Related Links:
6x12/4x5 for Little Money by Bob Hutchinson [02/00]
Astronomy Resources - astronomy related news, books and web resources (6/2003).
Bronica Lens Hacking Body Caps 57mmx1mm for sale and related project hardware..
Chinese mfger of Binoculars, scopes..
Color Hand Scanner ($45) Converted to Digital (IR) Panoramic Scanner
Copy Scope Lenses for Sale
Digital Scanner Camera by Andrew Davidhazy (RIT)
Do It Yourself Homebrew Links [8/2002]
Fisheye (pentax 17mm f/4 for 35mm) on 120 Film Project by Greg Erker [10/1/99]
Flat Black Paint Resources
Howard G. Ross' Adapt Oddball Lenses for Better Tele Shots (Modern Photography May 1970)
John Stewart's Homebrew Very-Wide Camera (JPEG) [01/00]
Handheld Scanner to Digital Back or Camera (RIT)
Homebrew Perspective Control Lens How-tos (Nikon mount 28mm PC lens)
Lens Hacker Hall of Fame - Bronica Division
Lens Registration Table [12/2002]
Mamiya 4x5/6x12 Homebrew (Bob Hutchinson)[02/00]
Nimslo 3D to Xpan 3:1 Hacking Andrew Davidhazy (RIT)
Painting Tips (flat black..)
Plungercam Hasselblad (Loupe for a lens)
Polaroid 110 Homebrew Conversion to Pack Film
Rick's Adapters pages
Robert Monaghan's Building Fun Telescopes for Under $10 (Astronomy Magazine May 1987)
Sam Sherman's Adventures in Hacking, Slashing, and Adapting Odd Lenses (for Bronica S2a...)
Sam Sherman adapts Zeiss 180mm Sonnar to Bronica
Telelens and Copyscopes from Photo copier Lenses
Tube and Adapters [4/2002]
A. Zillions of lenses will probably work with the right adapter. The more detailed
answer depends on your SLR, especially whether it is a focal plane shutter or leaf
shutter model. The coverage of the lens is also important, along with other factors.
Q. Why is it easier to adapt lenses to focal plane shutter bodies?
Focal plane shutters are in the body of the camera. So the lenses adapted to such
cameras don't have to have some kind of leaf shutter provided for them to work. You
just use the focal plane shutter in the camera body as always. The lens can be as
simple as a barrel lens (see below), just some glass elements in a mounting barrel.
You can use leaf shutter lenses, but simply ignore the leaf shutter mechanics (or use
them if you want).
Q. Why are leaf shutter cameras harder to adapt lenses to?
A. A leaf shutter camera (such as Bronica SQ and ETRS, Hasselblad 503c/m, and Rolleiflex
6008) requires a leaf shutter in the lenses, since these bodies lack a focal plane
shutter in the body. So you have to provide some kind of shutter to control the
exposure for general shooting uses. This shutter adds to both the cost and size of
the adapters. If adapting leaf shutter lenses from other cameras, you need to make
provisions to cock this shutter and trip it to take the exposure.
Q. What can I do if I have a leaf shutter camera body?
A. Don't give up. First, there are a number of leaf shutter lenses you can use,
including many optics from large format cameras and low cost folders. There are
lots of low cost folders and TLRs and other medium format and large format camera
lenses with leaf shutters available for such projects.
You can cheat
and use an existing normal lens as a compatible leaf shutter mounting, simply by
removing the existing glass elements. Some systems have a "microscope" shutter setup
like this for use with eyepieces of telescopes and microscopes and other lenses (see
Kowa shutter-less lens tips). With certain telephoto
lenses, this same glass-less shutter lens can be used to convert a focal plane
telephoto into an auto-diaphragm telephoto lens for your system. This trick can
be especially handy for leaf shutter cameras like Hasselblad 50X c/m and Kowa 6/66
where long telephotos are rare and pricey.
You can also use a front
of the lens shutter like the Packard shutter. You may
be able to mount a standard large format leaf shutter setup on a bellows or other rig
for use with your leaf shutter camera body and barrel lenses.
Q. What about not using any shutter at all?
A. You can use neutral density filters and take exposures of a few seconds or longer
without needing a leaf shutter (see Budget 'Blad Tips).
For many subjects like landscapes which don't move, this trick can allow you to use
many lenses with a leaf shutter camera body to take multi-second exposures without a
shutter. Surprise!
In the olden days, photographers had such slow films and lenses that it took
minutes to make an exposure. They simply uncovered the lenscap from the lens, timed
the exposure, and covered up the lens with the lens cap again. No shutter was needed.
Our use of neutral density filters lets us extend the exposure time to a range of
a few seconds to minutes, making it easy to time the exposure with a lens cap too.
Q. What are barrel lenses?
A. Barrel lenses lack any
leaf shutter or focusing mechanism (hence the need for a bellows for focusing), usually
because they are taken from large format style cameras that have built-in bellows and
a focal plane shutter. They are often obsolete, and therefore low cost lenses with lots
of coverage (and usable on your large format rigs too!).
Q. What can I do with a focal plane shutter camera body?
A. Since the focal plane shutter camera body already has the shutter built in, you
simply have to pick the right lenses and mount them so you can focus them to use
them on your camera.
Q. How does lens coverage influence my lens choice?
A. For use at infinity, you will need lenses that have enough coverage for your
format. So a 6x9cm folder camera lens will have plenty of coverage for a smaller
6x7cm (e.g., Pentax 6x7 SLR) or 6x6cm (Bronica S2/EC) or 6x4.5cm (Pentax 645) camera.
On the other hand, a 6x6cm TLR lens (mamiya C330 55mm, say) may be marginal or
vignette (cut-off) the corners on a 6x7cm camera, and not work on 6x9cm or larger
formats.
Many people will say that you can't use 35mm SLR lenses on 6x4.5cm or 6x6cm SLRs
because they don't have enough coverage, and can't be mounted at infinity. This
may be generally true, but there are some interesting exceptions for telephoto
lenses highlighted on this page below. For example, some 35mm SLR budget T-mount
500mm f/8-f/32 telephotos and 400mm f/6.3 lenses have been converted for use on
many medium format SLRs with good results.
Q. What is lens registration distance?
A. Lens registration is the distance from the base of the lens mount on the camera body
to the film plane, usually measured in millimeters. See table. For example:
Lens Registration (in mm): Canon FD 42mm 35mm SLR focal plane shutter Canon EOS 44mm 35mm SLR focal plane shutter Nikon 35mm 46.5mm 35mm SLR focal plane shutter Mamiya 645 63.3mm 6x4.5cm SLR focal plane shutter Pentax 645 70.87mm 6x4.5cm SLR focal plane shutter Kiev60/Pentacon6 74.1mm 6X6cm SLR focal plane shutter Hasselblad 500x 74.9mm 6x6cm SLR leaf shutter Hasselblad 200/0x 74.9mm 6x6cm SLR focal plane (leaf opt.) Kowa6/66 79.0mm 6x6cm SLR leaf shutter Kiev88 82.1mm 6x6cm SLR focal plane shutter Pentax 67 84.95mm 6x7cm SLR focal plane shutter Bronica S2A 101.7mm 6x6cm SLR focal plane shutter Rolleiflex SL66/x 102.8mm 6x6cm SLR focal plane shutter Mamiya RZ-67 105mm 6x7cm SLR leaf shutter Mamiya RB-67 112mm 6x7cm SLR leaf shutterYou will note that in general, 35mm SLRs have the shortest lens registration distances, followed by 6x4.5cm SLRS, 6x6cm SLRs, and 6x7cm SLRs. The Pentax 67 is somewhat unusually short for a 6x7cm camera. The Rolleiflex SL66 and Bronica S2/EC are somewhat unusually long for a 6x6cm format camera too. This makes it easy to adapt lenses from the Bronica S2/EC to the many shorter lens registration distance cameras with a simple lens mount adapter. You can do the same with the Rolleiflex SL66 lenses, but they tend to be a lot more costly Zeiss lenses!
Q. How does lens registration guide my lens mounting conversions?
A. It is relatively easy to build a purely mechanical metal mounting adapter
to mount a Bronica S2/EC 200mm nikkor to mount on a Hasselblad 20x/2000x series
focal plane camera. The Bronica lens wants to sit 101.7mm from the film plane, while
the Hasselblad 200/0 focal plane body mounts lenses 74.9mm from the film plane. So
you just need an empty metal tube with the right mountings on each end to mount
this Bronica S2/EC lens on your camera. How long? Simply 101.7mm - 74.9mm or 26.8mm.
Anytime the lens has a longer lens registration distance and the same or larger
format coverage, you have a potential candidate for conversion. But remember that
leaf shutter cameras will require some kind of leaf shutter or other shutter for
general use.
Q. What about cases where the body is too long for the lens?
A. In theory, you could get a negative diopter lens or similar optical element(s)
of the right strength and mount the lens at the exactly right point to get infinity
focus. This is basically just a weak teleconverter (around 1.1X typically). You can
find examples for sale for 35mm SLRs (see Lens Mount Pages).
But I haven't seen such items available for the much smaller medium format market.
While I don't know of any commercial sources, you might be able to make one yourself
with the right negative diopter elements (see diopters
pages) from Edmund Scientific Corporation or other optical supply houses?
Q. What about using Teleconverters as Adapters?
A. Some folks have taken 1.4X teleconverters (e.g., Kiev) and machined them with another
camera body mount, making it easy to use Kiev lenses on another body (e.g., Pentax 67)
but with a 1.4X teleconverter effect (which they wanted anyway). Others have used 35mm
teleconverters and gotten interesting results when using those low cost 7 element 1.4X
optics in systems for which no 1.4X teleconverter existed.
Q. What about exceptions to the lens registration distance rules?
A. Sometimes you can cheat. For example, we describe below mounting a Kiev 30mm fisheye into
the throat of the Bronica S2A/EC, despite the lens (82.1mm) being too short for the
body (101.7mm). This works because of the falling lens design of the Bronica, so you
can stuff a lens down the camera throat without it hitting the falling mirror.
On the other hand, you can't take some Bronica wide angle lenses like the nifty 50mm
nikkors and use them on other cameras. In this case, the lens rear projects too far
into the throat of the camera (over 1 1/2") to clear most SLR moving mirrors. So you
have to do a bit of checking on lens candidates to be sure there isn't some issue
like this that makes problems for your conversion projects!
Q. Why are macro lens conversions so easy?
A. Macro lens conversions are easy because you can use almost any lens, including
not just 35mm SLR lenses but also even 16mm and 8mm movie camera glass lenses as
bellows lenses. The extra distance from the medium format body to the lens acts
as an extension tube or bellows, simply increasing the degree of lens magnification.
So a Bronica S2/EC body (101.7mm) can't use a Nikon 28mm wide angle lens for 35mm SLRs
at infinity (requires 46.5mm lens registration distance). The 35mm SLR Nikon lens
could be easily mounted on a Bronica S2/EC (e.g., in a hole in a Bronica body cap).
But the extra distance to the Bronica lens mount (101.7mm - 46.5mm = 55.2mm) acts like
a 55+mm extension tube on the original 35mm Nikon SLR, producing high magnification.
Q. What about macro with leaf shutter lenses
A. With leaf shutter cameras, you often have either auto-bellows or non-auto bellows
which can be used for bellows operations. If you mount a leaf shutter lens, you can
use its leaf shutter with the right cable release setup. If not, then you may be
able to use strobe lighting and the slow effective aperture (often f/32, f/45, and up)
of many macro setups, at least in the studio (see macro
tips for leaf shutters section).
Q. Why might you want to put a leaf shutter lens on a focal plane camera body?
A. Leaf shutter lenses enable you to use electronic strobe flashes at any speed, up
to 1/500th second or faster (depending on the shutter). By contrast, most medium format focal
plane shutters are limited to slow speeds (usually 1/30th second to 1/60th second and
slower) for synchronizing with electronic strobes. In many situations, the leaf shutters
have an advantage of being able to use faster shutter speeds.
For example, in bright
sunlight, a 1/30th second flash exposure may produce a "ghost" image (exposed by sunlight
at 1/30th second) as well as the desired flash exposure. With a leaf shutter, you can
simply set a high speed (1/500th) where the ambient light exposure is not enough to
produce a "ghost" image. Or you can pick an intermediate setting, balancing ambient
light exposure with the flash exposure (e.g., lighting wedding clothes and faces). This
approach is called "synchro-sunlight", and is a major advantage of leaf shutters over
focal plane shutters in some situations.
Q. Why are leaf shutters a bit harder to use than barrel lenses on focal plane bodies?
A. If you want to use the leaf shutter instead of the focal plane shutter in the camera
body, you have to co-ordinate a series of steps. You focus, then set the controls on
the leaf shutter for shutter speed. Now you have to close the leaf shutter, and
usually stop down the lens to the desired f/stop.
The focal plane camera body is set on some long time setting, usually B or bulb. You
trigger the focal plane body and shutter, and hold the cable release so the focal
plane shutter stays open. A second cable release is then used to trigger the leaf shutter
to do its thing (e.g., 1/30th second exposure). At this point, you simply release both
shutters, allowing the focal plane shutter to close up (and protect the film from light
again). Now you can open the leaf shutter for focusing, cock the leaf shutter for the
next shot, and advance the film (and cock the focal plane shutter in the process) on
the camera body. Phew! Sounds complicated, but it is faster to do than to describe with
the right setup.
Q. Let us look at some examples, please?
A. Sure. For example, you have an older Kodak 1A folder for obsolete #616 film
that uses a 177mm f/6.3 lens in a leaf shutter to cover 2 1/2" x 4 1/4" format.
You can probably use this $10-20 folder lens on just about anything with the
right adapter and setup. The coverage is more than enough for any medium format
rig. The lens is a long focus design, so it focuses to infinity at about 175mm
from the film plane (see lens nodes).
