macro lens designed for LF?

--DarinConvenience depends on the SLR mount system's auto diaphragm system. I'm familiar only with Exakta (external automation) and Nikon F mounts. Lenses for Nikon F mount will stop down to the aperture set when off the camera. Exakta mount auto diaphragm lenses stay wide open when off the camera, but I think can be held at the aperture set with a locking cable release.

I said that the 55/2.8 MicroNikkor (mine is an AIS, goes to 1:2 on its own mount) is, when reversed and stopped to f/4, very competitive with a 63/4.5 Luminar wide open. Amend that to "on 2x3, beats my 63 Luminar by test from 2:1 - 6:1." We have a late 55/3.5 MicroNikkor in the house but I've never tried it reversed above 1:1. Jean-Phillipe Amans, who posts on the French LF forum, says that the f/3.5 is better used than way than the f/2.8. I don't particularly respect J-Ph so doubt his result. But since I haven't tested I could well be wrong. FWIW, several centuries ago I discussed these results with Brian Caldwell, who tells me that the 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS is diffraction limited at the center of the field t(not across the field) by f/4.

Technical advantages? Well, around 55 mm there's little better from 1:2 (will cover 2x3, won't cover 4x5) to 8:1 than a reversed 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS shot at f/4.

IMO, the big advantage is cost. If you don't have a 63 Luminar, you can get equivalent performance and working distance for considerably less money.

Huge caveat. All of the major SLR manufacturers and third-party lens makers have offered macro lenses for 35 mm SLRs with focal lengths in the range 50 - 60 mm. All are pretty good when used as intended but I have no idea how any but the one I have will do reversed above 1:1. If you have one, tape it to a shutter -- a #1 will do -- and try it out.

Hints: I use mine on an skgrimes adapter (male 52x0.75 to screw into the lens' filter threads at one end, male 40x0.75 to screw into a #1 at the other). On copy stand, quick working isn't so important and I have ample illumination so I focus at taking aperture. If I needed to focus wide open without risking moving the rig out of alignment when I stopped down, I'd use a BR-4 ring and a dual cable release. I don't shoot above 2:1 on 2x3 in the field, too much goes wrong every shot, so don't use the MicroNikkor or any of my Luminars on a Graphic in the field.

[welly]

This guy has to be a troll, it reminds me of the time I told people my view camera was broken because the images were upside down and people fell all over themselves to explain basic camera optics.


They thought you had problems? Not only is my image upside down, it's back to front as well.

[Robert Jonathan]

This is the dumbest thread ever... and I STILL replied.

[petrochemist]

How, pray, does one get to the lens to adjust its aperture?


Using the same linkages the camera uses to adjust it, would work fine with my old PK lenses.

I know it's not a convenient arrangement but a single mount could be suitable for all of a Togs SLR lenses (mine cover multiple filter sizes) and it would allow a fish eye to mount (most have no filter ring). If nothing else after focusing & framing the front lens board could be removed to adjust the aperture then refitted.

I suspect quite a few LF Togs also have SLR set-ups even if they don't use them anymore. So re-using 35mm lenses is a cheap option - a little awkwardness is not such a big price to pay, LF is not a high speed photography option after all!

[Dan Fromm]

This is the dumbest thread ever... and I STILL replied.I don't agree with you about every post in the thread, but will gladly chip in to buy a cake for post #25.

[E. von Hoegh]

Is it possible?

I've grown weary of the dreary digital age but I've got a couple very nice prime nikon lenses an im wondering (after googling high and low) if there exists or is even Possible a a lens board/adapter that allows for me to utilize my prime lenses on my grown graphic?

Any answers would be wonderful, especially if it includes a, 'yes! And heres a link'

Thank you very much for any information.

Waste of time. The Nikkors won't come close to covering 4x5. No shutters, either.

[Jim Jones]

Waste of time. The Nikkors won't come close to covering 4x5. No shutters, either.

Then 8mm movie camera lenses should be even more difficult to use, but they do give full frame coverage when reverse mounted on a 4x5, and lots of magnification. Resolution of a good 8mm lens suffers in this application when stopped down for more DOF.

[rdenney]

Maybe a troll, but I never thought of using SLR lens for macro on a view camera. Aside from the convenience issues, are there technical advantages to using one vs using a regular macro lens designed for LF?

We all have to learn this somehow. For me, it was when, as a young teen, I thought I could make a bigger enlargement using a 50mm enlarging lens (intended for 35mm) to enlarge a 6x6 negative. Yes, the image was bigger. But only the 2"-diameter circle in the middle of the frame was projected. That's when I realized that a 50mm lens for large format has to have a really wide field, while a 50mm lens for 35mm can have a narrow field.

So, even our Deardorff builder who has the wherewithal to fit the lens to the board will still end up with a 2" circle in the middle of the 4x5 negative. At 1:1, the circle will be 4" in diameter.

Now, turning a "full-frame fisheye" for 6x6 into a "circular fisheye" for 4x5? That's another matter.

Rick "it's why the 47mm Schneider LF lens is a Super Angulon XL and not a Plain-Ole-Symmar" Denney

[Drew Bedo]

some of the older longer focal length Leica lenses will cover 4x5 I am tokld. These would be in the tthe 90mm and 135mm Elmars and the early Telyets. I could be wrong as this is anicdotal. However these lenses were designed to work with the glass elements mounted in a focusing mount and used with accessory mirror box (Visoflex), so there might be enough working room for a bellows camera.

But again, you will need a camera body with a focal plane shutter.

A Graflex Reflex with Leica lenses sounds interesting . . .

In the end, it will be easier to sell-off or trade the SLR lenses and buy something that will work without drama..

[Jim Jones]

According to Paul-Henry van Hasbroeck in The Leica: a History Illustrating Every Model and Accessory, The 135mm f/4.5 Elmar, designed by Berek in the early 1920s for 9/12cm plates, was adapted to 35mm Leicas in 1931. It mounted directly on the camera. The first reflex housing came in 1933.

[rdenney]

I recall that the longer lenses of the era were not telephoto designs, but rather just normal lenses of longer focal length mounted as a "head" on the end of a focusing barrel. Many of these were removable from the focus barrel just by unscrewing them, to be used on copier setups and enlargers. I've seen Olympia Sonnars mounted the same way. Once out of their focus barrels, they should have coverage closer to what one would expect for the focal length.

Rick "seeing mostly tessar and sonnar variations in these types of lenses" Denney

[alexn]

Yeah for sure.. Mount your 35mm Nikkor lens 49mm from the focal plane with the lens cap on, stop it down to F/16. compose the tiny image on the massive ground glass then load your ISO 400 film. Remove the dark slide, then take the lens cap completely off and replace it again within 1/500th of a second.

Should work a treat.

Massive mechanical vignetting is still considered artsy... Right?

[Ole Tjugen]

some of the older longer focal length Leica lenses will cover 4x5 I am tokld. These would be in the tthe 90mm and 135mm Elmars and the early Telyets. I could be wrong as this is anicdotal. However these lenses were designed to work with the glass elements mounted in a focusing mount and used with accessory mirror box (Visoflex), so there might be enough working room for a bellows camera.

But again, you will need a camera body with a focal plane shutter.

A Graflex Reflex with Leica lenses sounds interesting . . .

In the end, it will be easier to sell-off or trade the SLR lenses and buy something that will work without drama..

You are correct, I have unscrewed the business part of a Leitz Hektor 135mm from the extension tube and mounted it on a Speed Graphic. It works, and it covers.

But those are quite standard tessar-type lenses mounted on a long tube for 35mm use. Modern SLR lenses tend to be a lot more complex, and more optimised for the image circle needed for the film/sensor size they are designed for.

So to the original question, my vote is on the "Forget it" side.

[TimmyMac]

Yeah for sure.. Mount your 35mm Nikkor lens 49mm from the focal plane with the lens cap on, stop it down to F/16. compose the tiny image on the massive ground glass then load your ISO 400 film. Remove the dark slide, then take the lens cap completely off and replace it again within 1/500th of a second.

Should work a treat.

Massive mechanical vignetting is still considered artsy... Right?

Easier just to find an old FM10, take the back off and gaffers tape it to the front standard of the Crown. Then you have a shutter and aperture control built right in.

