Reverse a 35mm f4 Rodenstock Eurygon?

[pict685]

Picked up one of these and want to use it for macro work in the 5x to 10x range. Does anyone know what magnifications this lens is optimised for? i.e. is it best to reverse it for the magnifications mentioned?

There is no rear thread on this lens but the front thread appears to be 25mm - can anyone confirm this please? Is it likely to outperform a 50mm EL-Nikkor (I have both f2.8 and f4 flavours) reversed? Any other info on the usefulness of this lens or otherwise is appreciated.

Thanks.

[Dan Fromm]

The one I had was made to front mount on a #1 shutter, came from a Polaroid MP-3 system. It was threaded M40x0.75 at the rear, and the last (at the rear) element was larger than the first( at the front). Since the lens was made to be shot front-mounted at magnifications > 1:1, there's no need to reverse it.

Look again at yours, it should be threaded at the rear. It may be screwed into something.

FWIW, mine was a dog and was least bad around 10:1. The 35/4.5 Tominons I used to own were all much better.

IMO a reversed 50 El Nikkor is likely to be better if you can get and manage the extension, but you really should ask your lenses. My dog of a 35/4 Eurygon may not have been representative. Also, if the 50/2.8 El Nikkor performs like my 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS, it will be superb above 1:1 reversed, but better at f/4 than wide open.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

[pict685]

The lens looks like a dog externally (johnhendry.com/eurygon.jpg) but the glass is sound and I was hoping it might be decent. You never know, as you say you might have had a dud. I don't know what this one came off as there are definitely no mounting threads on the rear - just a cylindrical collar about 38mm OD butting to a small flange. Can you remember what coverage was like?

I have a BR2 and a 55mm Micro-Nikkor though I think it's the f3.5 so that is another option. Inititially I want to shoot 35mm/digital with a Nikon PB-4 bellows before trying 4x5 so the 35mm focal length of the Eurygon was attractive from the point of view of extension and lightness.

Thanks for your thoughts,
John

[Dan Fromm]

Coverage? I have no idea. But since the MP-3's 35 Eurygon was replaced by the MP-4's 35 Tominon, there's a hint. The Tominon covers 4x5 from 5:1 up. You should have no problems, extension and mounting excepted, with using the Eurygon on 35 mm from 1:1 up.

Thanks for the image. Yours looks as though the rear cell is missing. Am I mistaken about this? Is there glass behind the diaphragm?

We had a discussion a while ago on the French LF board about reversed 55 MicroNikkors for LF. Someone reported favorably on the f/3.5. So try yours, you might like it.

[pict685]

I think it's all there... to the rear of the diaphragm hiding behind that silver collar is a rear cell. The rearward element is about three times the diameter of the front objective which is consistent with your memory of it.