The lens has a
leaf shutter, so you can use it on leaf shutter cameras too, but with a separate
cable release for the camera body and the leaf shutter lens. On a focal plane
body, you can ignore the leaf shutter and just use it as a lens. You will need a
75mm (3") to 100mm+ (4") tube or bellows to bring it to infinity focus on most
medium format SLRs.
The result will be a relatively slow (f/6.3) telephoto (177mm)
lens for your camera. You could easily convert this into a telephoto shift lens to use the extra coverage, if you wanted too.
The lens won't be great, because it is an uncoated lens (more flare), an old
design (fewer corrections), and not meant for great enlargements (modest resolution).
But for $10-20 for camera and lens, what did you expect? ;-)
Q. How about a more interesting example?
A. No problem. Suppose you have a Hasselblad 203 or 2000 FCW or similar focal
plane camera body. But the cost of Hasselblad zeiss lenses is too much? Instead
of the very pricey 110mm f/2 lens, you could get the Bronica Komura 135mm f/2.3(!)
lens for circa $100-125+ and use manually with a simple mechanical adapter, e.g.,
threading a hasseblad extension tube for 57x1mm threads at 101.7mm mounting distance.
The same adapter could be used with the Komura and Zenzanon and Bronica nikkor
telephoto lenses and possibly some wide angles (40mm?) as well as Bronica's tilt/shift
bellows II unit (cheaper than a Hasselblad Flexbody camera).
It is really unfair that the Bronica classic cameras are so easy to use
with generic lenses. We already have over three dozen commercial medium
format lenses to choose from (see list). With
the broadest and perhaps least expensive line of high quality medium
format SLR lenses available, why should we ask for more?
 Bronica Lens Page |
But why not? This article will show how easy it is to use generic lenses
on your Bronica cameras. You have literally thousands of lenses to choose
from that can be easily mounted and used on your Bronica at low cost.
As we will see, your choices include inexpensive view camera style perspective
control capabilities by using the deluxe bellows. Macrophotography and
flat-field lenses are also easy, using inexpensive copy lenses and
borrowed 35mm macro-lenses. You can get that super-long telephoto lens by
using a simple adapter to mount a surplus process lens. The cost will
be less than the cheapest 35mm lens in the same focal length, but
quality will be much higher. Extend your
flash synchronization range by mounting leaf shutter lenses with X-synch
terminals in a huge variety of focal lengths. A screw thread mount makes
it easy to build an adapter for astrophotography and microscopy too.
We will even share a few secrets on how you can recycle that old 8mm
movie camera or 110 or disc camera lens as a super closeup lens on your
Bronica. So read on, steal some ideas, put them to work, and let us know
about your experiences using generic lenses on the Bronica classic
cameras.
 Author Bob
Monaghan's Original
Lens Hacking Article in Astronomy May 1987 |
The Bronica classic cameras have a unique trio of features that make
building and using homebrew lenses very easy.
Since you have a focal plane shutter, you can use any lens with an
aperture diaphragm such as
inexpensive barrel lenses. You can also use lenses with built-in
shutters or mounted on shutters for
expanded flash synchronization uses. Note there is already a leaf
shutter 105mm Nikkor in the
standard Bronica lens lineup. The 105mm Nikkor makes use of the removable
helical focusing mount for its operation (see photo below).
| Bronica S Manual on Threaded Mount |
|---|
| Note: The inside of the Bronica focusing tube is threaded (diameter 57mm, pitch 1mm) in order to accept any lenses you now have. The distance from the foremost front edge of focusing tube to the film emulsion is 102.0mm. (p.16) |
The removable helical focusing mount also opens some other interesting
opportunities. By removing the helical mount, Bronica could design a tilt
and shift deluxe bellows which focused to infinity!.
 Bronica Tilt/Shift Bellows |
This feature makes it possible to have some view camera style
perspective controls
using tilts and shifts. The standard Bronica auto-diaphragm lenses can be
used. You can also use any lens that can be mounted on the front of the
bellows with these perspective control
features. In other words, you can use a homebrew lens mount with the bellows
to make use of a wide range of thousands of lenses that can cover 6x6. The
deluxe bellows
makes it possible for Bronica owners to enjoy many perspective control
features using tilts and shifts that are either pricey or unavailable on
other medium format SLR systems.
Bronica
S Bellows (photo thanks to Greg Erker).
Older Bronica S bellows has lens board rise but no fall, and side to side
tilts, but is not as flexible as later deluxe bellows unit.
 Kodak Ektar Lens and Bronica Body Cap |
|
From: Sheldon Brown [email protected] [1] Re: Ektar 127 mm lens Date: Mon Oct 27 15:39:19 CST 1997 Organization: Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
I've mounted a 127 Ektar in a body cap for my old Bronica S2A. I use
this with the bellows (which has a tilt/shift front standard.) It gives
very nice results on 2 1/4, and the coverage permits rather extreme
tilts without vignetting.
Sheldon Brown Mr. Brown's Photography Home Page with neat photos from recycled cameras and Quebec travel photos etc., plus his how-to articles on recycling throwaway cameras, DX codes..! |
 Bronica Helical Mount |
The removable helical mount also makes it possible to mount large
telephoto lenses with their own focusing mount. Wide angle lenses can
also be recess mounted to the limits of the falling mirror design of the
Bronica. This is one reason the ultra telephoto and ultra-wide angle
lenses are so relatively inexpensive on the Bronica camera system.
Having a helical focusing mount on the body and a built in focal plane
shutter means lenses need be little more than glass and an aperture
diaphragm. A wide variety of barrel lenses, old 2x3 or 4x5 lenses, leaf
shutter mounted lenses, old polaroid lenses, and even old TLR lenses can
be recycled for use with simple mounting setups.
Key questions in evaluating lens candidates are can
the lens cover 6x6 and is the focal length greater than 101.70mm - the
lens registration or distance from lens mount to film plane. If so, then
the lens may be useful with infinity focusing. If not, then the lens may
be useful for closeup photography, acting as if it were on an extension
tube.
In general, it is relatively easy and inexpensive to adapt
short
and longer telephoto lenses for use with the Bronica screw thread mount.
Mike Bond's even cheaper body cap mounting approach can be
used with many short telephoto lenses very easily too. Closeup and
flat-field macrophotography lenses are also easy to adapt. If you can't
find a Bronica body cap, don't despair, as you can just use the 57mm
screw thread mount adapter approach.
For the truly adventurous, the helical focusing mount can be
removed and a custom lens mount can be used to recess lenses
within the camera body. A look at the 50mm Nikkor lens shows just
how far a lens can be recessed without difficulty. In fact, the unique
falling mirror design of the Bronica (split mirror on EC series) means
that the Bronica is an ideal candidate for ultra-wide angle lens
adaptations. If you must have a prime Bronica fisheye lens, see Willem Markerink's
notes on medium format fisheyes and building custom adapters in our
related article on Bronica fisheye adapters (with photos).
But don't despair!
A variety of inexpensive fisheye
and ultra-wide angle adapters are available for use mounted on filter
rings in front of your normal lens. These fisheye adapters cost $50 to
$100US new/used, while wide angle adapters start at $10-$25US and up.
At those prices, you have very little to lose in using these adapters
until you can find a prime wide angle lens at the right price. See article on
front-of-lens adapters for details and sample photos. Don't expect
these fisheye or wide angle adapters to perform like prime lenses costing
ten times as much! But you may be surprised and pleased by the results.
You can also get a fisheye style photograph using two even cheaper items.
One of those view round the corner spherical mirrors can be used in a
pinch, photographing the mirror image with a normal lens. An under
$10 fisheye 'lens' can also be made from a lens cap adapter mounting a
fisheye security viewer. You have seen these fisheye viewers mounted in
hotel doors to
view visitors before letting them in the door. The same trick works with
35mm camera lens caps (metal caps preferred for strength). So you can split
the ten buck cost between your various cameras. And you
can always screw it back into the door when you are done with it! See
Tom Fuller's Return of the Fisheye article in Shutterbug
Ads of December 1991 p.100 for more details.
| Body Cap Lens Adapter (Nikon Macro-Lens) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bronica user and lens-master Mike Bond reports good results using a
Bronica body cap (cost circa
$12 from dealers) and hollow tubes to mount older barrel lenses at the
right focusing distance for
use on his Bronica camera. The helical focusing mount provides some
built-in focusing ability for
lenses that don't have a focusing setup. These older barrel lenses vary
from soft (for portraits) to very sharp lenses with plenty of coverage
for 6x6 formats. Best of all, the price is often right, with lenses
starting at ten dollars and up.
| 57mm Screw Thread Adapter Mount Article | |
|---|---|
 57mm Thread Mount |
 Lens Adapter |
The screw thread mount is also very handy. You can readily get or have
made a 57mm x 1 mm pitch
threaded tube to mount preset lenses, especially both short and long
telephoto lenses.
See
related article with photos
showing how a 135mm
preset Nikkor is easily mounted onto a Bronica using this screw-thread
mounting option (see photo above).
Many longer telephoto lenses provide adequate coverage for 6x6 and have
enough airspace for
similar preset screw-thread mounting. Unlike compact 35mm mirror lenses,
older
500mm f/8 glass lenses often have no glass elements in the rear of their
mounts (see photo below).
| 500mm f/8 Long Lens Candidate |
|---|
|
Similarly, many copy or process lenses have long focal lengths
and great coverage that just begs to be used on your Bronica camera. All
it may take is a 57mm screw thread mounting tube of the right length to
bring that long telephoto lens into infinity focus.
In a January 1991 Shutterbug Ads
article titled "Super Tele: 12 cents per Millimeter", Tom
Fuller showed how to use a surplus copy or repro lens to create a sharp
500mm telephoto for $60 total cost. This design used a clever sliding
pair of PVC tubes (each 60% of the total focal length) to create a really
wide range and smooth focusing
mount. Black cloth, felt, or sponge rubber was glued to fill in the space
between the two tubes (one being larger diameter than the other).
Paint the inner tube surfaces flat black. He used a T-mount at the rear
for camera mounting. A body cap adapter would be one option to mount to
Bronica, or use a sturdier 57mm thread mount and tube design. The lens
was mounted in a PVC pipe coupling. If you use epoxy, don't get it on the
lens! You can also use tape around the lens and an adjustable hose clamp
as Mr. Fuller did in his design. You can
build a U-channel mount with clamps to hold the lens and a tee-nut to
hold onto your tripod. Consider using different lower camera mounting
tubes so you can use the same tele-lens for both Bronica and 35mm camera
systems.
There are lots of surplus copy or repro
lenses out there in the longer focal lengths with great coverage (4x5 or
even 8x10). Just use the built-in aperture diaphragm on the lens. Most
commercial long telephotos for Bronica use this preset focusing approach
too.
Komura/Vivitar made a nice 2x teleconverter for use with the Bronica bayonet
lens mount. But what about 1.4x and 3x teleconverters? Consider using the
screw thread mount to put a teleconverter inside the
telephoto lenses you create. Just put threads on the inside of the lens
mount as well as the 57mm x 1 mm pitch threads on the outside for
mounting on the Bronica. Now you can use the inside mount to hold your
teleconverter. You can experiment to see how low in the mount your
teleconverter has to be placed to provide best performance. Thanks to
Bronica's unique falling mirror/split mirror design, you can even
potentially (and carefully!) project your teleconverter back into the
camera body.
Unfortunately, medium format teleconverters are expensive.
So I am interested in experimenting to use standard 35mm camera
teleconverters in the 1.4x, 2x, and 3x strengths. Since
teleconverters work by bending light outward from the center, we might get
good coverage at the right mounting position distance. Again, W.J.Markerink's
Lens Registration Table will help locate potential 6x6 and 35mm donors
for
teleconverter services. Potentially, you can convert that 500mm screw
thread mount telephoto lens into a (slower) 1000mm and 1500mm with some
surplus 2x
and 3x teleconverters. Hard to beat getting three focal lengths for
little more than the price of one, especially at the longer telephoto
values!
Microphotographs
using 16/8mm projection lenses
How To Turn Lenses Into Telescopes (Olympus 35mm)
You can also use eyepiece projection with both microscopes and
telescopes to get some really high magnification or long lens equivalents.
Again, the screw thread 57mm mounting makes it easy to adapt your Bronica
to scientific photography. You can also use a version of the body cap
approach described above with a standard piece of tubing to match the
various standard eyepiece mounts (e.g., 0.96'', 1 1/4'', 2'' and so on).
Using the right 8mm/16mm glass movie lenses in
reverse as eyepieces (described below), you can make a deluxe 'scope to
Bronica adapter with its own zoom eyepieces built into the mounting
adapter.
Body Cap Adapter |
Mike Bond's body cap approach can also be used with
flat-field macrophotography lenses (e.g.,
from 35mm or copy or process camera sources). For example, you could
mount a hollowed out
rear lens cap (e.g., Nikon 35mm) into a hole bored in the Bronica body
cap, adding black epoxy as
needed. Now you can insert your 35mm lenses into the Bronica for closeup
photography. Note that you can't use these 35mm lenses at infinity for
reasons explained below.
35mm lens on Bronica |
The Bronica lens mount is 101.70mm from the film plane. The nikon lens
mount to film plane distance is 46.5mm (see Willem J.
Markerink's lens mount table for other cameras). Any 35mm nikkor
lens mounted on the Bronica lens mount acts optically as if it were
on a 55+mm extension tube. So this trick means you can use these 35mm
lenses, but only for closeup or macrophotography work.
While a 35mm camera lens
can't cover 6x6 at infinity, the circle of
coverage at high macrophotography magnifications is greater. Don't be too
surprised if
there is some light fall-off at the edges wide open. Remember that when
you stop down, the lens coverage will increase even more.
If you already have a 35mm macro-lens, you may find this
approach is
the cheapest way to get a flat-field macrolens for your Bronica.