[jnantz]

why not take a piece of foam core,
reverse or front mount the lens on it
and then on your camera and see if it works.
making lensboard for your camera will take about 30seconds
friction mount the lens so you can get it back far enough ...

threads like this make me laugh, its like asking
if it is possible to make a dark cloth out of
a dark-cloth .. or is it possible to use a regular roll film back on a graflex slr ..
and the answer is, it depends, why don't you try and see if it works
for what you want to use it for ...

good luck !
john

[E. von Hoegh]

1.) Ask incredibly stupid question that betrays your profound ignorance of the subject
2.) Argue with the answers you get from people who actually do know what they are talking about.
3.) Insist that your way will work.
4.) Repeat 2.) and 3.) until people stop responding.

[petrochemist]

1.) Ask incredibly stupid question that betrays your profound ignorance of the subject
2.) Argue with the answers you get from people who actually do know what they are talking about.
3.) Insist that your way will work.
4.) Repeat 2.) and 3.) until people stop responding.

Whilst the OP MAY have been ignorant of the limitations, he hasn't posted in this thread since page 1. No one has claimed that SLR lenses will work for normal landscape/portrait photography.

Reading through the replies it is clear that Jim Jones has experience in using small format lenses on large format systems and within it's limitations (close up work ONLY) has managed to get it to work. He even explains a way to get round the shutter problems. I would say this personal experience rates somewhat above the simple won't work from 'people who actually know what they are talking about'.

There have been at least 5 different people replying that it CAN be made to work for macro, which is a field of photography that leaves lots of room for experimenting with oddball lenses. Whilst I've not yet experimented with LF macro I have used lenses which are not designed to cover the sensor in my DSLR macro and the same optical laws apply.

One of my main interests in LF is that it allows me to experiment with things:
Lens boards allow me to mount lenses (or pin holes) that are not designed for one particular make of camera.
I don't have to use mass produced film but can experiment with historical processes, or printing papers... (Many of these are less sensitive and require MUCH longer exposures - no shutter required).
I can even but (or make) an adapter to mount a DSLR in place of the focusing screen, take multiple shots & stitch them together to make a pseudo large format digital back.

[E. von Hoegh]

Using the same linkages the camera uses to adjust it, would work fine with my old PK lenses.

I know it's not a convenient arrangement but a single mount could be suitable for all of a Togs SLR lenses (mine cover multiple filter sizes) and it would allow a fish eye to mount (most have no filter ring). If nothing else after focusing & framing the front lens board could be removed to adjust the aperture then refitted.

I suspect quite a few LF Togs also have SLR set-ups even if they don't use them anymore. So re-using 35mm lenses is a cheap option - a little awkwardness is not such a big price to pay, LF is not a high speed photography option after all!



Ummmm. O.K. Have fun!

[Dan Fromm]

Whilst the OP MAY have been ignorant of the limitations, he hasn't posted in this thread since page 1. No one has claimed that SLR lenses will work for normal landscape/portrait photography.

Reading through the replies it is clear that Jim Jones has experience in using small format lenses on large format systems and within it's limitations (close up work ONLY) has managed to get it to work. He even explains a way to get round the shutter problems. I would say this personal experience rates somewhat above the simple won't work from 'people who actually know what they are talking about'.

There have been at least 5 different people replying that it CAN be made to work for macro, which is a field of photography that leaves lots of room for experimenting with oddball lenses. Whilst I've not yet experimented with LF macro I have used lenses which are not designed to cover the sensor in my DSLR macro and the same optical laws apply.

One of my main interests in LF is that it allows me to experiment with things:
Lens boards allow me to mount lenses (or pin holes) that are not designed for one particular make of camera.
I don't have to use mass produced film but can experiment with historical processes, or printing papers... (Many of these are less sensitive and require MUCH longer exposures - no shutter required).
I can even but (or make) an adapter to mount a DSLR in place of the focusing screen, take multiple shots & stitch them together to make a pseudo large format digital back.

That's nice. What does anything you wrote have to do with how to use a lens, any lens, including a pinhole, on a press or technical or view camera?

Photomacrography -- shooting above 1:1 -- with any format, including tiny chip digital, is exacting and requires very good optics, not any old oddball lens. When I decided that I didn't want to trek into our local museum to borrow the use of a Photomakroscope and set out to build an equivalent rig, there was a lot of nonsense in the air about which lenses might do what I thought I needed. The nonsense pretty well drowned out the solid good advice (Luminar. Photar. Macro-Nikkor.) and mistaken bad news (people like me can't afford Luminars, ...) I found. So I experimented a lot, tried a lot of lenses. If I'd known then what I now know about what I was trying to accomplish and how best to do it, I'd have reversed my 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS and got to work. Or, I'd have waited patiently for a Luminar or Photar or Macro-Nikkor or 100/6.3 Neupolar that would do what I needed to turn up at an affordable price.

But this has nothing to do with trying to use a lens made for a camera with a short flange to film distance on a camera with a long minimum flange to film distance at infinity. That doesn't work. Wishful thinking, chest-beating, and saying "I want to experiment" won't make it work.

[alexn]

Easier just to find an old FM10, take the back off and gaffers tape it to the front standard of the Crown. Then you have a shutter and aperture control built right in.


Awesome plan.. Love the implementation of gaffers tape in order to use a lens designed for 35x24mm film on 90x120 film!

As the old saying goes.
If it moves from where it needs to be but doesnt : Gaffers Tape
If it wont move from where it is and needs to : WD40

[gth]

:mad:

We need an exploding brain "smiley"....

/gth

[petrochemist]

But this has nothing to do with trying to use a lens made for a camera with a short flange to film distance on a camera with a long minimum flange to film distance at infinity. That doesn't work.

Indeed 'at Infinity' It won't. The OP did not specify if they were referring to distant subjects, no-one else has suggested it would work for distant subjects.

[Leigh]

...they should have coverage closer to what one would expect for the focal length.
Hmmm...

I was not aware of a mathematical relationship between focal length and coverage.

Could you please expound?

- Leigh

[Leigh]

The OP did not specify if they were referring to distant subjects...
The OP asked if he could "utilize" his Nikon lenses on LF, without qualification.

My interpretation of that question does not restrict the subject location to near or far, but implies both.

- Leigh

[Jack Dahlgren]

Hmmm...

I was not aware of a mathematical relationship between focal length and coverage.

Could you please expound?

- Leigh

Leigh,

Surely you are aware that the geometry of any given lens design scales with focal length. Because the angular coverage is similar across different focal lengths of a similar design, increasing focal length necessarily increases the coverage through the principle of similar triangles.

Certainly this does not hold true across different designs (ie Tessar vs Plasmat), but it is generally a true and proportional relationship with only minor deviation from the ideal.

Look at the lens coverage table here for some examples:

http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/lenses.html

[ashlee52]

Hey, I use Nikon lenses on my 4x5's all the time.

My favorite is the 210mm F5.6, but I also like the 135mm f 5.6 and the 90mm f 8.0....

No problem with coverage at all. But they are a bitch to mount on my F3.

[Tim Meisburger]

This is a hilarious thread! I cannot look away....

[Leigh]

Then 8mm movie camera lenses should be even more difficult to use, but they do give full frame coverage when reverse mounted on a 4x5, and lots of magnification.
Well, let's see...

The frame size of 8mm movie film is 4.8mm x 3.5mm.
Using the diagonal to define the standard lens size yields 5.94mm, which I'll call 6mm.

To enlarge its coverage area to 4x5 film requires a magnification of 29x (= MAX(4"/3.5mm, 5"/4.8mm)).

We know from standard photographic optics that
1/f = 1/Di + 1/Ds, where f is the focal length, Di and Ds are the distance to the image and the subject

We also know that the distances are related by the magnification:
m = Di/Ds, so Di = m * Ds

Solving these equations for f = 6mm and m = 29 yields
Ds = 6.207mm and
Di = 180mm

So the subject will be ~6.2mm in front of the lens' front principle plane, which is typically inside the lens assembly.

Perhaps you consider a working distance of less than 1/4" to be adequate, but I don't.

- Leigh

N.B. Whether a lens is used in its normal position or reversed has absolutely no bearing on the calculations.
The reason for reversing it is to put the magnification within the range for which the lens design is optimized.

Note:
The calculations are based on standard thin-lens equations simplified by the assumption that the first and second
principle planes are coincident. While this is not true in a compound lens, the error from calculations based on
separation of the two planes is insignificant.

[petrochemist]

Well, let's see...

The frame size of 8mm movie film is 4.8mm x 3.5mm.
Using the diagonal to define the standard lens size yields 5.94mm, which I'll call 6mm.