Your cost to try out this approach is only the cost of a screw thread
mount or alternatively a Bronica body cap ($12) and rear 35mm lens cap and
some epoxy.
| Looking for a Really Low Cost Wide Angle Med Fmt
Lens?Try a 50mm 6x6cm Enlarger Lens! |
|---|
| Recall that you can readily buy some low cost enlarger lenses that are not only the usual 75mm for 6x6, but also wide angle 50mm enlarger lenses too. These 50mm wide angle lenses were designed to make it easier to make large enlargements in cramped or desktop facilities. But these lenses are designed to cover 6x6cm fully, plus provide a flat-field or macro photography facility. Most are also simple screw-thread mounts, making them easier to adapt to a Bronica 57mm x 1mm pitch mounting. However, be sure that there is adequate focusing distance between your lens and the film plane. Not all enlarger lenses will focus to infinity at Bronica's 101.70mm film registration distance, with or without a homebrew extension tube thread adapter and mounting. But don't overlook these low cost optics if you need a wide angle lens of good sharpness and flat field capability on 6x6cm! (3/23/99) |
By using 75mm enlarger lenses, you
can do macro work on a moderate scale (like on 6x6cm sized film or
smaller). Use a 50mm enlarger lens meant for 35mm negatives, and you get
a greater degree of subject magnification.
| In extreme cases, even a 16mm movie camera lens of only 1 inch focal length can come in handy and, with a bellows extension of 11 inches, will evenly and sharply cover a 4x5 inch negative, producing an image of the subject ten times natural size on film! |
Similarly, we will use
16mm
and 8mm glass movie camera lenses in reverse to work our way down towards
smaller film sizes and corresponding smaller macro subject sizes.
As the above quote makes clear, if a 16mm lens can cover a 4x5 plate, it
can easily cover Bronica's 6x6 format. Finally, as described in a recent
Shutterbug
Ads 1996 article, we can even use 110 and disc camera lenses in
reverse to get down to really tiny subjects.
Beyond this point, we have
to borrow objectives from a microscope to reach the 10X to 40x range. A
sample adapter using PVC pipe couplings to mount a 10X macrophotography
objective is shown in a related section below. If you need 100x to 400x
magnification and beyond, then we use the entire
microscope, including the eyepiece, in a projection lens setup. The film
takes the place of your eye's retina for the microscope to form an image.
A variety of inexpensive surplus microscopes ranging from 40x to 1200x
are sold at auctions every week on the WWW (e.g., EBAY at www.ebay.com).
Besides being ten to a hundred times cheaper than a commercial
macrophotography setup, these surplus microscopes often come with kits of
useful supplies such as slides.
To ensure better lens coverage for macrophotography, consider the surplus
copy or process lenses
that often sell for prices reflecting their orphan status. You can adapt
that flat field copy or process
lens for doing macrophotography with your medium format Bronicas for an
outlay of about $15 to $20 in body cap adapters. You can also do the
same trick using the 57mm x
1mm pitch screw thread mount. This approach is recommended if you need to
mount a long focal length closeup process lens in a more sturdy
mount. Note that the Bronica helical focusing mount provides some focusing
capability and range (14mm for
250 degree rotation) for these approaches. You can also use a version of
Tom Fuller's sliding tube mount to give you a variable length
focusing and zoom extension tube. A wing nut through the lower
rear of the bigger
tube can be tightened to lock in any selected length in either design.
The big advantage of these
closeup copy and process lenses is their coverage is designed for larger
format cameras, so light fall-off at the edges is minimized. Many
larger format lenses are also optimized for closeup studio work with flat
paper documents, and so will also work well with macrophotography setups.
You will be
pleasantly surprised by the sharpness of these lens, their flatness of
field, and light coverage. If you take up large format photography,
you can also borrow and use them on your view camera. If you have
very broad photography interests (35mm, 6x6, 4x5), you will find that a
little effort in designing adapters and lens mounts
may make it possible to use a few lenses on a number of cameras!
We have already seen how easy it is to mount generic lenses onto your
choice of
the three later Bronica lens and body mounts. The screw thread mount is
especially attractive as a sturdy yet cheap mounting method easily used
with custom lens and shutter mountings. This facility makes it easy to
expand your flash synch lens options using
generic leaf shutter lenses with X-synch terminals. You can also recycle
leaf shutter lenses with flash synch terminals from unpopular
cameras (polaroids, TLRs, 2x3) to work on your Bronicas using any of
these lens mounting techniques (e.g., screw thread, body cap).
Remember that you can also mount lenses to the front of the deluxe and regular
bellows adapters. By using a lens mounting board adapted to your bellows,
you can borrow lenses from other camera systems including view cameras
to use on your Bronica, then return them to original use quickly.
Macrophotography $3 PVC Pipe Adapter |
Do you have a set of Bronica extension tubes? Then you also have a 57mm x
1 mm pitch set of adapters. The largest tube (C-D) makes an easy to use
screw thread mount adapter. The photo above shows how easy it is to use a
2 inch PVC pipe coupling ($.55US) plus pipe cap ($2.45US) to make a simple
universal lens mount.
The inside of the coupling needs to be ground out with a dremel tool or file
slightly. The midpoint ring of the pipe coupling makes a nice stopping
point, enabling you to couple to any length of pipe.
For light and short lenses such as the 10X macrophotography objective
shown here, you probably don't need more than a tight fitting coupler and
extension tube setup. Reverse mounted 8mm and 16mm glass lenses will also
work equally well for macrophotography, as described below. But this
coupler will work with any lens
which can be mounted in a 2 inch pipe coupling and brought to useful
focus in such a PVC adapter.
I use a
turn or two of masking tape around the rim
of the extension tube to protect it and make it suitably tight in the
hand-ground adapter. You only need
one adapter coupling and extension tube for many lenses. Naturally, you
could also get a 2 inch metal pipe with 57mm x 1mm pitch threads cut
in one end of it if you don't have an extension tube. If you want an
ultrasturdy mount for longer lenses, I would recommend using the
metal tube to PVC coupling approach. You could also epoxy the
extension tube to the coupling ring, but naturally you can't use the
tube after that modification.
Simply mount each
lens on its own pipe cap and add the appropriate length of two inch pipe
to reach infinity. Since pipe is cheap, you can epoxy the infinity
setting point for each lens. A really useful tip from Tom Fuller's
Shutterbug Ads article on using two pieces
of pipe is repeated here. You can get whatever focusing range you need by
using two pieces of pipe instead of one in your setup. The second pipe
piece is slightly smaller than the first, and has rings of rubber (as
from wet suit material) on its rim. To minimize vignetting, put the
bigger 2 inch pipe end at the camera body end of your design. Don't
forget to paint the inside of
the pipe with flat black paint to cut down on reflections.
A really
neat option is a variable zoom extension tube using this approach.
Add a small screw hole and large headed screw that can easily be hand
tightened to lock in your particular settings in these dual tube designs.
This design may not be as convenient as a medium format bellows setup,
but the cost is less than the cost of a burger and fries.
Taken together, the two tubes can
move in and out snuggly, providing a huge range of focusing. At minimum
setting, your infinity focus is provided. But extended out, you can get
closer objects in focus. At extremes by using longer tubes, you get into
the range of closeup photography, just as you would with a view camera
using longer bellows extensions.
Do you have a collection of old 8mm cameras, disc cameras whose batteries
have died and aren't replaceable, or that old 110 camera you don't want
to be seen using? Try them out for these unusual applications with
your Bronica..
The glass versions
of 8mm and 16mm lenses make decent eyepieces for experimental telescopes,
and at a few dollars apiece, the price is right. The same lenses can be
reverse mounted in your Bronica bellows for use with extended range
macrophotography. You can also just mount them into a body cap adapter
and focus by moving the Bronica to the subject. You will need a lot of
light to focus - be careful not to set the subject on fire, especially if
it is foreign banknotes!
The 8mm glass camera lenses are usually much better than the standard
eyepieces that come with the 'comet clobberer' telescopes most
folks have. The larger 16mm glass lenses make nifty zoom eyepieces for the
l 1/4 inch OD telescope eyepiece mounts. I have found some plumbing supply
store copper pipe in various diameters (e.g., 0.96 inch and 1 1/4 inch OD
tubing)
can be used to epoxy in these eyepieces for easy swapping between various
telescopes and microscopes.
Naturally, you can build an adapter to mount one of these 8mm/16mm camera
lens eyepieces on the back of a long telephoto lens using Tom
Fuller's Shutterbug Ads design. Since the primary lens is a
highly corrected apochromatic surplus lens, don't be surprised if this
odd combination outperforms many less expensive amateur telescopes. A
similar commercial design is used to convert sundry telephoto lenses
for use as telescopes. You can build a homebrew eyepiece holding
adapter, using a rear lens cap and tubing for auto-diaphragm lenses or
just a tubing section and rear cap for your homebrew lens designs.
| Astrophotography
with a Bronica S |
Another astronomy derived lens recycling trick is the use of photocopier
machine optics as a finder scope. These glass lenses are surplus (that
magic word again!) for costs in the $5US to $20US+ range. The
lenses are rather fast (large aperture) for their short telephoto focal
length. You already
know they'll cover 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper pretty well from copier use, right?
A fast short telephoto lens with great coverage for under twenty bucks -
sounds like another candidate for lens hacking to me!
If you combine one of these eyepieces with a body cap adapter or 57mm tubing
mount, you can experiment with eyepiece projection. The film plane just
replaces the retina of your eye, and you focus normally through the
Bronica's viewfinder. You can also use a similar adapter to mount your
Bronica to a microscope to take photomicrographs. As you may have already
noticed, I am concentrating here on those items Bronica neglected to provide
for us like microscope or telescope adapters, macrolenses, fill-in flash
x-synch, macrophotography, and inexpensive long telephoto lenses.
A recent Shutterbug Ads article also described
the use of reverse mounted disc camera and 110 camera lenses for
macrophotography. The disc camera lens yielded images of pinkie-nail
sized images, while the 110 camera lens was more useful for thumbnail
sized objects. These same lens may make fun and interesting
macrophotography experiments in a world where camera shake takes on a
whole new meaning! Even at maximum extension, the Bronica bellows unit
limits you to 2.9x magnification (1.68x with extension tubes alone). With
these lenses, you can easily get into the 10X range and beyond.
In short, the Bronica is an ideal platform for experimenting and using
generic lenses in medium format photography. The built-in focal plane
shutter and helical focusing mount makes it easy to use barrel lenses that
are just glass and aperture diaphragms. Lens can be mounted in body cap
mounts or using the simple 57mm screw thread mounting on the later
Bronicas. The deluxe bellows also offers a unique lens mounting solution
that permits not only macrophotography, but also perspective control
action with tilts and shifts.
Using these options, we have suggested
ways to get:
The recycled leaf shutter lens
with
X-synch approach is especially interesting to those looking for more flash
synchronization options.
If you dream up some interesting applications, please let me know with a
description and preferably
photos of your setup (Email
address [email protected]).
If you are interested in more, see an earlier article I
originally published over a decade ago in Astronomy Magazine in May,
1986,
titled ''Building Fun Telescopes for Less than $10'' that deals with
experimenting with lenses as described in parts of the above article.
Homebrew Your Own Medium Format Camera? Here's Inspiration!
[Ed. note: was at http://www.leaderrealestate.com/exakta/arcade/reb1.html, no connection as of 2/2003]
Homebrew lens hoods and bellows compendium lens
shades from old 6x9 folder bellows, enlarger bellows, and so
on...
Interested in Getting into UV Photography?
Not everybody would be interested in paying the elevated asking price for
the UV Nikkor. Alternatives exist however. Old non-coated or
single-coated lenses can function well. I have used a multitude of Zeiss,
Leica, Canon and Nikkor lenses to this end.
So single coated lenses may have some advantages over multi-coated lens,
at least if you like the diffusely beautiful landscapes and color effects
of ultraviolet photography. And the cost is thousands of dollars less than
the
commercial UV specialty lenses.
The above posting suggests another reason to break out those uncoated old barrel lenses and single coated older Bronica Nikkor lenses. With a true UV-only passing filter (Wratten 18A, Hoya U-360, or Schott) and some Fuji tungsten balanced film (e.g., RTP), you can open up a whole new kind of light for your photography.
| Low Cost Microscope/Telescope
adapter |
|---|
|
The Grippa's simple microscope adapter uses a plastic pipe fitting and
camera reversing ring to mount the camera to the eyepiece of your
telescope or microscope. Remember to paint the insides flat black. Focus
with the camera mounted on the adapter, through the camera's optics,
using the camera's meter to set exposure. Bracket, bracket, bracket!
Their microscope had a one inch outside diameter eyepiece barrel. So they
used a 1 1/2
inch by 1 1/4 inch drain slip reducer adapter (from plumbing or hardware
store). Attach camera reversal adapter ring lens side out obviously. They
superglued theirs to a 1 1/2 inch locknut. For extra sturdiness, you can
drill holes in the reducing ring and matching holes in the drain adapter
and wire them together, or use plumbing epoxy. To mount the adapter more
sturdily on the microscope, they drilled three small holes and used 1/2
inch x #8 thumbscrews in a triangular arrangement. Simply twist the
three thumbscrews until the adapter gets a tight grip on the
microscope or telescope tube.
One of the nice tricks in this setup is that you can screw off the lock
nut and camera reversing ring from the drain reducer mount. Now you can
use the same piece on a different microscope or telescope. Simply get the
right size drain adapters. You can also adjust magnification by extending
the length of the adapter, using a PVC tube section with matching end
pieces for your adapter sections.
You may want to look at a tripod mount or copy stand setup for mounting
heavier cameras (such as Bronicas) on your microscope. On a telescope,
you can often find a 90 degree front-surface mirror angle to redirect
the light parallel to the telescope body. These right angle mirrors are
often used on finder telescopes and are low cost items too.
Now it is much sturdier and
easier to mount a camera (e.g., Bronica) on the telescope tube body. Use
foam to cushion vibration. Muffler hose screw clamps or large tyraps can
be used on a mounting board without damaging your camera's finish. A small
board with a short 1/4x20 screw can act as a tripod
screw for mounting your camera on the board. Now mount the board on your
telescope using hose clamps or other hardware (e.g., using finder mount
hardware).
On Bronica S/S2/C/EC series cameras, you have a 57mm x 1mm pitch screw
thread mount. If you have an extension tube, you can make use of this lens
mounting in place of the hard to find Bronica reverse adapter ring.
I make my extension tube set do double duty. I have a PVC pipe connector
which has been ground out with a dremel drill so the extension tube just
fits. Now I can easily use any PVC pipe coupling adapter I need to match
my telescope or microscope mounts.
If I need the extension tube for macro work, I can just unscrew it. If
it gets loose, I will just use a bit of black electrical tape around
the extension tube to tighten things up. That's easier than grinding
out another $0.89 cent adapter to fit the 57mm tube again! ;-)
If you need more sturdiness, consider using household cement on the
outside (not on the tube's screw threads) to hold extension tube and adapter
together.
Why? Usually this glue can be easily removed with many solvents (avoid
fumes!), without harm to your extension tube (unlike using most epoxies).
These 'scope adapters use eyepiece projection. You can use direct
projection by
simply removing the eyepiece before mounting the adapter. Now only the
microscope objective (10X, 20X, 40X) will be working as a precision
bellows lens. But frankly, it is easier to just remove and remount these
lenses in a bellows setup designed for camera use. You may also get
some surprising macro results from the eyepiece lenses as well!
Notice that you can use these same ideas of PVC and an extension tube to
make a bellows mount adapter (or slide duplicator mount adapter). If you
have a Nikon bellows, as I do, you simply epoxy a Nikon rear lens cap to
the other side of the PVC pipe and 57x1mm extension tube setup. Drill out
the plastic at the bottom of the rear lens cap. Now you can mount your
Nikon bellows on your Bronica body.
Yes, at some settings, you may get vignetting with some lenses. Sometimes
an extra length of PVC pipe can help by acting as a larger extension tube.
On other lenses and settings, you may have to spring for a 2 1/4 inch
bellows. First, try to use large diameter extension tubes and PVC pipe (2
inch) without the 35mm
bellows setup (e.g., a large extension tube). PVC pipe is pretty cheap, so
you can have multiple tubes for multiple magnifications. It isn't as
handy as a bellows unit, but it can be a whole lot cheaper!
Don't forget to paint all inner surfaces flat black with flat black spray
paint or enamel. You can also spray into a small cup if you need paint
to dabble inside a hard to reach shiny area. Good luck!
|
The more research I do into lens hacking and homebrew optics, the more I
find that most good ideas are constantly being re-invented. In doing some
research in Modern Photography for my new third party lenses megasite, I found this
neat article on macrophotography using movie camera lenses as bellows lenses.
Here are some ideas abstracted from an article by Tom Branch titled
Cheap but Good Route Beyond 1:1 in Modern Photography, p.
106, September 1981.
Glass movie camera lenses for 8mm movie cameras in the 1/2 inch (13mm), 1
inch (25mm) and 1 1/2 inch (40mm) range make great bellows lenses.
Look for coated lenses. Slower lenses of f/2 and f/2.8 are better than
faster ones (e.g., f/1.4).
Look for lenses with click stops down to f/22, making it easier to get
depth of field you may need.
Is the rear element of the lens deeply recessed in the lens mount? If so,
you won't be able to use it for high magnification unless you can remove
the rear obstruction. You need to get the subject within 1 centimeter of
the rear of the lens for macro work.
He suggests using a metal lens cap screwed onto your 35mm camera's
extension tube. Make a hole in the center. File it out to fit your new
macro lens.
Tom suggests that many 35mm cameras use extension tubes which are similar
in diameter to your camera lens filter thread size. If so, you should be
able to use a metal cap from a filter stack cap pair to mate with your
extension tube.
Use epoxy to secure the lens. Be sure the lens is centered and
perpendicular. Don't get the glue on any moving parts of the lens.
Use black paint or silicon rubber sealer to cover holes that might leak
light.
Tom adds a wire arm to the lens aperture ring and a scale on the side of
the tube to make it easier to set apertures from behind the macro rig.
An enlarger lens can be mounted in a thread adapter. Make another tube
and cap setup, cut a hole, and epoxy the adapter in place. Cover up any
light leaks again with black paint.
The enlarger lens is okay from 1:1 to 6X or 6:1 magnification, depending
on tube lengths. But the movie lenses are sharper from 2X onward in his
experience.
The set of three movie camera lenses (13mm to 40mm) can give a series of
magnification ratios from 1:1 to 20:1 or 20X!
While 50X may be possible with bellows, you really need a fine focusing
mount as on a microscope as depth of field is very narrow.
The 40mm lens is probably the most useful, providing a sharp 2:1 or 2X to
6:1 or 6X magnification ratio, up to a maximum of 10:1 or 10X on
bellows.
Besides magnification, camera and bellows shake is also greatly
magnified. Light falls off rapidly too. A marked f/16 lens on a 10X
setting equates to an f/176 lens opening. You may need to mount the flash
within an inch or so of the object and lens to light the subject
properly.
At high magnification, depth of field drops to tenths of a millimeter or
less.
For more information, see Kodak's Closeup Photography and
Photomacrography booklets.
One of his more interesting projects was converting a Rollei 6x6cm slide
projector zoom lens to serve as a zoom lens on a 6x6cm camera. This
particular Rollei slide projector zoom lens was made by Isco of Gottingen
as a projection lens, not a camera lens, so it lacked an iris diaphragm.
Mr. Simon was able to get an iris diaphragm added to the lens and mount
it on his Rolleiflex SL66 camera. I should note that the lens
registration distance of the Rolleiflex Sl66 camera is within a few
millimeters of the Bronica S2/EC series lens registration distance too.
So any tricks that work for Rollei SL66 will probably work for us
Bronica users too!
In practice, this zoom lens provided a varifocal design, requiring
refocusing after zooming. The nominal design of the lens was centered on
130mm focal length, varying from 110mm to 160mm with a maximum aperture
of f/3.5. Since the classic Bronica 6x6cm cameras have an integral
focusing mount (as does the Rollei), this lens can be mounted and used on
Bronicas in a similar fashion.
These slide projector fixed and zoom lenses need focusing mounts too.
Besides the regular Bronica focusing mount
(used for up to 200mm prime lenses), you might also be able to use the
longer Komura
lens head focusing mounts or the long Nikkor lens mounts (e.g., 600mm) for
longer focal
length zooms too. Various extension tube and bellows setups could also
provide an extended focusing range with these homebrew zoom and fixed
lenses.
A New Source for Medium Format Zoom Lenses?
What an interesting idea! Think of all those low cost zoom and fixed
lenses for 6x6cm slide projectors out there. Instead of projecting light
out through these optics, we want to go in the reverse direction and
project light onto the film in our Bronica cameras.
What about the missing iris mechanism? At the simplest level, you could
simply create a Waterhouse stop or disk of the right diameter to fit in
the rear section of your
slide projector fixed lens. Different size holes in the disk correspond
to different lens settings. Cost would be under $1, but don't forget to
paint your disks flat black to reduce flare.
The better approach might be a rear mounting adjustable iris mechanism
from a view camera barrel lens mount. An old folder with bad glass might
contribute an adjustable iris diaphragm (and leaf shutter in some cases)
that could fit on the rear of your slide projector fixed or zoom lens.
Granted, an internal diaphragm at the right lens node is ideal. But
this behind the lens iris diaphragm approach is used in more view camera and
folder lens setups than you can count. It should be a cheap and easy
solution for adding an adjustable iris diaphragm to projection zoom
lenses too.
At this point, you have a new source of potential zoom and prime lenses for
your classic Bronica cameras. While slide projector zooms are not in the
same class as a Schneider Vario-gon, they can be picked up for as little
as one percent of the cost.
Unlike 35mm zoom lenses, these slide projector lenses were designed to
cover the 6x6cm format. They also have a long lens
registration distance, making mounting on Bronica cameras relatively easy
(esp. those whose focal length is well beyond Bronica's 101.70mm lens
registration distance).
My guess is that many 35mm slide projector zoom lenses, designed to cover
not only 35mm but also superslides, could very easily also cover 6x6cm -
especially when stopped down. Granted, the sharpness of such 35mm slide
projector zoom lenses could be less than a higher cost OEM 6x6cm zoom lens
design. But you probably already own some of these lenses, so your cost
to test them out will be very low.
For now, this approach may be
the only game in town for
low cost (under $100 US) zoom lenses that can cover 6x6cm formats.
Related Speculations
On a related note, Mr. Simon noted that a 150mm f/1.8 Astro-Tachar movie
camera lens (for 35mm?) actually "almost" covered 6x6cm, depending on how
finicky you are about acceptable coverage. He describes one German sports
photographer using this lens with a super-fast 6x6cm setup.
My point here is that a lot of surplus movie camera zoom lenses and movie
projector lenses are out there. Depending on how finicky or
desperate you are, you may be quite happy with testing and adapting them
to 6x6cm use. Some of the 35mm to 6x6 conversion tricks described in Mr.
Nathan's article (see
lens page link below) include removing the rear flare protecting shade
from 35mm lenses (e.g., 180mm f/2.5 Nikkor). If this trick can work for
Nikon to convert their 35mm lenses for use on Bronica 6x6cm, it might
work for you with other lenses too!
A few older zoom lens designs avoid using optical tricks to shorten the
lens physical length. Experience with fixed or prime 35mm telephoto
lenses suggest these zoom lenses are ideal candidates to investigate for
6x6cm coverage and potential mounting distances. For example, a 200mm to
600mm zoom lens might have an air space at the rear of the zoom lens
(e.g., for
interchangeable mounts). We have already seen that 500mm f/8 glass lenses
have such rear air spaces, making them easy to adapt to medium format
use. Such zoom lenses would be obvious candidates for testing and adaptation.
I am also investigating using 35mm T-mount and autodiaphragm zoom lenses
on Bronica 6x6cm. At first, this approach seems ridiculous, given
T-mounts have a 55mm lens registration distance versus Bronica's 101.7mm
distance. But you can remove Bronica's helical focusing mount and insert
a 35mm lens very far back into the throat of Bronica's falling mirror
design body. We already know many telephoto lenses have lots of extra
coverage, especially stopped down. How many long telephoto zoom lenses act
similarly?
Many longer 35mm lenses use a final rear lens element(s) to shorten the
focal length of the mount and bring the lens into focus at the desired
35mm camera lens registration distance. Another strategy may be to locate
these design lenses
and remove these lens elements. The zoom lens will become a longer mount
design
that can be more readily adapted to 6x6cm camera mounting and use.
In short, I believe that a concerted effort and rethinking the lack of
medium format low cost zoom lens options is likely to pay major
dividends. This one article describing one photographer's search for a
medium format zoom lens, from 30+ years ago, may offer us some useful
leads today!
Let us know of your successes (and failures!) with your homebrew zoom
lens efforts!!
See Fast Medium Format Lens Notes from
the above article for details on 100mm f/2 Komura for Bronica, adapting
180mm f/2.5 Nikkor from 35mm to Bronica and Hasselblad 1000f, and related
lens adaptations.
Source: Modern Photography November 1967 pp.74, 76 by Simon Nathan
(Simon Says).
Using Minus Lenses to Convert 35mm and 6x6 lenses to Bronica
Mounts
Another possible avenue is the use of modest negative lens elements as
lens mount converters. You already know that a teleconverter can make it
possible to mount a lens an inch or more from its usual mounting spot.
Moreover, teleconverters spread the light out, so we may pick up a good
bit of extra coverage using one (e.g., on a 35mm zoom).
Despite complaints that this approach reduces optical quality, the
reality is shown by 35mm optical converter mounts (See comparison of Vivitar 28-85mm zoom with and
without optical converter for surprisingly small quality impacts.
In an article titled Tele Fun with Minus Lenses in August 1971
Modern Photography (p.22,24) by James Robinson, he reviews his
experience with such optical converters. He used some minus lenses from
Edmund Scientific Corp.
How did Robinson get started on this project? He learned that the Apollo
Lunar Lander TV cameras had used a $0.95 Edmund negative (Barlow) lens on
their Angenieux zoom lens to increase that lens format coverage
capability. Hey, if its good enough for NASA on the Moon, its good
enough for me too!
The trick is to vary the distance between the negative lens and the prime
lens and film plane to get optimal results. In the process, you can shift
a lens effective film plane registration distance to where you need or
want it to be.
Yes, you can shift an 82mm Kiev-88 medium format fisheye
lens to fit on Bronica, along with any of the other low cost Kiev-88
medium format lenses. Or how about those low cost Schneider and Zeiss
lenses for the Praktisix on Bronica? Starting to see some potential
here?
How about using some of your 35mm telephoto lenses on a homebrew optical
converter mount on your Bronica or other medium format camera?
You can take several approaches. In my mind, the best approach would be
to experiment with the guts from a modest cost older 4 or better yet 7
element teleconverter (e.g., 1.4x for medium format lens adapters, 2x or
3x teleconverter guts for a 35mm lens adapter).
Robinson simply put the negative lens into an extension tube at the rear
of the 35mm lens. He mounted it in a filter holder ring that just fit his
extension tube innards. Pushing on the filter let Robinson experiment
with different positions in the search for optimal effects. He mated the
35mm extension tube to a 6x6cm extension tube using an adapter. You and I
can do the same with a Bronica 57x1mm extension tube too.