To enlarge its coverage area to 4x5 film requires a magnification of 29x (= MAX(4"/3.5mm, 5"/4.8mm)).

We know from standard photographic optics that
1/f = 1/Di + 1/Ds, where f is the focal length, Di and Ds are the distance to the image and the subject

We also know that the distances are related by the magnification:
m = Di/Ds, so Di = m * Ds

Solving these equations for f = 6mm and m = 29 yields
Ds = 6.207mm and
Di = 180mm

So the subject will be ~6.2mm in front of the lens' front principle plane, which is typically inside the lens assembly.

Perhaps you consider a working distance of less than 1/4" to be adequate, but I don't.

- Leigh

N.B. Whether a lens is used in its normal position or reversed has absolutely no bearing on the calculations.
The reason for reversing it is to put the magnification within the range for which the lens design is optimized.

Note:
The calculations are based on standard thin-lens equations simplified by the assumption that the first and second
principle planes are coincident. While this is not true in a compound lens, the error from calculations based on
separation of the two planes is insignificant.

Your formulae are for simple lenses. Telephoto & retrofocus designs do not follow them.
For macro work a reversed lens will focus approximately where the normal film/sensor plane is (~45mm for most SLRs less for smaller formats)
Yes the working distance is minimal but for the magnification achieved it will pretty much have to be.
1/4" is certainly a pain to work with - but my microscope won't focus half that far out even at the lowest magnification (the one at work will just)

[Leigh]

Your formulae are for simple lenses. Telephoto & retrofocus designs do not follow them.
I was talking about normal lenses, as was quite clearly stated in the post. Apparently you can't read.

ALL lenses follow those formulae. The only thing that changes with design is the location of the principle planes.


but my microscope won't focus half that far out even at the lowest magnification (the one at work will just)
We're not talking about microscopes. We're talking about Nikon slr lenses.

Perhaps you should go back and read the thread title and the first post.

You seem determined to post absolutely irrelevant and misleading information, for what reason I don't know.

Why don't you start a thread of your own talking about microscope lenses, and quit diverting this discussion?

- Leigh

[Dan Fromm]

Petrochemist persists in error.


Your formulae are for simple lenses. Telephoto & retrofocus designs do not follow them.

Wrong.


For macro work a reversed lens will focus approximately where the normal film/sensor plane is (~45mm for most SLRs less for smaller formats)

Wrong again. The shortest "node facing the subject" to subject distance is the lens' focal length, and that happens when magnification is infinite. The relevant magic formula is f*(m + 1)/m.


Yes the working distance is minimal but for the magnification achieved it will pretty much have to be.

And again. It depends on focal length and magnification, as pointed out above. The price one pays for working distance is extension.



1/4" is certainly a pain to work with - but my microscope won't focus half that far out even at the lowest magnification (the one at work will just)

Irrelevant, too.

One of the interesting properties of lenses for 35 mm SLRs is that at infinity their rear element-to-film distance can't be much shorter than the camera body's flange to film distance. This so that the rear element will clear the mirror. And this is why nearly all shortish lenses for 35 mm SLRs are inverted telephotos. One useful consequence of these facts is that when a shortish lens for a 35 mm SLR is used for photomacrography its minimum working distance -- rear element to subject -- is approximately its mount's flange-to-film distance.

Petrochemist, there are books on photomacrography. Buy several, take your mind out of 35 mm SLR land, and then reconsider your positions. I suggest Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography or Brian Bracegirdle's Scientific Photomacrography. Given your general level of knowledge, Lefkowitz is probably the better choice for you.

[E. von Hoegh]

1.) Ask incredibly stupid question that betrays your profound ignorance of the subject
2.) Argue with the answers you get from people who actually do know what they are talking about.
3.) Insist that your way will work.
4.) Repeat 2.) and 3.) until people stop responding.

[Jim Jones]

For us who prefer working with photography than playing with math, the distance from the rear of the lens threads to the film plane of a standard 8mm movie camera lens is .369" or about 9.4mm: for 16mm camera lenses it is .53", or over 13mm. A few lens elements may protrude slightly closer to the film. This places the subject inconveniently close to a reverse mounted lens, but we make do with what we have. Effective f/numbers with many reverse mounted lenses should be measured rather than calculated. As Petrochemist noted, retrofocus and telephoto lenses don't follow some simplified formulae. Of course these considerations apply to larger format lenses reversed for microphotography.

[Dan Fromm]

As Petrochemist noted, retrofocus and telephoto lenses don't follow some simplified formulae.

But they do, Jim. The right formulas for effective aperture take account of pupillary magnification and lens orientation. They're in Lefkowitz.

How deep a C-mount lens goes into the mount varies, but the C-mount flange-to-film distance is 17.52 mm. H8RX mount has the same thread diameter and pitch as C-mount but has a shorter flange-to-film distance, roughly, subject to memory failure, 12.5 mm. This may be what you're thinking of.

Thinking of C-mount lenses and photomacrography, the 25/1.9 Cine Ektar reversed and shot at f/2.8 is superb. Measurably and significantly worse at f/2 and f/4.

[rdenney]

Hmmm...

I was not aware of a mathematical relationship between focal length and coverage.

Could you please expound?

- Leigh

The lenses which were being described in the posts to which I was responding were all tessar variations. What limits the coverage of a 135mm tessar in a Leica barrel is the barrel, not the lens design. If you can remove the barrel, the 135mm tessar will have coverage more like what is expected from a 135mm tessar.

Rick "now, surely you knew that" Denney

[E. von Hoegh]

The lenses which were being described in the posts to which I was responding were all tessar variations. What limits the coverage of a 135mm tessar in a Leica barrel is the barrel, not the lens design. If you can remove the barrel, the 135mm tessar will have coverage more like what is expected from a 135mm tessar.

Rick "now, surely you knew that" Denney

So will the old 90mm Elmar. I used one on a 2 1/4x3 1/4 Graflex.

[Jim Jones]

But they do, Jim. The right formulas for effective aperture take account of pupillary magnification and lens orientation. They're in Lefkowitz.

How deep a C-mount lens goes into the mount varies, but the C-mount flange-to-film distance is 17.52 mm. H8RX mount has the same thread diameter and pitch as C-mount but has a shorter flange-to-film distance, roughly, subject to memory failure, 12.5 mm. This may be what you're thinking of.

Thinking of C-mount lenses and photomacrography, the 25/1.9 Cine Ektar reversed and shot at f/2.8 is superb. Measurably and significantly worse at f/2 and f/4.

The right formulae should work, but a previously cited formula doesn't cover pupillary magnification. It's easier to make one measurement, and then apply a correction factor to the aperture of that lens when used reversed.

The 1946 ANSI specification for flange-film spacing in 16mm cameras (they don't specify C mount) is 0.69". I subtracted the ANSI thread depth to get the available working space. My sources don't include Bolex. I agree that a quality movie camera lenes reversed for microphotography should be used at a wide aperture. With a magnification of 30, a reversed F/2 lens might have a maximum working aperture of close to f/64. While Edward Weston used smaller apertures for some macrophotography, they were probably diffraction limited. With some of his subjects, this wasn't objectionable. My photography with such apertures was disappointing.

[Dan Fromm]

t's easier to make one measurement, and then apply a correction factor to the aperture of that lens when used reversed.

This isn't safe. I was made aware of this in 1970 when I bought a Nikon PB-4 bellows. It came with exposure compensation charts for a number of Nikkors in F-mount. The relationships between magnification and exposure compensation (or effective aperture, if you prefer to think of it that way) for retrofocus Nikkors are very non-linear. Scarily non-linear in some cases, e.g., the 24/2.8.

To go farther off topic, its been a while since I paid much attention to Nikon's products and the useful information packaged with them, but in the days when I was buying Nikkors and Nikon gadgets I was in awe of Nikon. I still am. The F system is so well thought-out.

Photography at high magnification is very difficult. So many ways to go wrong.

Cheers,

Dan

[Jim Jones]

I should have been more clear. When using a lens reversed, one can measure the entrance pupil and calculate the ratio between the actual working aperture and the f/number on the scale. This ratio should hold for the small apertures that can be difficult to measure.

Much technical information was certainly available for Nikon and Leica in the good old days. I just looked at that exposure correction chart for Nikon wide angle lenses from my PB-4 (quite a bellows!). Even that optical dinosaur, the nearly symmetrical 20mm f/4, required some correction. I still treasure a copy of Joseph Cooper and Joseph Abbott's Nikon F Nikkormat Handbook of Photography and several of the books on Leica. And what a system Nikon had! The removable back of the F was a nuisance, but permitted motor drives, 250 exposure backs, and even Polaroid photography. The pentaprism and viewfinder options seemed endless, but less than the variety of lenses from 8mm to 1000mm available when I first got into Nikon. Leica also had quite a battery of accessories to circumvent the shortcomings of a rangefinder camera. Life seems so simple in the digital age.

[petrochemist]

"Petrochemist, there are books on photomacrography. Buy several, take your mind out of 35 mm SLR land, and then reconsider your positions. "

I have several. Though I could only lay my hands on 4 whilst dealing with family life this evening.
If these books are worth reading I'll see if I can track down copies via the local library, and perhaps they'll add something to the likes of "John Shaw's Closeups in Nature" & "Robert Thompson's Close-up & Macro a photographer's guide" (The more technical of the books I came across at home tonight) or my own favorite "The Complete Guide to Close-up and Macro Photography" by Paul Harcourt Davies. Most books on macro are an excuse to print pretty pictures rather than discuss the techniques and theory involved.

Considering the thread is about the potential use of 35mm lenses it would not be appropriate to "take my mind out of 35mm SLR land". Large format lenses are generally neither retrofocus or telephoto unlike the SLR lenses in question. The microscopes whilst not very relevant, offer similar magnification to the 29X that was quoted further up thread, and I have coupled cameras to both, and the physical laws of optics still apply to them so it does has some relevance.

"One of the interesting properties of lenses for 35 mm SLRs is that at infinity their rear element-to-film distance can't be much shorter than the camera body's flange to film distance. This so that the rear element will clear the mirror. And this is why nearly all shortish lenses for 35 mm SLRs are inverted telephotos. One useful consequence of these facts is that when a shortish lens for a 35 mm SLR is used for photomacrography its minimum working distance -- rear element to subject -- is approximately its mount's flange-to-film distance." Typically mount flange to film distance is ~45mm Hence my comment "For macro work a reversed lens will focus approximately where the normal film/sensor plane is (~45mm for most SLRs less for smaller formats)" Which you claim is wrong. You're contradicting yourself here.

With regard to working distance " It depends on focal length and magnification, as pointed out above. The price one pays for working distance is extension." Indeed the formula is Magnification = extension/focal length. Using extension to get the quoted 29x magnification with a 100mm lens (a simple number to work with that is not unreasonable as a LF focal length) you need an extension of 2.9meters, Leighs formula puts the working distance around 103mm (not a huge distance) but that sort of extension is quite impractical. Even switching to a wider 50mm lens the extension is a still unwieldy 1.45m and the working distance 52mm. Hence my comment that minimal working distance is "PRETTY MUCH" essential for high magnification.

Leigh's formula which he claims the differences for compound lenses are 'insignificant' is "1/f = 1/Di + 1/Ds" lets put some real world numbers in here from two zoom lenses I have handy. Both are SLR lenses that focus to infinity with a rear flange distance of ~45.5mm.

Simplifying matters by setting the subject distance to infinity we get 1/Ds to be zero so f must equal Di.
First the retro-focus - when the focal length is 10mm, the image is formed (film plane) about 40mm behind the rear element of the lens.
Now the telephoto - when set to a focal length of 300mm, it measures only 230mm from the front lens cap to the very back of the camera. (I'm fairly sure the image is formed somewhere within those points though!)

In both of these the formula can only be made to work if it refers to a reference 'principle plane' at some otherwise undefined point well outside the lens. In which case it is quite useless.

In 'SLR land' formula for simple lenses are not always useful.

[Dan Fromm]

Oh, my, what terrible taste in books you have, Petrochemist. John Shaw's little book -- I have a copy -- is lousy. Shaw himself is a fine photographer, but he's a poor teacher. His book is strong on inspiration, weak on how to do, weaker still on how to work out what to do. And he has little to say about working above 1:1 that's useful. I'm surprised that as a resident of the UK you don't have Heather Angel's Book of Closeup Photography. She does the John Shaw thing better than he does, and is a better teacher too.

Sorry, but I'm not acquainted with the other two books you mentioned. Turns out both are reviewed on Amazon but the reviews, although mainly enthusiastic, don't make a strong case for either book as being as useful as Lefkowitz or Bracegirdle. Both of these books are about technique, don't try to distract their readers with pretty pictures. And an enthusiastic ignoramus is still an ignoramus.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the implications of ""One of the interesting properties of lenses for 35 mm SLRs is that at infinity their rear element-to-film distance can't be much shorter than the camera body's flange to film distance. This so that the rear element will clear the mirror. And this is why nearly all shortish lenses for 35 mm SLRs are inverted telephotos. One useful consequence of these facts is that when a shortish lens for a 35 mm SLR is used for photomacrography its minimum working distance -- rear element to subject -- is approximately its mount's flange-to-film distance." Minimum working distance is attained at infinite magnification. For magnifications in the range most of us work there's considerably more working distance.

You don't understand that those of us who use LF cameras with long lenses of normal construction have long cameras. More than two standards, more than two bellows, usually two tripods, often a crutch to support the lens. And those who use LF cameras to shoot at high magnification have long cameras too. The big difference is the lengths to which photomacrographers go to control motion. See Lefkowitz, and until you've read his book say no more. The authors you like have no concept of any of this and neither, it seems, do you.

Oh, and by the way, until you get your head out of 35 mm land you're not going to be able to say much constructive about what can be done with an LF camera and a lens made for a 35 mm camera. You don't even seem to have taken on board my explicit directions for using a 55/2.8 MicroNikkor above 1:1 on an LF camera.

You're point about the difficulty of knowing where the rear nodes of retrofocus and telephoto lenses are indicates that you don't understand what focal length means.

[genotypewriter]

Disclaimer: The following does not apply to everyone.

What's with some people acting like they just discovered (that they're anonymous on) the internet?

The OP's question's still a question. If you think it's not worth your time to respond then don't. Someone who cares enough will point them in the right direction. Instead, quite a few here act like he came to eat your babies.

A few days ago someone asked about fitting a LF camera to a telescope but there was no stirring up of deep rooted emotions like what we've seen so far here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?86966-Fitting-a-4x5-camera-to-a-telescope

Is the OP's question so terrible because he asked about putting a lowly 35mm lens on a LF instead of a more exotic optic? Or does 35mm remind you of people who're out there taking photos and enjoying the simple life instead of sitting in a room lit by a computer screen, surrounded by decades old photographic cupboard-stuffings and paperweights?

Not only that, there are others who joined in to compare their genitals with everyone too. Who cares if you know more than the person you're talking to? No need to rub it in... put that effort in to something else. Do you think you're going to win the Nobel Prize because you have a dusty collection of photography books and too much time in your golden years to memorise them?

Shoot the messenger if you will...

[Leigh]

In both of these the formula can only be made to work if it refers to a reference 'principle plane' at some otherwise undefined point well outside the lens. In which case it is quite useless.
Absolutely untrue.

Principle planes are quite commonly outside the physical lens.

Take a look at some lens data sheets before you make such nonsensical statements.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

Although Dan Fromm and I have had animated disagreements in the past...

It appears we agree completely in this particular discussion. :D

- Leigh

[Leigh]

The OP's question's still a question. If you think it's not worth your time to respond then don't.
There's no problem with the OP's question.

The problem lies in the fact that he chose to ignore the valid answers that he received because he didn't like them.

He refuses to believe the engineering analysis regarding his proposed application.

- Leigh

[alexn]

putting a 4x5 onto a telescope is nowhere near as difficult to believe as someone using a 35mm lens on a 4x5 camera..

A telescope need only have the suitable image circle, which there is no reason to say they dont/cant. A few years back I had a 12.5" RC Astrograph that had a fully illuminated image circle EASILY big enough to cover 645 and 6x6 MF.. It probably would have covered 6x9 with a bit of fall off..

The issue here is that regardless of the validity of the OP's question, his disinclination to listen to the words of people more experienced than himself (whom he has specifically sought out, and asked for their expertise.) is what has caused the rukkus... Had he replied with "oh ok, I thought it might be possible, but the resounding answer is not really, thanks." that would have been the end. He asked the oppinion of others then proceeded to tell them how they were wrong. If you already know so much, dont ask.