Robinson found that a -48mm focal length 25mm diameter negative lens from
Edmund Scientific (No. 94501 - cost $0.90) worked best. This optical
converter lens let him focus his 35mm lenses on his 6x6cm setup from
infinity on downward. He got full format coverage on 6x6cm too! The
lens acted as a 3x teleconverter, converting his 300mm f/5.6 lens to a
much longer (900mm) and slower (f/16) lens.
How About a Homebrew Bronica Teleconverter
With slightly different spacing, this same negative lens acted as a
3x teleconverter on his medium format camera, converting his 80mm lens
into a 240mm f/8 telephoto. Unfortunately, the quality of results from
his single lens element teleconverter was low to unacceptable.
But you
and I can use a more capable teleconverter lens with multiple elements
for much improved performance in our tests.
The significance of Robinson's article is that you won't know what will
work until you try it. Robinson limited himself to single element
negative lenses, with all the uncorrected distortion that implies.
But Robinson's real insight was that as you vary the positioning of various
teleconverter optics, you can change not only the focal length of the
lens but its effective lens registration distance effect as well.
We know a 1.1 to 1.23x teleconverter is used for 35mm optical mount
adapters. This weak teleconverter pushes the lens registration distance
out far enough to adjust for 5mm to 10mm differences between 35mm lens
registration distances (e.g., Nikon vs. Topcon). It also pushes the lens
the distance of the optical adapter width farther from the lens mount.
What if we used a high quality 1.4x teleconverter mount in a similar
extension tube setup as used by Robinson? My guess is that like him, we
would find various distance combinations which would permit creating our
own desired optical adapters. I would bet that a 1.4x converter could be
placed so as to permit using Kiev88 lenses (82.1mm) on a Bronica or Rollei
SL66 mount (101.7mm lens registration distance).
In fact, the 1.23x
optical mount adapters which give 8-10mm shifts for 35mm cameras
(typically 46.5mm lens registration distance) should by geometry give
double that distance when mounted on a Bronica (at 101.7mm), right? And
we need about 18-20mm shift to let us use lots of Kiev-88 and Praktisix
lenses on our Bronicas. Sounds worth checking out to me!
Naturally, you would have to remount the elements in a different mounting
(Bronica 57x1mm screw-thread to Kiev-88?) and position it optimally.
Since such optical adapters are not now available for medium
format to medium
format systems, all we can do is break out our 35mm teleconverters and
try them out!
Similarly, a longer teleconverter such as a 2x or 3x might be right at
the optimal distance to let us mount 35mm lenses on our medium format
systems. The teleconverter effect will spread out the light, so coverage
may not be a problem anymore. Yes, you will lose lens speed with the
teleconverter, but there are lots of fast 35mm lenses out there too.
Finally, is it possible that a low cost or surplus 35mm multi-element
teleconverter could be mounted so as to work on Bronicas too? This
position might be inside the lens mount, I suspect, but thanks to
Bronica's falling mirror design, even this should be subject to
exploration?
Ah, so many possibilities, so little time for exploration...
Related Links:
Bjorn Rorslett's
Homemade Lenses... (Wow!)
Inexpensive MF/LF Lenses:
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998
From: Hemi4268 [email protected]
Subject: Re: getting into medium format
Hi
The Ektar 101mm lens can be found in some Kodak 620 Tourest cameras made in
the early 50's. The best way to ID them is that Ektars came with Kodak
Synchro-Rapid 800 shutters. These are the same shutters used on the 4x5
Graphic cameras. Usually the 4x5 have the 127 lens. The 101 will be a
little
on the wide side. I have found 127 lenses on Kodak 616 folder made in
the mid
40's. I would say only 10% of these cameras came with the Ektar lens. I
find
about 3 to 4 good folders a year going to about 10 to 15 shows. One will
have
a Ektar lens. None of the cameras will be over $25. The average will be
$15.
Larry
[Ed. note: These lenses are doubly attractive for lens hacking
since they will cover 4x5, and 6x6 easily with movements, at very low
cost in the shutter mounts, for only $25!]
Daryll Kuhn [email protected] wrote:
Has anyone experimented with putting spotting scopes on thier
cameras...using them as lenses? Is the optical quality there or is it bad
I have a writeup on my Webpage if you are looking for great detail.
In short: there is a lot of glass between the subject and the film so
expect slow speeds and you will loose some sharpness.
My Bushnell (?) scope is something like 20-60x which translates to
1000-4000/f16-f64. I was trying to get some birds in the tree out
front and was never satisfied with the focus on the eyes. I also
wish I had mirror lock-up because the whole rig shakes quite a bit.
I solved that problem by using two tripods.
Mike
SEE:
[Ed. note: page was at http://www.mcs.net/~msc/WWW/sscope.html for Scope article
link checker reports as not found as of 2/2003]
http://www.mcs.net/~msc/
[email protected]
Yet another way to use bronica with 4x5 camera for movements and
lenses:
From: "Roger Urban" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Pen67on4x5
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998
Tom Ferguson wrote in message ...
[email protected] wrote:
In looking for some kind of adapter that would allow the use of my
Pentax 6x7 body on on 4x5 cambo. I want to use my front and back
movements for selective focus applications.
Hmmm....just ran across a body cap for my 6x7 in the bottom of the
camera bag.
Bet one could knock the middle out with a 2 1/4" hole saw, glue and
screw it to a plywood back for the view camera with a matching hole, and
be in business.
The original request was to mount the pentax 67 BODY onto a 4x5
camera.
Richard and other,
Horseman has just such a setup where you can attach a Pentax 67 or 645 or
a Mamiya to their view camera. It is under "Hot News" at their web
site...http://www.horseman.com I think. If not, just do a web search for
their name and you'll eventually find it. Anyway, I posted a message at
photo.net (Greenspuns site) regarding this kind of setup as I use Wisner and
would love to be able to slap a Pentax67 on the back of my 4x5 camera and
use my Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. It would allow me to use the TTL
meter and 120/220 film in bright sunlight without a black cloth to cover my
head.
I think if Wisner made such a back it would open up another niche and be a
selling point for MF photog's making the jump to LF.
Roger Urban
I have made several of these adapters for a number of different
photographers. There are too many variations to have this be an "off the
shelf" item. I have made them for Hasselblad to fit Sinar, Pentax to fit
Graflock, etc. I have not seen enough repeats of the same item wanted to
warrant even limited production. But the good news is that you can get the
one you want fairly economically either by the tape and body cap method or
by having me make one for your application. SKG
S.K. Grimes -- Feinmechanik
Barrel mount Process Lens Info
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" [email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
Is it possible to use large-format process/copy lenses mounted in
barrels as enlarging lenses?
Should be no problem. Process lenses are optimized for the range 1:3 to
3:1. Modern process cameras are made for material 14x17 and up, with
20x24 cameras being very common.
Modern process lenses tend to be wide field and small aperature. The
camera is set up and focused using servo motors, punched stanless steel
measuring tapes or screws with turns counters and a calibrated table of
magnification/turns. A small aperature is no hinderence as the camera
is not focused visually. The reason for wide field is to keep camera
size small. A 20x24 stands only 4-5 ft. high.
Older process cameras and lenses were huge. Horizontal cameras were
sometimes 8 to 10 feet long. A darkroom was built around the film
board. For some of these focusing was visual and the lenses went to
decently large aperatures.
Nick Lindan
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998
The thread going here about lenses for 35mm cameras covering 6x6cm
calls to mind that Sam of Photorama fame has a 2x3 Busch Pressman on
eBay, equipped with a Retina-Xenon 50mm f/2 optic. I am not making this
up. Maybe he is.
Stan Yoder
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998
Adapter to put Leica screw lenses on SL66. I made this from a
RolleiSL66 bayonet and a Durst enlarger lens board. Works great.
Actually, I made this adapter to use standard enlarger lenses on my SL66
for macro work. I never put a Leica lens on the camera. It would not work
for what you are thinking since the flange to film distance on 35 mm
cameras is so short. The 50 mm lens would never come anywhere close to
infinity, and would be good only for macro.
Bob
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998
most of the lenses are unfortunately not wide angle lenses, but mainly
telephotos lenses. If any rollei folks are interested in a $399.95 500mm
f/8 lens, see the November 1997 SLR column by Keppler. Seems Cambridge
Camera Exchange has arranged to remount these 35mm lenses into 6x6 and
6x4.5 focal plane camera mounts. I already had adapted a $50US used 500mm
f/8 glass lens for 6x6 - the T-mount tube end of the lens unscrews from
the front optical portion so you can remount it on a shorter adapter,
making it easy to adapt for any 6x6 including rollei slrs ;-) ;-)
surprisingly sharp to the corners, per Keppler's review in pop photo 11/97
Although not stated in Pop Photo, the lenses sold by Cambridge come from
Zorkendorfer. Basically it is a cheap Korean 500 mm telephoto with the
back end screwed off. Zork makes a tube with the MF lens mount on one end
and threads the other end to fit the lens head of the Korean lens. He also
sells a tube that lets you mount the same lens on 35 mm cameras with
tilt!!
I think Cambridge is a bit pricey on this, though. This is a $ 99 Korean
lens mounted on a $ 100 tube, and sold for $ 400!!!!!
Zork gave me one several years ago for my Mamiya 645. It's an OK
performer, but nothing to get excited about.
Bob
Several of Novoflexes' lens heads (e.g. 4/105 mm) also work on SL66 with
the M39 adapter. Great for macro work.
If anyone knows of Novoflex lenses ot there (especially the 200mm lens
head) I am interested!
Jan
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998
Leica lenses longer than 135mm will cover 6cm by 6cm and many, many folks
have adapted these to work on MF. For the Leica 135's and Viso lenses, the
heads can be removed from the focusing mounts to allow infinity focus.
Marc
From: [email protected] (JC17FL)
I got a chance to look over a store's check-out scanner used to beep UPC bar
codes and found that a large format lens is used in it !
The lenses used in these are ''Folded'' lenses. In order to save money on
manufacturing cost, the makers use three glass elements and a first surface
mirror at the spot where the diaphragm should be - resulting in the light
being
passed back out through the same three elements. This is - in effect - a six
element symmetrical design since the same three elements are used twice!
One of these lenses is a Fuji Optical 240mm F5.0 (no variable aperture)
with a
red dot.
These are obviously suitable for large format photography and I've
thought of
removing the mirrors and putting two together back to back. Only problem is
the excessive amount of metal in the rear of the lens which would have to be
ground away.
My next concept is to use them as is. I would mount the lens sideways and
place a beam-splitter in front of it. The lens would always point to the
left
(or right) while the camera points forward (sort of like those sneaky mirror
lens attachments for 35mm cameras!). The light/image would enter the
lens and
be bounced back out into the beam-splitter which would toss the light
onto the film.
I'm wondering if anyone else has fiddled around with these lenses and
what have
you done with them?
By the way, If I took one of these lenses and used it as a three element lens
(or for that matter, any 6 element lens using only the front half) what
sort of
results could be expected? (No aperture-wide open).
Joseph.
From: "Don Norris" [email protected]
These "hemi" lenses are also found in discarded copy machines. I know of
several photographers who have talked about doing something with them, but
non who actually has. I do have one lens that is "straight through" from an
even older copier. It is approx. 150mm, f8. I have used it to shoot copy
work onto 8X10, even full spread newspaper, and found it to be sharp.
From: Rob Black [email protected]
This is very true. I compared a new 500mm mirror Nikkor against my 20
year old 500mm Spiratone that I had *long* forgotten in my closet and
the Spiratone was clearly sharper! To top it off, I tested both with a
2x Tamron 7 element teleconverter and the Spiratone was quite sharp! The
Nikkor was unusable with the 2x. All tests were done with an F5. Go
figure!
Rob
From: Tim Forcer [email protected]
I've had a 250 f/5.6 cat for my Minolta XD7 virtually since I got the
camera in 1981. Superb lens, providing you use it properly (so what's
new there?).
Few points. First, the doughnuts do show up on my slides (I suspect
they will on any subject with near-point highlights, such as seascapes,
possibly not very noticeable with bird-on-the-nest photography).
Second, because the aperture is not a circle, the depth of field is
significantly less than for a non-mirror system with the same focal
length and aperture - that can be an advantage, of course. Third, the
aperture is fixed, so you either pre-plan and ensure your film speed is
low enough, or ensure that you've got at least one neutral-density
filter (the Minolta comes with a x4 ND filter that fits in the back of
the lens - some other cats use a filter drawer arrangement which is much
more convenient as it avoids the need to take the lens off the body.
DON'T lose the x1 plain glass which you swap for the ND filter - it's
there to keep optical paths the same.) Fourth, due to the smaller
maximum aperture (same as the minimum aperture!), any split-image focus
aid will tend to black out, and microprism areas can seem badly speckled
rather than incoherent - this is particularly true if you wear specs.
If you are used to using prime lenses around f/2.8 this could be
irksome. Finally, the focus will shift with temperature (at least, it
does with 1980s cats). As a result, the lens focus control SHOULD be
able to go past infinity - if it doesn't, you could have trouble out in
the field!
I think all that hassle is worth it for a lens which is the size and
weight of a non-mirror version of less than half the focal length. But
do try it out before you buy - you may not get on with the differences.
Tim Forcer [email protected]
From: [email protected] (NYCFoto)
Enlarger lenses make great macro lenses especially if you use the lens
reverse mounted. However enlarger lenses are designed for flat fields so
they are not great at shooting very 3 dimeninsional shots, but as DOF is
extremely limited at high mag, most high mag photographers try to shoot
flatter objects anyway......
From: Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
Not suprising at all. Flat field lenses like those for enlarging and
process photography are optimized for close-up work (1:1, 1:2, 1:3...).
The better ones are also just fine at infinity. I personally use
two Artars (A Red Dot and an APO) as long lenses for my 4x5 and
they are superb performers. In days of old, it was a time-honored
tradition to shoot and enlarge with the same lens, using the camera
as the enlarger in the latter case.
The contemporary obsession with optical "perfection" is very silly
and almost irrelevant in practice. In theory, your enlarging lens
should not be as good at infinity as a "real" lens. As you've
discovered, in practice, there may be no real difference. Even the
best films cannot resolve as much information and hold as much
dynamic range as even a merely decent lens. Atmospheric haze, flare,
f-stop diffraction, and any number of variables can easily become
the limiting term in image quality. In other words, if you have a
reasonably decent lens of modern design, its optics are unlikely to
be the weak link in the chain.
From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
The main aberration which get worse when a lens is used beyond the
range of distance for which it was designed is coma. Stopping down
gets rid of this most of the time. The field may also not be as flat
but that is of no consequence in pictorial photography and is also
alleviated by stopping down. Plasmat type lenses, like the Componon,
seem to have relatively stable corrections so that performance stays
pretty good for use at infinity.
They do make excellent lenses for table-top work where the image
conjugates are the same or nearly the same as in enlarging.
---
From: [email protected] (David F. Stein)
Although his book never seems to get mentioned when people are
suggesting LF texts, the Jim Stone Large Format Book has a nicely
presented, large section on basic lens science and design, the best
"accessible" one I've seen, with plenty of lens diagrams and
definitions/explanations of the basic "faults." I'm not qualified to
comment on its reliability, but a lot of useful discussion seems to be
there. A good book overall.
Sincerely,
-------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998
At 02:10 25.06.1998 -0500, Robert Monaghan wrote:
SL66 lenses cannot be focused on almost any other camera at all.
I have adapted a Pentacon 300 mm and a 135 mm S2A Nikkor to SL66 with
custom made mounts.
There is a commercial adaptor for Mamiya RB67 lenses to SL66 (Zoerk).
Ari P.
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998
Huh???? You mean because the lenses don't have focusing helicals?
Certainly if you could get them onto a bellows or helical tube they ought
to work. I never tried to put SL66 lenses onto anything else because I had
no need, but I see no built-in problems with doing so.
When I still had the SL66, my friend Herwig Zoerkendoerfer adapted a 180 mm
f/2.8 CZJ Sonnar for me. It was one of the late MC ones and produced
really fine images. It also focused VERY close, since he left the focusing
helical functional, so I could rack the bellows all the way out and then
run the helical all the way out as well!
Another friend of mine, Al Satterwhite, has a complete set of the Nikkor
telephoto lenses for Bronica S2 series which he had adapted ( I think Marty
Forscher's people did the work) for his Hasselblad 2000 series cameras. Al
is the only person I know who uses Hasselblad 2000 series cameras
professionally and says he never has any trouble out of them.
Bob
From: [email protected] (Warren Young)
I've just written an article detailing how I made a fine loupe from an
old Schneider-Kreuznach enlarger lens. The text is applicable to many
other types of lenses, including that old 50mm standard lens you have
laying around gathering dust. The article is at:
http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent/photo/pseudoschneider.html
= Warren -- http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998
Thanks for your interest.
First some basics: the Pentacon modification is reversible, but not
the Bronica.
I first removed the original mount and focusing ring from the Pentacon lens.
Then I put the lens in the mount I let a machinist make.
The mount is made of aluminum and it is about 6 cm long. I finished the
bayonet details myself. The mount has a hole in the middle for the lens
barrel, which must fit snugly. It also has screws which hold the lens
in place. There is also a groove for the original tripod mount.
See the picture for details and you'll
understand. If you are going
to do something like this, it is better to let the guy with the lathe take
the measurements. I had hard time because of a very small error.
The picture MOUNT.GIF shows a side view of the
mount.
(Ignore the horizontal lines. They are generated by the lathe program.)
The Bronica solution: I bought a 135 mm Nikkor-Q with a dented filter
mount for equivalent $35, so I had nothing to lose. I first removed
the Bronica mount and the automatic diaphragm details and added an extra
spring which prevents the aperture [from closing, forcing it] to stay open
all the time.
Then I replaced the Bronica mount with my own Rollei bayonet, which
I made of some kind of adaptor ring, found in a junk box by my photo dealer.
The outer diameter was exactly the right 62 mm, and it also had a suitable
groove in the middle. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the ring was, so I
cannot go back and ask for more.
When the bayonet ring was in place, the needed extra millimeter was also
covered without any further adjustments. [Ed. note: bronica lens
registration distance is 1 mm less than Rollei, hence offset here]
I discovered, that it would not be a problem for a skilled professional
to modify the aperture control mechanism so that the automatic would be
maintained also when mounted on Rollei. [Ed. note: very useful, usually
you lose automation, so the similarities make it much easier to
convert these Bronica lenses to Rollei Med Fmt mounts and use them
easily too!! ;-)]
I also have a dismantled Ukrainian 45/3.5 Mir wide angle lens, which
is to be adapted to the Rollei.
BTW, a friend of mine, a camera professional, told me that camera companies,
like Rollei and Hasselblad, price their adaptor plates for foreign lenses
high on purpose, because they don't want people to use other than their
own lenses.
[Ed. note: the going retail cost for the Rollei Lens Mount blank plug is
$500 US - compare to similar (better ;-) plug offered by Greg Erker's Project for $15 US to get
an idea of what Ari means here... ;-) Unfortunately, as of 2/2/99,
all of Mr. Erker's adapters have been sold. Sorry if you missed out!]
regards Ari P.
[Ed. note: Bronica lenses (e.g., Nikkors) would make excellent lens
candidates for the Rollei SL/X/6k cameras, based on the above
information. The Bronica lenses also reportedly have moderate extra
coverage for use with the Bronica tilt/shift bellows (or the prototype
but never mass-produced 6x8 bronicas). So potential use with 6x7cm
cameras can also be explored.
So Bronica lenses are a great
potential match to the Rollei medium format SLRs, some of which feature
integral bellows mount options for closeup photography.
The Rollei SLRs use focal plane shutters too. The Rollei bellows acts like
the Bronica helical focusing mount to help provide focusing movements.
Donor Lenses:
Bronica's Secret!:
Kiev-88 Mount Lenses:
Caution: Wide Angles:
A key point from Ari's post is
that lens diaphragm automation can be retained (at least in his lens
modification). This retained automation is very useful, since most
adapters don't provide such automatic operation options.
In short, Rollei med fmt SLRs may be a natural
upgrade path for Bronica 6x6 lens owners who want more modern features.
Rollei med fmt SLR bodies are relatively inexpensive, even with the
excellent Zeiss normal lens (under $1,000 US). But the additional lenses
are almost shockingly more money, up to $20,000 US for a single lens!
Another interesting option is the use of a Rollei SLR to Bronica 57x1mm
screw mount adapter. Such an adapter would permit use of various other
Bronica lenses, extension tubes, and accessories on the Rollei SLRs. Of
course, the older Bronica lenses won't provide the latest autofocus modes
of the latest Rollei lenses, so check carefully before buying. Using a
Rollei mount, similar to Ari's design above, we could possibly provide a
57mm x 1mm pitch thread mount standard Bronica mount design.
The Rollei
SLRs also offered a wider line of leaf shutter lens options than just the
single Bronica Nikkor 105mm leaf shutter. If you have a Rollei leaf
shutter lens, look into possible cross-mounting options to your Bronica!
Conversion of Bronica lenses to other medium format systems is usually
more difficult. The primary reason is the use of leaf shutter lenses on
most of the major medium format camera candidates. A second reason is
the lack of a focusing mount, which is usually part of the lens rather
than on the body as with the Bronica classic cameras.
One way around this problem is to mount your Bronica glass on a leaf
shutter mount. Hasselblad made a version of such an adapter, only they
called it a microscope adapter. Basically, it was an 80mm normal lens
without the glass and a 'scope tube mount. You could probably scavenge or
buy the non-optical base mount and shutter from a defunct 80mm lens and
use it according to some posts (check first!!). A repairman might also be
able to order the needed parts, and perhaps even build an adapter?
Such a lens mount adapter would retain its Compur leaf
shutter automation and normal winding operation. But preset operation
might be
needed for the mated Bronica lens diaphragm? If that sounds bad, have
you priced a
400mm Hasselblad lens lately? Cleverly done, such a mount might be used
with any number of Bronica 6x6 lenses by using a 57x1mm lens mount (e.g.,
from a
donor Bronica body, extension tube set, or whatever). However, remember
that Bronica wide angle lenses have extreme retrofocus designs. So I
suspect they
aren't likely to work with a standard (flush) leaf shutter mount.
Sorry about that!!
A key advantage of
such a setup would be extended flash synch with your existing line of
Bronica lenses (e.g., Nikkors). Done right, the lenses would not have to
be modified, but could be used on your Bronica when not on the leaf
shutter body mount. You could use high quality but lower cost Bronica
lenses, with full flash synch and other features on the newer camera body.
One thing making this option practical is the long lens registration
distance of the Bronica lenses (101.70mm). The Hasselblad is 74.90mm,
leaving over an inch of leeway. Kievs, Kowas, and most other 6x6 medium
format cameras are shorter than the Bronica 6x6 distance. This difference
provides considerable space for making a simple mount adapter. The
larger this distance is, the easier it should be to make a mount
adapter (versus a very thin mount adapter design). However, this
option may be most useful for the telephoto lenses rather than those
lenses which project far back into the camera body (again, wide angles).
Use of Bronica lenses and accessories on rangefinder medium format
cameras such as the Mamiya 6 or 7 is also problematic, due to the use of
an integral leaf shutter on these cameras. However, the rangefinder lens to
film plane distances are likely to be even shorter than an SLR camera,
providing more range for mounting a leaf shutter and focusing adapter.
Still, the lack of coupled rangefinder cams and integral leaf shutter
would make such use overly difficult. Similarly, older Mamiya Universal
and Mamiya Press cameras, as well as Koni-Omega rangefinders, would be
equally troublesome upgrade paths. Except for those rangefinders
featuring ground glass focusing backs (Mamiya Universal, etc.), most
such lens options are likely to be harder to use than desirable.
Using Bronica lenses and related accessories (extension tubes, bellows)
on 6x4.5cm medium format runs into many of the same problems as leaf
shutter use on 6x6. Most 6x4.5cm cameras are leaf shutter designs, so a
leaf shutter would have to be provided. A saving grace is the slightly
larger distance for lens mount adapters. The pentax 645 series features a
70.87mm lens registration distance. The potential problem of coverage
isn't an issue, and an interesting option would be a tilt/shift based
setup using a Bronica deluxe bellows and standard lenses on a 6x4.5 system.
Some medium format 6x4.5cm systems such as the Mamiya 645 provide an
integral focal plane shutter as well as leaf shutter lens options.
This focal plane shutter is one reason there is an adapter for using
Kiev-88/Pentacon lenses on the Mamiya 645 bodies (from Cambridge Camera
Exchange, or from Dr. Zorkendorfer in Germany directly at half retail cost).
A similar adapter could be made to use Bronica lenses with the Mamiya 645
bodies, although auto-operation would also be lost.
Use of Bronica 6x6 lenses on 6x7 cameras such as the Mamiya RB67 is much
more problematic. The RB67 has a 112mm bayonet mount lens registration
distance, while the RZ67s have a 105mm mount. Looks bad, given the shorter
101.70mm Bronica lens registration distance.
Pentax 6x7 may be the idea 6x7 candidate for Bronica 6x6 lens owners. The
Pentax 6x7 bayonet lens registration distance is more like 85mm (possibly
74.1mm per some posts - see Markerink
listings). The Pentax 6x7 uses a focal plane shutter, like the Bronicas.
The key issue here will be providing focusing mount capability in the
limited adapter dimension (15mm minimum for infinity focus on Pentax 6x7
but extendable on out for closeup work). An interesting test would be to
mount a Bronica bellows on a pentax 67 body (using a body cap adapter) to
test out lens coverage and tilt/shift uses. Conversely, using the
relatively reasonably priced pentax 6x7 lenses on a Bronica might be
possible, using similar recessed lens design tricks as we propose here
for the Kiev-88 mount fisheye lenses.
Summary:
Lens
Registration Table (W.J.Markerink)
Bronica Medium Format Zoom Conversion?:
The obvious reason is the high cost of most medium
format zooms, often in the thousands of dollars and up range!
The idea here is that most 35mm telephoto lenses
have extra coverage, as we have seen with some dual format 35mm/6x6
tele-lenses. Some 35mm telephotos in the 500mm f/8 glass lens series
are already being used for medium format work on various mounts up to
6x6. We just need to examine the coverage of some zoom lenses, possibly
stopped down (more coverage), to find something we can use on our 6x6 (or
6x4.5 if you have that back and your zoom lens only covers the lesser area).
The Bronica zoom lens mechanics could be quite
simple. Remove the rear lens mount couplings from
such a 35mm zoom lens with adequate coverage. Remount in a 57x1mm lens mount
plug (thanks, Greg Erker!).
Position the zoom lens at the proper distance for infinity focus. Extend
any control rings (aperture?) if needed, while using the integral lens
focusing available on most 35mm mounts. Preset operation is assumed here
for simplicity's sake (but auto isn't impossible, with the right coupling?).
Any 35mm lens that can fit into the Bronica helical mounting throat is a
possible candidate. Ideally, the rear lens elements should be
small enough (under 2 inches in diameter) that they can fit in
the standard 57x1mm mounting plugs. Examination of many 35mm lenses (esp.
third party)
will show considerable "empty" areas in front of the standard mount.
In other words, I have some 85-200mm zooms where the glass begins a good
15-20mm recessed into the lens. Using such a lens lets us put the same
glass element a further 15-20mm farther back from the film plane on our
6x6 body too.