[genotypewriter]

putting a 4x5 onto a telescope is nowhere near as difficult to believe as someone using a 35mm lens on a 4x5 camera..


It's not 4x5 if the lens doesn't cover 4x5, right?

It's much easier to get a bright 35mm lens to cover 4x5 with a bit of extension as compared to a big, long, much darker telescope that'll need even more extension from the film plane. Not saying it's going to be everyone's favourite setup but it's possible.

[petrochemist]

Absolutely untrue.

Principle planes are quite commonly outside the physical lens.

Take a look at some lens data sheets before you make such nonsensical statements.

- Leigh

Yes they're outside the lens for nearly all retrofocus & telephoto lenses. They can also change with the settings of the lens (at least with zooms) For simple or symmetrical lenses where your formula is useful they are fixed at the center of the lens.

As regards books, yes I have Heather's somewhere, but I generally find Harcourt-Davies better. The Amazon review for one of your books wasn't exactly inspiring (summarized IIRC as old & outdated) but that could be that it goes into large format macro which most books don't. The other one you recommended Lefkowitz's Manual of Close-up Photography, was fortunately available at a reasonable price used so I've ordered that to add to my collection.

[jnantz]

thefunny thing is that a few people posted to this thread
and have experience with a 35mm lens ( or lenses ) being used on
their 4x5 camera for macro work ... but their experiences
were ignored ... ( not general photography i guess ? )

i have used lenses intended 8mm film and others for use on a 110 camera
on a lens board on a 4x5 camera before, so i can't understand
how there is a problem with a 35mm lens doing the same thing ...

over the years there there have been lots of people who have told me things will fail, no image will be made
it will be all blury, nothing will appear on the paper or film &c &C &c .. but in the end
i tried these things and they are not part of my arsenal of things i do ...
its easy to quote physics books, and engineering books
but it is easy and fun to test and experiment and tweak to get the results you are looking for
and pretty easy to prove people who just say " it will fail, don't waste your time" wrong.

i hope the OP follows through and finds a way to use his lens ...

[genotypewriter]

over the years there there have been lots of people who have told me things will fail, no image will be made
it will be all blury, nothing will appear on the paper or film &c &C &c .. but in the end
i tried these things and they are not part of my arsenal of things i do ...


Agree completely. A lot of times I've felt my style of shooting is entirely about doing what people say we can't and shouldn't do.

[Leigh]

thefunny thing is that a few people posted to this thread and have experience with a 35mm lens ( or lenses ) being used on their 4x5 camera for macro work ... but their experiences were ignored ... ( not general photography i guess ? )
That's right. The question was about general photography, not macro work.

On almost any question you can find answers like...
Sure, this works in this specific micro-defined situation.

That does not make the answer appropriate to the general case, which is what's being discussed here.


- Leigh

[Dan Fromm]

[QUOTE=jnanian;854974

I have used lenses intended 8mm film and others for use on a 110 camera
on a lens board on a 4x5 camera before, so i can't understand
how there is a problem with a 35mm lens doing the same thing ...[/QUOTE]

Funny thing, John, is that I use lenses made for smaller formats at "infinity" on my little 2x3 Graphics. For example, 38/4.5 Biogon, which doesn't cover the format, and 1.75"/2.8 Elcan, which also doesn't cover the format. The Biogon is pretty good, the Elcan isn't. I still use the Biogon a little, prefer 47 SA for tighter shots and 35 Apo Grandy for slight less tight. The Elcan stays in the closet, the 47 SA is much preferable.

And, yes, I've done a little macro work on the Graphics with that infamous reversed 55/2.8 MicroNikkor. Not much, 'cos once I got the gear working I found I could get the shots I needed much more easily with the lens reversed on a Nikon. Still copy stand work, but another story entirely.

Of course it is physically possible to put a lens made for a 35 mm SLR on a board and hang a leaf shutter in front of it. Without the leaf, timing exposures is a little problematic. Using a focal plane shutter behind the lens is problematic too, 4x5 Speed Graphics' minimum flange-to-film distance is around 65 mm, 2x3s's around 60 mm. Without heroic measures, a lens made for a 35 mm SLR won't focus to infinity on any Speed Graphic. One doesn't have to experiment to find this out, one has to know the law and be able to measure.

Yes, one can use a lens made for a 35 mm SLR at an infinity on an LF camera with a short enough minimum flange to film distance. So what? The real question isn't whether it can be done, it is whether a small circular image, rectangular if the lens has a rectangular mask at the rear, in a large expanse of film makes sense.

With regard to experimentation, LF photography is very well understood little neighborhood. The frontier seems to be in using small sensors and intensive data processing to simulate what can be done with large sheets of film, not in screwing around with cheap lenses for small formats.

[petrochemist]

That's right. The question was about general photography, not macro work.

On almost any question you can find answers like...
Sure, this works in this specific micro-defined situation.

That does not make the answer appropriate to the general case, which is what's being discussed here.


- Leigh

Actually Leigh the question was "Is it possible?" with no reference to macro or general.

The reply is that for macro it is possible & has been done.

For general work it is TECHNICALLY possible to make an optical element to increase coverage - this is basically what tele converters do. I doubt anyone will find it finacially worth the huge effort required to make one (especially as the SLR lenses come in such a wide range of mounts). A dedicated enthusiast might be able to stack adapters, SLR/medium format teleconverters etc to get coverage at infinity or portrait ranges. I wouldn't see the point there, especially as I'd expect excessive vignetting along with a divorce due to the wasted funds!

[genotypewriter]

Actually Leigh the question was "Is it possible?" with no reference to macro or general.


Agree. And asking a general or an open question is not a valid reason to execute someone.

[jnantz]

Agree completely. A lot of times I've felt my style of shooting is entirely about doing what people say we can't and shouldn't do.

i was thinking of having a show called " it will never work " and display photographs that were doomed from the start :)



That's right. The question was about general photography, not macro work.

On almost any question you can find answers like...
Sure, this works in this specific micro-defined situation.

That does not make the answer appropriate to the general case, which is what's being discussed here.


- Leigh

i have read and re-read the comments made by the OP
and i can't find anywhere where he says general photography ..
he just asked if his lens could be used on his crown graphic.

maybe you and others are discussing the general-case,
but i don't think that was what the OP was talking about at all .....
he just wanted to use his lens any way he could ...
and it is obvious that he can ... while he might not get
adams-esque landscapes, he can certainly get koyaanisqatsi-eque landscapes ...

[Jim Jones]

That's right. The question was about general photography, not macro work. . . .

On almost any question you can find answers like...
Sure, this works in this specific micro-defined situation.

That does not make the answer appropriate to the general case, which is what's being discussed here.


- Leigh

The original question was not restricted to general photography. Only later did some try to restrict comments to the mundane, not to the more fascinating outer limits of photography. In my lifetime I've seen imaging techniques that were considered to be impossible or hopelessly impractical become commonplace because of those willing to explore frontiers beyone the imagination of mere experts.

"Why not?" is more of a challenge than "Never!" It was a child's "Why not?" that led to the Polaroid camera. Construction of the Hale telescope on Mt. Palomar had not begun when I was born, It was considered to be near the limits of telescope size. The "Why not?" of science fiction writers over the past few hundred years inspired some of the pioneers of space exploration which led to the Hubble telescope, astronomical interferometry, and much more. The OP's "Why not?" may lead some to explore new techniques. That is more intriguing and more productive than quibbling about what can't be done.

[E. von Hoegh]

Understanding basic camera funtions, all you need is apature, light, and a light sensitive surface. With that in mind, what is stopping a large format camera being fitted with, for example a Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AF-D? A shutter is needed, which could go between the lense and the bellows. Really the flange focal distance doesnt matter if the adapter is build correctly to allow it. Realistically, the biggest issue i could think of is the weight of the larger lenses. Possibly an unfortable set up, especially with a hand held crown graphic. If the adapter doesnt exist then so be it but mathimatically it's viable. Am i wrong? Am I thinking too far out of the box?

This post, made by the OP, is a strong indication that the OP has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. When knowledgeable members tried to set him right, he chose to ingnore the information.

[Jim Jones]

This post, made by the OP, is a strong indication that the OP has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. When knowledgeable members tried to set him right, he chose to ingnore the information.

That seems true, but his question has provoked a discussion with some solid information that others might use. For that reason, naive questions can occasionally be more valuable than questions based on extensive knowledge and experience. We may have intimidated the OP with information he cannot use, but perhaps others have learned something practical. Progress in photography is sometimes best made by leaping into the unknown rather than by inching forward on familiar grounds.

[E. von Hoegh]

That seems true, but his question has provoked a discussion with some solid information that others might use. For that reason, naive questions can occasionally be more valuable than questions based on extensive knowledge and experience. We may have intimidated the OP with information he cannot use, but perhaps others have learned something practical. Progress in photography is sometimes best made by leaping into the unknown rather than by inching forward on familiar grounds.

Agree 100%.

However it also seems that members are trying to defend the OP without reading his posts.

[jnantz]

This post, made by the OP, is a strong indication that the OP has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. When knowledgeable members tried to set him right, he chose to ingnore the information.

who cares if he did or didn't know what he is talking about.
that is why he asked questions, so he could get some answers ...

is it the new way of this forum to call someone an ignorant fool or an idiot
because they ask questions ... and they are looking for
answers other than "it will never work" ( when it actually DOES work in some situations )



Agree 100%.

However it also seems that members are trying to defend the OP without reading his posts.

if you are talking about me, i have read his posts, several times ...
in the thread you posted you claim that he was asking questions about general photography, and i don't think he was ...

it used to be, no question is a dumb question ... i guess that has to be revised to
no question is a dumb question, unless you disagree with all the knowledgeable people
who are setting you right.

[petrochemist]

"Really the flange focal distance doesnt matter if the adapter is build correctly to allow it."
This post, made by the OP, is a strong indication that the OP has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. When knowledgeable members tried to set him right, he chose to ingnore the information.

If the adapter includes optical elements the OP is right. He also concedes that it may be impractical. There are avaliable adapters to go between lenses/cameras that include optical elements to increase the flange focal distance though the image quality probably suffers. There are none that I know of would have any where near the effect required to cover 4x5. He's right it is mathimatically viable, just impractical for general use.

[Dan Fromm]

For general work it is TECHNICALLY possible to make an optical element to increase coverage - this is basically what tele converters do.

petrochemist, your reply to the effect that you'd ordered a copy of Lefkowitz is very encouraging.

The comment I quoted isn't. Telecoverters don't increase coverage. They increase focal length, leave coverage intact. Yes, I am acquainted with teleconverters. I have and sometimes use Nikon TC-200 and Vivitar Matched Multiplier 450/4.5 (interesting piece, it is in T-mount), have and don't use a Horseman 2x LF Teleconverter 150 - 300.

Jim, a propos of leaps into the unknown, my little Horseman TC was one. I bought it knowing nothing about it except that the price was very right. Turns out that it is conceptually very different from the TCs for 35 mm SLRs I was better acquainted with and not particularly useful for my purposes. I had visions of putting it behind a long lens. This doesn't work at all. And now you know too.

[E. von Hoegh]

What implies me not willing to learn? I'm now looking for more, other than 'It won't work.' What would it produce? Why couldn't you make it happen? Best case scenario things would be blurry?


Awfully close? 69014 Why couldn't the adapter allow the lens to sit farther away?


In my head it makes sense, but without sitting down to do the math I can't point out the specifics. Found this while refusing to learn :-p
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/why.html:
The equivalent of a 24mm in 35mm is a 75/90 lens in 4x5, a 120mm lens in 5x7. Depth of field is a serious problem. The cameras movements become *necessary* to put everything in focus, and even though some subjects cannot be focussed entirely. Start thinking f32 where you thought f5.6 !
What would happen if you were to open the lens entirely and appropriate the correct distance to make it all work. How much of the 5x4 would you lose to a 24mm 2.8 lens mounted to the front?

We covered the fact that there could be a shutter sitting right behind the lens. built into the adapter.

Why don't you come and visit me in left field. It's warm and cozy..

Here's another one by the OP. He disregards the significance of flange focal distance, focal length, coverage, shutter, and aperture actuation, also disregards the info. he has already recieved, saying "why can't it work".

There are many extremely knowledgeable members here who will bend over backwards to answer questions posed by newcomers who are willing to learn. When someone disregards the help and information they are recieving, refusing to do anything to inform themselves, frustration sets in.

[jnantz]

here's another one by the op. He disregards the significance of flange focal distance, focal length, coverage, shutter, and aperture actuation, also disregards the info. He has already recieved, saying "why can't it work".

There are many extremely knowledgeable members here who will bend over backwards to answer questions posed by newcomers who are willing to learn. When someone disregards the help and information they are recieving, refusing to do anything to inform themselves, frustration sets in.



yawn

[petrochemist]

Telecoverters don't increase coverage. They increase focal length, leave coverage intact.

They increase the focal length by spreading the light such that only the middle portion of that coming through the lens reaches the film. I general they will have internal baffels to prevent the outer portion from bouncing around your optics/the internals of the mount as stray light. That's why they don't normally increase the coverage.

I'm not supprised your Horseman TC didn't work as a SLR one would. SLR lenses are designed to have a fixed distance from the mount to the film. Large format ones are not. If the price was VERY right I would probably still have been tempted to see if I could find a use for it.

[Dan Fromm]

They increase the focal length by spreading the light such that only the middle portion of that coming through the lens reaches the film. I general they will have internal baffels to prevent the outer portion from bouncing around your optics/the internals of the mount as stray light. That's why they don't normally increase the coverage.

Really? Have you tried the obvious experiment? I just did. Put a 24/2.8 Nikkor with and without TC200 on a 2x3 Crown Graphic and looked at the image it put on the GG. I am very aware that estimating coverage by looking at an image on the GG is risky. Even so, half as much of the subject filled the circle with the TC as without and the circle didn't seem to be larger than the TC than without. I don't think the vignetting was mechanical, i.e., the tubes and baffles don't seem to be responsible for it.


I'm not supprised your Horseman TC didn't work as a SLR one would. SLR lenses are designed to have a fixed distance from the mount to the film. Large format ones are not. If the price was VERY right I would probably still have been tempted to see if I could find a use for it. Gee, that's interesting. I'm going to follow your example and equivocate. If the distance between lens and film doesn't change, how can the lens be focused at more than the one distance? Here are a few SLRs whose lenses aren't attached directly to the camera body: in alphabetical order, Arca Swiss Reflex, Graflex (the SLRs, not the brand), Makiflex, Mentor (the SLRs, not the brand), Optika, Thornton-Pickard (the SLRs, not the brand).

The big difference between the Horseman TC and ones for SLRs is that the Horseman is designed to sit at a fixed distance from the lens' rear element. The distance between a TC for an SLR's front element and the lens' rear element is variable, increases as the lens is focused closer. This may be what you meant to say.

[petrochemist]

Really? Have you tried the obvious experiment? I just did. Put a 24/2.8 Nikkor with and without TC200 on a 2x3 Crown Graphic and looked at the image it put on the GG. I am very aware that estimating coverage by looking at an image on the GG is risky. Even so, half as much of the subject filled the circle with the TC as without and the circle didn't seem to be larger than the TC than without. I don't think the vignetting was mechanical, i.e., the tubes and baffles don't seem to be responsible for it.


I can't see how you can say the tubes & baffles don't seem to be responsible. The only reliable way to judge this is to remove them. The light HAS to go somewhere, it doesn't magically disappear. The majority will be absorbed by the baffles & converted to heat, small amounts will be scattered.

Referring to my (1972) "Focal Encyclopedia of Photography", there is a comment under the entry for telephoto lenses, stating they are created by adding a divergent element behind a standard lens, and that some manufacturers supply the divergent element separately. You should be able to understand the implications of "divergent element" without difficulty. Wikipedia also explains the divergent nature of teleconverters in both it's entry on teleconverters & the one on Barlows (the same thing really).

Wide angle adapters that screw on the front of the lens are optically similar just used in reverse. It may be simpler to mount one of those reversed behind the lens to increase it's coverage as there is less likely to be a problem with vignetting.

[E. von Hoegh]

Or, you can just use a proper large format lens. It will likely have a shutter, and you'll get to use the movements. (smiling smiley)

[rdenney]

Or, you can just use a proper large format lens. It will likely have a shutter, and you'll get to use the movements. (smiling smiley)

And for a Crown Graphic, it will likely be cheaper than most used Nikkors...

Rick "arguments are down the hall" Denney

[Dan Fromm]

I can't see how you can say the tubes & baffles don't seem to be responsible. The only reliable way to judge this is to remove them. The light HAS to go somewhere, it doesn't magically disappear. The majority will be absorbed by the baffles & converted to heat, small amounts will be scattered.