If the 35mm lens is designed to sit 46mm from the film plane (Nikon,
Pentax M42), and the glass is recessed 20mm, the glass cell needs to be
mounted roughly 76mm from the film plane. Most rear lens mounts can be
removed with simple tools. Removing the mount should also reduce
vignetting. More importantly, the rear lens cell without the associated
mount couplings and outer sleeve will be much smaller in diameter, and
probably much easier to fit into the 57x1mm mount adapter opening. This
lets us use the simpler 57x1mm thread mount adapter, rather than a
specially machine mount needed to fit the nearly 3 inch wide opening
available when the Bronica helical focusing mount is removed. Again, we
can remove lens couplings and outer sleeves to help larger than 70mm
lenses fit into the Bronica body's throat. But most rear lens elements
will easily mount in the 57x1mm thread mount adapter, given roughly 2
inches (50+mm) of space available in the 57mm wide mount adapter.
About an inch of clearance is
available before hitting the mirror box sides below the lens mount. That
puts this
blockage at roughly 101.70mm - 25+mm or circa 75mm from the film plane.
This 75mm distance is less than that for Kiev-88 lenses, for example.
That's why I suggest in my Kiev fisheye for
Bronica project that such a mounting is worth checking out!
In
effect, we are cheating. While the Bronica has a rated 101.70mm lens
registration distance, we could mount lenses less than 3 inches in
diameter down to about 75mm or less into the Bronica body (e.g.,
Kiev-88 lenses at 82mm). Moreover, due to the falling mirror design,
we can have lens elements projecting back another inch or more into
the body, just 40-50mm from the film plane. That distance is similar
to the film registration of many 35mm SLR cameras (Nikon, Pentax M42).
Since the Bronica 50mm
wide angle lens projects so far back into the Bronica body (50mm+), we
can be
confident that a similarly projecting rear lens element from a 35mm zoom
would also fit. My experiments to date suggest that many longer 35mm lens
mounts will fit (e.g., Nikon or pentax M42 screwmount around 46mm). Only
with Bronica's unique falling mirror design could you mount a 35mm lens.
This approach mounts the lens as if it was the proper 46mm from the film
plane, e.g., as if it were on a 35mm
camera body.
Now the trick is to find 35mm zoom and prime lenses or combinations
(with 2x teleconverters) that have
enough coverage to fill 6x4.5 (for use with the 6x4.5 Bronica back) or 6x6cm
when retro-mounted like this!
Again, many 35mm zoom lenses could be ideal candidates for testing,
especially the
earlier, cheaper, and simpler design long zooms. I obviously don't
expect to see Variogon levels of performance. But we might be looking at
a $50-150 US used 35mm zoom lens and $15 adapter cost here! Any
35mm zoom lens adapted for use in medium format might be interesting given
adequate coverage.
What if stopping down were needed, or some vignetting were observed at
the close end of the zoom range? The experiment would be quite
successful if your 35mm 100mm-300mm zoom only worked well as a medium
format 150-300mm zoom, but cost under $100 US, IMHO!
Testing is relatively easy with a simple setup. A 4x5 camera with ground
glass back can have a drilled lens board (no lens) mounted. A fancy setup
would solidly mount a rear lens cap (drilled out) or similar lens mount
in the lens board. Hold or mount
a test zoom lens (and teleconverter if desired). Adjust focus distance
(typically 45 or so millimeters from rear of mount). Observe the coverage
on the rear of the ground glass, using a penciled in 56x56mm square in
the center. Use a 10x or 15x loupe. Check the effect of stopping down too.
If a suitable 35mm zoom or prime lens candidate looks good, consider
shooting some 4x5 film for more detailed study.
Unfortunately, you can't always take a 4x5 view camera with you to a
camera show. But you can build a miniature portable test box version
cheaply. A
piece of 4x5 ground glass goes at the rear of the box, and a hole for the
lens at the top is all you need. You start with a little box about 6 inches
square. Use a box
made of two halves which slide in and out of one another, height around 2
inches or so (cut down if needed). Center a hole
for the desired 35mm lens mount opening on the top. Cut out a nearly 4x5
section on the rear box cover.
Mount a piece of 4x5 ground glass in the rear of the box using tape. Pencil
in a 56x56mm square in
the center of the ground glass. You can add a rubber band and focusing
cloth if needed around the rear of the box,
and carry a loupe.
A candidate lens (with or without 2x) can be examined
simply by holding up to the mount hole. You can use an extension tube
temporarily glued into the top box hole for ease and rigidity for testing
just that brand of mount. A drilled out rear lens can can also be used. For
testing a broader series of mounts, a
simple hole works okay with care and a black cloth around the test lens to
cut down stray light. A bean-bag
can help steady the long lenses while you focus on an object at infinity in
bright
light. You should be able to identify possible lens candidates using this
box test, based on the apparent lens circle of coverage. Be sure to
experiment with stopping down, as more coverage is available in this
mode.
Naturally, you don't have to limit yourself to zoom lenses. As we have
noted on the Bronica Lens Page, some prime
35mm lenses will also cover 6x6cm nicely. Telephotos of older and cheaper
designs are the best candidates, as with the tele-zooms suggested
here. If you find a nice series of 35mm telephoto prime lenses, you
could easily and cheaply acquire some low cost Bronica mount lens
candidates too. Who knows, they may be cluttering up your closet
right now!
Another interesting question is how use of a teleconverter would impact
35mm zoom coverage. Teleconverters work by spreading out light so the center
image is magnified 1.4x or 2x or 3x, depending on the design. Suppose we
setup a 2x teleconverter at the rear of our modified zoom so as to
spread the light out from the normal 35mm zoom? Wouldn't we get better
coverage from our 35mm zoom in this medium format application? Seems
likely, huh?
If a 2x teleconverter doubles the size of the center image,
won't it double the size of the entire image too (ignoring possible edge
cut-offs)? If the image covered is 36mmx24mm, a 43mm diagonal is required.
For a 60x60mm coverage, an 85mm diagonal is needed, or just under 2 times
the 35mm value! Granted, we need more than coverage (e.g., linearity),
but that's an interesting start!
Suppose you build a mount adapter featuring a 2x teleconverter
married to a Bronica 57x1mm screw thread lens mount adapter. Normally, the
teleconverter mounts in front of the 35mm camera body, pushing the zoom
lens farther from the camera body. With our recessed 2x adapter, the 35mm
zoom lens is hardly recessed at all now. Some third party zoom or prime
lens mounts (YS, T, T4) may make it really simple to remove the rear of
the zoom lens and create a matching screw thread to Bronica 57x1mm adapter.
The teleconverter-adapter is sticking inside the Bronica body in this setup.
The recessed design lets you put the teleconverter optics where they need
to be (circa 46 mm for Nikon) from the film plane and still work with
Bronica's unique falling mirror design. Some teleconverters have higher
quality (e.g., 7 or more elements). A number of third party
teleconverters can have the optics removed as a lens cell, permitting the
user to use the outer body as an automatic extension tube. Naturally, you
can remove the lens cell and screw into a mating threaded tube extending
into the rear of the Bronica body too.
Given Bronica's 101.70mm lens
registration, and Nikon's 46.50mm distance, you need to mount the 2x
optics roughly 2 inches recessed inside the Bronica body (55mm from edge
of 2x mount rear). The whole process can be fine tuned with a 6x6 piece of
ground glass held at the rear of the Bronica body, with the back off, and
the shutter held open (bulb). Adjust for best coverage and sharpness,
using a 10-15x loupe and subject and lens at infinity. Make sense?
The teleconverter optics spread
the light out, improving the marginal coverage of the 35mm zoom, right?
This approach could be especially handy for large rear diameter 35mm
zooms which won't fit into the 70-odd millimeters of Bronica's body
opening. Most zooms won't be a problem, as most rear elements are much
less than three inches in diameter! An ideal zoom candidate would have
a removable older mount or perhaps a M42 Pentax Universal screw mount
design. This mount would be easy to mate to the Bronica 57x1mm screw thread
mount adapter block with a simple drilled and tapped screw thread
hole. A rear mounted tube into the camera body would position a 2x
converter optical cell, if needed, at the proper position. By using
threads in this rear tube that match those of the optical 2x
converter, you can mate the 2x optics directly with the tube. Now
simply screw in until you get the precise distance needed for ideal
focusing. Glue in place if desired. Simple, yet cheap and easy to
machine up quickly!
Let me know if you get ahead of
me on this project, or find some great
candidate lenses, or have related experiences to share! Thanks! Bobm
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998
Ed,
I have one of those 400 (or is it 500) f/8 lenses from Cambridge. It's the
same one they sell for 35 mm, for T-Mount. Made in Korea. Herwig
Zorkendorfer makes the adapters to put the lens on MF cameras. You just
screw off the back tube of the lens and screw the head into the adapter.
Mine is for Mamiya 645. It is darned dim to focus, but pretty good
optically. Also, if you have one of Zork's tilt adapters you can use this
lens on your 35 mm with tilt!!!
Bob
[Ed. note: the following adapters have all been sold as of 2/2/99 -
sorry!]
[Editor's Note: possible interest for tilt/shift rig builders?]
Until Nikon gets around to tilt-shift lenses, have a look at the
following site:
http://www.midcoast.com/~jdfalknr/sgig/bt&saf35mm.html
which is a site describing and picturing a home-built rig that provides
tilt-shift adjustments for Nikon. Dave Faulkner, the builder, showed
some Yankee ingenuity up in Maine by starting with an old second-hand
Nikon bellows unit (not the PB-4) which got him the accordion pleated
bellows and the F mounts. He then rigged up an adjustable support system
and used a short-mount lens.
It looks doable and useful.
- --
From Nikon Digest:
At 09:08 AM 9/7/98 -0500, you wrote:
Hi Perlucio
I started taking a few building photos with the tilt and swing setup, so
haven't seen the results, yet.
I take it you saw my photo of it at www.midcoast.com/sgig?
The biggest problem I am having is that I polished the the metal surfaces
too much. They tend to not hold their settings. I would suggest that you
use steel brackets as I did, but don't polish them at all.
My other problem is that you need a short barrel mount or bellows lens.
This allows you to focus out to infinity. Otherwise you have a macro setup
and can't focus much past 6 inches.
I have a Spiratone 135mm lens with (29mm?) threads that screw into a Nikon
adapter. The problem is that 135mm is too stong for buildings. You have to
stand much too far back. I would suggest 35 or 50mm.
For model and miniature photography it should work out ok as long as I
don't get any vignetting. I'll let you know my results.
Dave Faulkner
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998
Hi - if you can't find a T-mount or other telescope or microscope adapter
for medium format, it is easy to make (at least, for focal plane cameras
like the P-67 and bronica S2a).
Start with a lens cap. Find a piece of eyepiece matching tubing (depending
on whether you intend to do direct projection, with or without eyepiece),
to fit inside tubing (replacing eyepiece) or over eyepiece.
Center and drill out a hole in lens cap, epoxy tube in place (black epoxy
recommended).
If you do lens projection, then you can do the same thing, except use a
filter stacking cap and drill and epoxy to that mounting instead of body
cap. This lets you use your regular lens, with the stack cap in place of a
filter, and the camera mounted on the scope. Lacking a stack cap, you
might be able to epoxy a filter to a metal disk, but caps are available;
they are sold in pairs to let you screw in filters together in your bag,
with the metal caps on either end (male/female) of the stacked filters...
Obviously, given size of camera, you should consider a mounting brace or
bracket. I also find a 90 degree mirror elbow makes it easier to mount on
the scope than sticking out in, er, space. ;-) Since I use a WLF camera
with magnifier chimney, I don't need an eyepiece right angle magnifying
finder, but you might find it useful on P67 depending on how you mount
the body.
you can find related info at my web site under:
http://medfmt.8k.com/bronscopes.html my article in Astronomy
magazine on building fun telescopes for under $10 (May 1987)
http://medfmt.8k.com/bronhb.html homebrew lenses page (including
info on how to build telescope eyepieces from 8mm and 16mm glass movie
camera lenses and so on...)
good luck bobm
From Medium Format Digest:
As Bob pointed out, you cannot use 35mm lenses for 2 1/4 cameras - the
image circle is much too small. You also wouldn't be able to focus to
infinity since the different distances between film plane and lens
flange would act as an extension tube, in this case one with 101.7
minus 46.5 (Nikon) = 55.2mm.
But: You *can* use 35mm lenses on 2 1/4 bodies for macro photography,
as long as you don't use them below a certain magnification. This
"critical value" can be determined by dividing the image circles of
the two film formats and decreasing the result by 1. For a 6x6 camera
with 35mm lenses, this would be 80mm : 43mm = 1.86, and 1.86-1 would
result in a minimum magnification of 0.86x. For quality reasons I'd
recomend even higher magnifications (2x and up) and mount the lens
with a reversing ring. Since the lens is now mounted with its filter
thread facing the camera resp. your extension tubes or bellows, you
wouldn't even need a complicated Nikon-Bronica adapter. Another great
idea (for best quality at low prices) is using a usual enlarging lens
for macro photography. That's how I do it.
Dieter
From: [email protected] (John Sparks)
Gene F. Rhodes ([email protected]) wrote:
There isn't a newgroup but there is a camera builders mailing list and
a number of web sites related to it. You might want to look at the
following:
Society of Handmade Cameras:
[Ed. note: page was at http://laplaza.org/~pinhole/handbuil.htm
Archives of the camera makers mailing list:
[Ed. note: page was at http://www.pinhole.com/cameraMakers/, not found as of 2/2003]
[Ed. note: was at http://home.sol.no/~gjon/, not found as of 2/2003]
Home page of a very prolific camera builder:
[Ed. note: was at http://www.cyberbeach.net/~dbardell/index.htm, not found as of 2/2003]
John Sparks
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
I have been pondering the use of one of those semi-cheap 400mm lens on a
medium format camera I have. The camera is a cheap "Great Wall" camera
that takes size 120 film, 12 or 16 exposures.
It came with a 90mm lens, and makes extremely sharp pics. ( I was
surprised, as I paid a wopping $75 for the camera and lens lat year,
brand new). The 90mm was the only lens ever made for this camera, and it
has a Leica thread mount (strange, huh!)