I looked. There's nothing occluding the exit pupil. That's what stops do. Ain't none that matters.


Referring to my (1972) "Focal Encyclopedia of Photography", there is a comment under the entry for telephoto lenses, stating they are created by adding a divergent element behind a standard lens, and that some manufacturers supply the divergent element separately. You should be able to understand the implications of "divergent element" without difficulty. Wikipedia also explains the divergent nature of teleconverters in both it's entry on teleconverters & the one on Barlows (the same thing really).

Interesting. Why, pray, do telephoto lenses invariably have smaller circles of good definition than lenses of normal construction (neither telephoto nor wide angle) of the same focal length?

[E. von Hoegh]

But E! Everyone knows that lenses for large format cameras can't be used on 35 mm SLRs. Everyone!

Except, that is, idiots like me. Did I ever tell you about the time I did a shootout between a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII and a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS on a Nikon? Short report: at f/9, f/11, f/16 and at 1:2 (the 200/4's highest magnification on its own mount), 10' and 40' the GRII won. Same roll of film, same illumination, same shutter (the Nikon's), same light meter (ditto). So much for the myth that every lens for a 35 mm camera shoots better than every comparable lens for a larger format.

Please don't tell me I'm an idiot for asking my lenses what they could do for me instead of accepting what's generally known to be true(.

(snarling snarly)

I used a 16 1/2" Artar to photograph comet Hale Bopp. I literally stuck a Nikon F body to the 4x5 Graflock back with big rubberbands.. Got nice pictures, too. (smiling smiley)

E. "fellow idiot" von Hoegh.

[TheDeardorffGuy]

I'm disappointed that the OP has not replied to us here and in a private message I sent. There are 88 replies to his OP and he replied 2 times. 88 replies. What a use of brain power!!!

[Leigh]

What a misuse of brain power!

- Leigh

[TheDeardorffGuy]

What a misuse of brain power!

- Leigh

Alot of lens info was distributed, I would not call it misuse........Perhaps we were misled.

[ic-racer]

Well, let's see...

The frame size of 8mm movie film is 4.8mm x 3.5mm.
Using the diagonal to define the standard lens size yields 5.94mm, which I'll call 6mm.

To enlarge its coverage area to 4x5 film requires a magnification of 29x (= MAX(4"/3.5mm, 5"/4.8mm)).

We know from standard photographic optics that
1/f = 1/Di + 1/Ds, where f is the focal length, Di and Ds are the distance to the image and the subject

We also know that the distances are related by the magnification:
m = Di/Ds, so Di = m * Ds

Solving these equations for f = 6mm and m = 29 yields
Ds = 6.207mm and
Di = 180mm

So the subject will be ~6.2mm in front of the lens' front principle plane, which is typically inside the lens assembly.

Perhaps you consider a working distance of less than 1/4" to be adequate, but I don't.

- Leigh

N.B. Whether a lens is used in its normal position or reversed has absolutely no bearing on the calculations.
The reason for reversing it is to put the magnification within the range for which the lens design is optimized.

Note:
The calculations are based on standard thin-lens equations simplified by the assumption that the first and second
principle planes are coincident. While this is not true in a compound lens, the error from calculations based on
separation of the two planes is insignificant.

You are posting about that which you know not. You think that a 8mm movie camera shutter and viewing prism can fit in such a small area. The lens is a retrofocus design! Also, the "normal" lens for that format is NOT the diagonal. 12mm to 13mm are the "normal" lenses for Regular 8.

You should not discount something without appropriate apriori or empiric knowledge or else you present yourself as very foolish.

--no offense, just saying :)

[Jim Jones]

Alot of lens info was distributed, I would not call it misuse........Perhaps we were misled.

Yes, indeed. I've learned a few things, and any knowledge, however trivial, is better than total ignorance.

[Dan Fromm]

ic, not to pick a fight with you but most, not all, regular 8 cine cameras that have interchangeable lenses use lenses in D-mount. The D-mount flange-to-film distance is 12.29 mm. Also, very few regular 8 cine cameras were SLRs so they don't have beamsplitters between lens and shutter. I just looked at my one D-mount lens, its threaded section behind the flange is at most 5 mm long.

As far as I know, all regular 8 cameras have rotary sector shutters. The part of the shutter that crosses the light path can be very thin.

I've had one regular 8 SLR, a Leicina with a 7.5-35/1.8 Angenieux, had to open it up. Rotary sector shutter, no idea how the viewing system works. I didn't have to go that deep into it.

I don't have any service manuals for 8/8 cameras, do have a couple for Canon SLR Super 8 cameras. They put the beamsplitter in the middle of the zoom lens, with complex optics between beamsplitter and film and between beamsplitter and viewfinder. There's no reason why the beamsplitter has to be behind the lens, although it or a reciprocating mirror is behind the lens in Bolex H- SLRs and in Beaulieu S8 and 16 mm SLRs. Room can be found ...

You're right about the normal focal length for 8/8, and for cine cameras and derivatives (that's 35 mm still, double frame 35 mm). They're all set by convention, not as the format's diagonal. LF types can be as parochial as small format types ...

[Leigh]

ic,

I'm talking optics, not mechanics.

You need to learn the difference.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

ic,

I'm talking optics, not mechanics.

You need to learn the difference.

- Leigh

[petrochemist]

I looked. There's nothing occluding the exit pupil. That's what stops do. Ain't none that matters.
You looked and saw that only the center portion of the image got through the lens.


Interesting. Why, pray, do telephoto lenses invariably have smaller circles of good definition than lenses of normal construction (neither telephoto nor wide angle) of the same focal length?

I would expect that's because normal construction lenses are much easier to correct for all the various aberrations. Top quality modern lenses (out of my price range, but perhaps including some of the OPs Nikon lenses) use aspherical elements, and exotic glass such as 'extra low dispersion' to improve matters. I'm not so sure your 'invariably' applies with them.

[Dan Fromm]

You looked and saw that only the center portion of the image got through the lens.

What is the exit pupil?



[/QUOTE]I would expect that's because normal construction lenses are much easier to correct for all the various aberrations. Top quality modern lenses (out of my price range, but perhaps including some of the OPs Nikon lenses) use aspherical elements, and exotic glass such as 'extra low dispersion' to improve matters. I'm not so sure your 'invariably' applies with them.[/QUOTE]

What determines a lens' coverage?

[snay1345]

Ben I don't think you are understanding. First of all your prime (i am assuming you have either a 50 or 85) lens would be a very wide angle on a 4x5 even if it were to work. Second if you were able get this thing mounted and focused on your ground glass the image circle would not cover the whole sheet of film. Large format lenses are designed to cover large format sheets of film. 35mm lenses are not since their is no need to, as all 35mm lenses are only mounted for one brand of camera and are not designed to be thrown on a lensboard and used with a large format. And if you were able to get the lens far enough away from the ground glass to make the image circle large enough to cover a sheet of 4x5 there would be no way in hell the lens would ever focus.

[Wally]

OK, let's close this thread now. The OP's question at the top, and snay1345's succinct answer at the bottom (but for mine :^).

In-between there's lots of info on macro and micro photography intermingled with lots of 'you, sir, are an idiot - here's how it is', and 'go read _my_ books - yours are crap', and on and on. You (who are acting like jerks to one another) may think you're conveying the idea that you really are smarter than that other guy, but you come off sounding like a real dick.

[E. von Hoegh]

OK, let's close this thread now. The OP's question at the top, and snay1345's succinct answer at the bottom (but for mine :^).

In-between there's lots of info on macro and micro photography intermingled with lots of 'you, sir, are an idiot - here's how it is', and 'go read _my_ books - yours are crap', and on and on. You (who are acting like jerks to one another) may think you're conveying the idea that you really are smarter than that other guy, but you come off sounding like a real dick.

Actually, snay is incorrect. The lens would focus at about twice lifesize. (winking smiley)

[denverjims]

During the early middle ages, church scholars would argue for years and write volumes on the incredibly important question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Sometimes the arguments would end in physical blows between 'experts' who knew, beyond a doubt, they had the correct answer. What brought that to mind this momemt? Hmmmm...

[Jim Jones]

Snay is correct as far as mounting the lens normally, but several replies on this thread point out that most lenses from smaller cameras can be reverse mounted (with the lens mount pointing away from the film) for macro photography. This is usually easy to do via the filter threads on the lens. It works. Some of us have done it.

[Wally]

That's the way I used my olympus 50 1.4 on my Pentax 67 bellows: a 67mm filter-to-Pentax67 adapter, and a 49-67 step-up ring. I used a rubber band to pull the diaphragm lever that stuck out the back end of the lens so it'd stay stopped down once I was done rough focusing wide open.

I hope that even if he doesn't respond again to all the replies his original post generated (directly or indirectly), he at least comes back after reading our home page's docs on LF lenses, and has his light bulb moment.

[David Casillas]

During the early middle ages, church scholars would argue for years and write volumes on the incredibly important question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Sometimes the arguments would end in physical blows between 'experts' who knew, beyond a doubt, they had the correct answer. What brought that to mind this momemt? Hmmmm...

Should´nt the forum be free of any reiligious comments.
I dont know if this statment is an american joke but i quit offensive to say that for Catholics.
If you say early middle age scholars, you ara talking about Saint Agustin, and Saint Jerome. I dont know what kind of person would believe these guys wold discuss about that.

I would like to sugest to remove that reply.

[Ole Tjugen]

Was that a religious comment???

I read it as a comment that there are many cases of scholars seriously debating (at length) matters which at a later time seem silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

Not that silliness among scholars was limited to medieval times:

Feyerabend's Theatrum Diabolorum, "which," as the title says, "is a useful and sensible book," contains a great number of essays written by such prominent little authorities as Jodocus Hockerus Osnaburgensis, Hermannus Hamelmannus, Andreas Musculus, Andreas Fabricius Chemnicensis, Ludovicus Milichius, and others. The Reverend Hocker explains in forty-eight chapters almost all possible problems connected with devils whose number in Chapter VIII. is, according to Borrhaus, calculated to be not less than 2,665,866,746,664.

There were undoubtedly other scholars at the time, besides the saints Augustine and Jerome.

[Dan Fromm]

David, nowadays when we say that an argument comes down to wrangling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin we're not addressing religion. We're saying that the argument is a pointless waste of time and that the issue under consideration has no practical significance. Don't be so sensitive. If the person who made the comment -- not me, and I don't think it was apt, but not for your reasons -- had intended to attack religion I don't think he'd have been so indirect.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

[photobymike]

Well if i could get a lens board that would work with my mamiya rz lenses ... or better yet a 4x5 film back for my RZ .. yea yea i know there is a 4x5 polaroid holder but i really want to use my 4x5 film holders for a 8cm x 8cm image.....boy i could really like that

whats with the pin, angels ect... 35mm lens on a graflex yes i have seen it... but the guy modified the lens to take out the retro focus ability... i think he removed the back lens and it worked... he used a 85mm fd canon lens.. so there....

[David Casillas]

That people is not early middle age Church scholars.
When people talk about Middle age Church, normally talk about the Catholic Church, beside that the fact people discuss something doesnt make them scholars.
Olej, to talk about this go ahead and read Agustin, Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, even to Sir Thomas More, Therese of Avila, John of the Cross. Scott Hahn, John Paul the II, Benedict XVI etc. and then tell me if you find one of them talking about such a stupidity. (or any othe stupidity)

[Dan Fromm]

Well if i could get a lens board that would work with my mamiya rz lenses ... or better yet a 4x5 film back for my RZ .. yea yea i know there is a 4x5 polaroid holder but i really want to use my 4x5 film holders for a 8cm x 8cm image.....boy i could really like that

I think it is possible to reshutter the lenses, could be mistaken. Take the cells out, put them in standard shutters, and go. Try it and tell us whether it works.

I did this with a 60/5.6 Konica Hexanon for Koni-Omega. Same problem, body cocks and fires shutter with linkages that can't be made to work on a lens board.

[David Casillas]

Dan :

I got that, thanks.
But one thing is to use the expression and another to say that Church Scholars wrote books and fought about it.

Thanks again for letting me know aobut the use of this phrase.

[Dan Fromm]

David, for the second time, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_man...ad_of_a_pin%3F

[David Casillas]

Dan:

Thankyou, I already understood that. Now I know is a way to say dont waste your time.
But if you refer to Aquinas talking about it, well I read the Suma, and he would answer that question saying: Angels are spirits and as such they dont use or need space.

I hope this is also clear.

[Dan Fromm]

Well, then, as many angels as you'd like can dance on the head of a pin. And the pin won't hurt their feet.

[Jim Jones]

Angels and pins? in this forum shouldn't that be about photographing angels with pinhole cameras, not about philosophers or biblical scholars, whether the angels are dancing or not? Maybe that is also covered in the Post Your Pixies thread.

[denverjims]

David, nowadays when we say that an argument comes down to wrangling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin we're not addressing religion. We're saying that the argument is a pointless waste of time and that the issue under consideration has no practical significance. Don't be so sensitive. If the person who made the comment -- not me, and I don't think it was apt, but not for your reasons -- had intended to attack religion I don't think he'd have been so indirect.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

Since I was the one who offended David (and perhaps others), I want to clarify that Dan had my meaning correct. I also did not mean to offend those folks who were intently trying to come up with a technical solution to that fellow's problem.

I just felt that 1. the issue has little, if any, significance in the fullness of LF art; 2. that some of the folks involved seemed to me were getting overly heated in their defense of their answers; and 3. I thought it was a humorous, but harmless, historical analogy given how I felt. In the future I will make sure to intend to offend only in a non-humorous manner as my meaning will be easier to discern.

"Stay away from politics & religion, son. You'll have an easier time in life." - My Dad. Should'a listened to Dad about some other things as well.

[Brian C. Miller]

This is a forum of large format cameras. The brave, the bold, the adaptable. So far nobody has posted what their camera can do. Instead there is now a debate over a fictional medieval argument.

So:

Super freak dance this:

69531
See what some cardboard and tape gives you? An SLR lens on a view camera. Yeah, the front standard is almost all of the way in there.

69532
And this is what the ground glass looks like.

69533
(The film hasn't dried completely, but that's basically it.)
I don't have an internal shutter on my Super Graphic, so I tried doing the two-holders trick. Anyways, that's what I got. Yes, it can be done, and that's the proof. If you want some quality to it, then go build a better shutter.

The end.

[jnantz]

thanks brian

you did exactly what i suggested the original poster to do back on page 4 .. ;)

john

[Leigh]

And this is what the ground glass looks like.
If you set your standards low enough, anything can be claimed to "work".

- Leigh

[ic-racer]

So, to clarify this thread; the answer to the question posed in the original post is actually : 'a piece of cardboard' and not '2,665,866,746,664 angels'

[denverjims]

So, to clarify this thread; the answer to the question posed in the original post is actually : 'a piece of cardboard' and not '2,665,866,746,664 angels'

DISCLAIMER: I have already personally apologized for bringing the subject of Church Scholars, Angels & Pins into this highly technical discussion. I refuse to be held responsible for any further posts in this thread which mention any of the above either directly or through innuendo. Do so at your own risk!

[Leigh]

Anyways, that's what I got. Yes, it can be done, and that's the proof.
In my first post in this thread I said the lens would not cover the format.

Your experiment has proven that statement to be correct.

Thank you.

- Leigh

[el french]

In my first post in this thread I said the lens would not cover the format.

Your experiment has proven that statement to be correct.

Thank you.

- Leigh

Actually, it doesn't prove the statement to be correct. It simply shows it will not cover the format at extension used.

[Jim Jones]

This is a forum of large format cameras. The brave, the bold, the adaptable. So far nobody has posted what their camera can do. Instead there is now a debate over a fictional medieval argument. . . .

My posts are about reverse mounted lenses from 35mm and smaller cameras that I have actually tried and found capable of full frame images on large format. I have no images thus photographed on my computer, and don't want to waste time and film proving to nonbelievers what I know to be true. Anyone who has made enlargements from small negatives should realize that they were doing much the same thing, but with a lens that was designed to mount on an enlarger without reversing rather than on a small camera.

[genotypewriter]

and don't want to waste time and film proving to nonbelievers what I know to be true.

That's one ugly thing about human beings... you tell them something new that is also in their interest, instead of investigating things by themselves, all they want to do is challenge you and criticise you and make it your obligation to demonstrate it to them. A sad bunch...

[TheDeardorffGuy]

Bump.......I just had to see this at the top one LAST time!!

[Leigh]

Poor horse...

- Leigh

[Jim Jones]

Bump.......I just had to see this at the top one LAST time!!

Sadist!