Although it is limited, I have come up with a few alternative lenses so
far. I have uses a 4X Auxillary lens intended for cam-corder use, also a
2X and a 1.5X . Results were pretty good, but since I am a lousey
photographer, I really can't tell if the results could be better if
these combos were in the hands of one of you guys! :) But, I love to
experiment. I've also used a semi-fisheye aux lens too - that was a
hoot!
I have also used the camera with a bellows for macro shots.
My next idea is to attach one of those semi-cheap 400mm lenses intended
for 35mm - not the cheap f/6.8 types, rather , the somewhat better f/5.6
types.
I noticed that the 90mm lens seems a little closer to the film plane
than lenses are on 35mm cameras. Will I need to cut off some of the rear
of the barrell? There seems to be a lot of empty space in the rear of
most of these lenses, so I could cut some off and epoxy a lens mount on
it.
Anybody else done anything strange like this? I know I'll probably get
some vigneting, but what the heck.
As for you purists who are scratching your heads wondering why I would
move up to medium format for extra sharpness and then take a step
backward by screwing with the lenses - it's not for sharp
picture-making, it's for fun! I've learned a lot so far. And the results
are surprizingly sharp, when I can stop down to f/11 or so. With the
bigger film size, it is still sharper than my 35mm stuff.
I guess that is no indication, anyways, as I'm not a very good
photographer.
Hang in there, gang!
Spook
From: [email protected] (Brian Reynolds)
Dan Hepner [email protected] wrote:
Actually I think the mirror is so that they can fold the light path
back along itself and make the copier smaller. I have a couple of
surplus photo copier lenses with such mirrors. I used a spanner
wrench to remove the mirrors.
Well I usually leave the glass elements in their aluminum cell. You
can see some instructions on how to build a telescope with a
photocopier lens at URL:
http://www.aaa.org/articles/copyscope/. To
make a camera lens instead of a telescope substitute a T mount adapter
(a 1-1/4 inch outer diameter tube with T threads on one end) and a T
ring for your camera in place of the diagonal and eyepiece and make a
Crayford style focuser or buy one from JMI (see their ads in
Sky&Telescope magazine URL: http://www.skypub.com/). For macro
applications you might want to use a focusing mount with a long draw
tube, or just place the focusing mount further back than recommended
in the instructions for the telescope.
--
From: [email protected] (Bart Z. Lederman)
There are actually a lot of different copier lenses floating
around the used and suplus market.
I've got one of the older ones, it came from one of the
'name brand' companies at the time (I think B&L), and
it's a normal lens, color corrected, and I think anti-
reflection coated, 8 1/4" FL F/4.5, with adjustable
f-stops. It was probably a production copy lens that
was adapted to an early model photocopier, before
the photocopier manufactuers had a production volume that
justified custom-designed lenses (like the Fuji "mirror
lens" described in a previous post). Also, most newer
lenses don't have an adjustable iris.
The catch is: it's designed essentially for 1:1 reproduction
ratios, and for large format (8 1/2" x 11" or larger).
If you're going to do copying near a 1:1 ratio on sheet film,
one of these lenses can be a great buy. I've also used it
as a portrait lens on 2 1/4" x 3 1/4", where a very slight
soft focus wouldn't matter. As a telephoto lens on 35mm,
it's only so-so.
--
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Hi Michael,
I have the adapter to use my spotting scope with my camera. There is
a page off my homepage describing it:
http://www.mcs.net/~msc/WWW/sscope.html
In short, (like one other poster mentioned) it is very slow and the
whole setup shakes a LOT. I think my aperture is f/64 when I'm
zoomed out to 60x, or 4000mm. Also, I can't seem to get a sharp
focus -- birds eyes have a fuzzy edge to them. I had to use two
tripods to keep shaking down to a minimum.
There's more on my webpage, I hope it helps.
Mike
Michael [email protected] wrote:
--
From: "Roger Herzler" [email protected]
Eyepiece projection photography is where you keep the eyepiece in the scope
and put the camera up to it, essentially taking a picture of the image in
the eyepiece. I've gotten it to work really well for moon shots. I have a
tutorial under the astrophotography section on my web site. Check it out
for example, etc. http://herzler.com/astro/
Clear skies!
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
This is not in regards to fisheyes but is in regards to neat lens board
adaptations. The guy I bought my 4x5 outfit from also had Nikon 35mm as
do I. One board came with a 52mm filter ring mounted to it, that was all.
Just a 52mm filter ring! So I had to ask. I knew many of Nikon's 35mm
lenses use a 52mm filter ring. I also had Nikon's older non auto
extension tubes laying around. What I didn't know was the old extension
tubes were 52mm! The front most ring is a bayonet mount. So I could
mount my 35mm lenses on the 4x5 camera! Also I learned that I could use
old filters rings as mini spacers in the extension tubes.
I haven't tried these, but other applications come to mind. I could
invest in one pin hole lens and share it between Nikon's and 4x5. Simple
mount the pin hole in a 52mm filter. The 4x5 becomes a zoom. The 35mm
becomes a long series of primes with a near infinite combintions of
spacers between the body and pin hole. ;) I could make my large format
lens interchangable with 35mm by having them mounted in 52mm rings.
Focusing would be an aweful chore: trial and error addition of 52mm rings
to get the correct lens to film distance. ;)
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Zork is imported and distributed by Ken Hansen Photo in New York
212 317 0923
They are only open M -F no evenings
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999
Hi:
Read with interest some of your Web Pages. I am a lens hacker from
youth. One of my first notable was a borrowed lens from a 10x80 German
Tank Binocular. I used a wood lathe to cut holes in 3/4 plywood square
and glued then together with ears carved into one end so I could lock it
on to an old press camera. One more block of wood with a hole in it took
the place of a film holder and carved to fit a 35 mm camera body held in
place with rubber bands and cup hooks. Focus was with the moving bellows
and metering and shutter with the 35 mm body. This gave me 400 mm f:5
WOW! I was always the poorest kid, that had to work to scrape together
old toss aways. But even the rich kids from Rancho Sante Fe couldn't
beat this.
This was about when I developed the "Barn Door" mount
although I called it the Hinge mount. Years later I used it for the
Solar eclipse photos.
I participated in a Total Eclipse show at the Reuben H. Fleet theater
and showed Dennis Mammana my mount. Scientific American did an article
on the mount but gave Dennis the credit
.
Twenty years ago I wanted a medium format camera. Only Mamiya made a 645
with a focal plane shutter, so I bought one. Mamiya would not sell me a
lens ring so I went to a camera repair store and persuaded them into
ordering a lens ring repair/replacement. Later I came across a surplus
B&L 40" f:8 and adapted it. Mary Smith of National Geographic said my
photo of the '91 Total Solar Eclipse was the best she had ever seen. A
few of my photos can be seen at:
All of my eclipse photos are taken with that lens.
Regards
[Ed. note: an update and progress report! ;-) ...]
Dear Robert:
My ISP quit so I have a new address:
Your page has a link to me under "Rick's Adapters" and that address is
now:
http://users.cwnet.com/crockett/cm.htm
I just got another lathe and equipment to make Bayonets which I was
doing by hand. I plan to make 2.7" adapters for all the medium formats.
This makes even the use of cardboard tubes possible for lens hacking.
I mentioned previously about modifying a little digital camera so that I
could swap the fixed lens with one of my 1 1/4" adapters. One problem
was the shutter pressure was enough that it would flex a fairly large
tripod. The simple solution was to use the self timer. Here is the
address to a test shot taken this past Sat., Nov 6th., through a C-5
telephoto on a standard tripod. Even though the moon was low on the
horizon, the image is compressed 100:1 and there was no tracking, I feel
this is a pretty fair shot. Certainly better than holding the camera
over the eyepiece.
http://users.cwnet.com/crockett/lund001.jpg
Have Fun and Thanks Again,
-Rick
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
re: converting an 80mm lens to use with portraits...
A simple, low-cost ($25-40 US) route to convert a standard or normal lens
to use as a portrait lens is the telephoto adapter - usually available in
various (series filter ring) sizes and strengths - the standard adapters
can convert an 80mm lens to a same speed (aperture) 100mm (1.25x) or
120mm (1.5x). Like most adapters, the resulting images are _less_ sharp
than the original, even stopped down moderately - but in doing portraits,
this is actually a plus and replaces the need for softars and other blemish
fighting items. If your medium format system (a TLR) has only one lens,
this is a low cost way to get other focal lengths - you can also do wide
angle work with one.
see http://medfmt.8k.com/bronaux.html and
" /third/wierd.html (wierd adapters)
RE: long telephoto - 500mm and up for low $$ on any med fmt camera...
you can also do telephoto work using direct eyepiece projection, such as
with a monocular (half of a binocular or telescope linked to normal lens)
up to 2400mm (or 4800mm with a barlow/2x). Again, since this works with
any camera, even fixed lens setups, it can be a solution to some photo
problems at prices even a humble student can afford ;-)
RE: shifting single lens to other focal lengths formulae, etc.:
if you need a wierd focal length in the tele range, you can fake it using
a negative diopter lens based on the formulas on my diopter lenses pages at
using bob garfunkel's formula, a -4 diopter lens will convert an 80mm lens
into the equiv of a 118mm optic, -5 is about 134mm, -6 is about 154mm, so
try a -6 diopter lens. My understanding is that the standard converters
use this approach to achieve their tele-converting effect...
there are some articles in Modern Photography from the mid-50s/60s as I
recall showing such tricks to convert a standard (fixed) lens camera to
do telephoto work - slight softening of image, but surprisingly minor
In short, if you have a fixed lens medium format camera, or can't afford
other focal lengths, some low cost optics and adapters might give you
some relief and more options - albeit with some tradeoffs...
regards to all bobm
From: [email protected] (Todd Gross)
Please see
For a massive review site on scopes, eyepieces and binoculars.. go to the
astro product review section
thanks, Todd
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
I have a 6x6 (or 6x4.5) SLR - China made Great Wall. Its lens mount is
39MM Leica. It comes with a 90mm lens. I bought a bellow for it and my
150mm enlarging lens focus fine with the bellow. Because I don't have
any experience of using a bellow, here is the question: what will be the
difference of using bellow+enlarging lens and using a 150mm Leica lens?
Any distortion or other issues needed to pay attention to?
It is fun: my 50mm enlarging lens+bellow make the MF SLR focus distance
as near as a few inches. And my 150mm enlarging lens make the focus
distance as long as 20 feet. And it seems the focus distance is
adjustable using the bellow nob.
Thanks,
- philip
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Philip,
There shouldn't be any problems with using an enlarging lens as a taking
lens. Enlarging lenses are generally just lenses that have a flat plane (to
focus a flat negative onto a flat piece of paper), and are optimized for a
reproduction ratio around that of an 8x10 print (in your case, from a 4x5
neg for the 150, and from 35mm for the 50). I know that Schneider, and
probably most other brands, makes some lenses that are optimized to make
larger prints. You can check with the maker of your lens.
I don't think that you will experience any problems, other than the fact
that the 50 may not cover the full 6x4.5 film area, especially at longer
focussing distances. As you have noticed, you may not be able to focus all
the way to infinity, but as long as you know that, it is not a problem. As
far as distortion is concerned, an enlarging lens should be especially well
corrected for barrel and/or pincushion distortion. If everything lines up
properly, you shouldn't experience any problems there.
If this is an older/cheaper lens, you may also experience some focus shift
as you stop down. You can test for this using an enlarging magnifier (focus
checker), or by taking a series of pictures of a receding object (such as a
fence, wall, newspaper at an oblique angle) at various apertures and seing
if the sharpest point moves as you stop down.
Bernard
From: [email protected]
The Cambron or Cambridge 500mm F8 lens is a preset lens ( $399.00 ). It's
made by Samyang of Korea with a Zorkindorf lens adapter ( Made in old East
Germany) The Zorkindorf adapter comes with the Cambron 500mm lens. Since the
lens is really a preset T-Mount lens for a 35mm SLR camera, the the optical
coverage can only cover a 645 medium format. Any larger 120 format will have
darkened cornors. The actual lens is only worth about $99.00 to $129.00. The
difference in price between $129.00 and $399.00 is for the Zorkindorf adapter
/ shipping costs. When you go to Cambridge Camera to buy the lens, they
always tell you they have to order it and it takes about 2 1/2 weeks. I tried
to purchase the adapter directly for the Zorkindorf company, but they don't
deal with the average retail clients. The Zorkindork company is one of the
largest special effects motion picture camera adapter companies in Europe.
Anyway back about 9 months ago, I did all the math and calculated if the
Zorkindorf company did sell me the adapter directly, after all shipping and
insurance costs. I would have only saved about $75.00 vs. purchasing directly
from Cambridge Camera.
By the way, the optical quality is good to very good for the above lens.
It's no Hasselblad or Pentax by far. But for $399.00 is a good deal.
I have the lens with a Kiev 88 lens mount. By the way, the filter size is
72mm It comes with a front lens cap and soft lens pouch, no rear lens pouch
is included. Also the lens seems to only be single coated NOT multicoated.
There is also a tripod mount attached the lens barrel. Length of the lens is
about 12 inches long.
Ed Lau
E-Mail = [email protected]
From: Richard Davis [email protected]
Experimental testing of obtaining telephoto effects with the Wal-mart
$15 8x scope on the Nikon 900 camera can be viewed at this URL. The 12
test photos are located at the bottom of the $20 Slave Flash Album.
[ed. note: was at http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10081,
This url will show a listing of 8 albums on Photopoint that may be
interest to anyone that would like to see the posibilities of digital
photos.
Five of the albums have been taken with the Nikon 900 and cover a wide
variety of subjects. Interior, exterior, slave flash test, quick stitch
panorama's, close ups, 35mm slide duplications and photos of the camera
set ups. Also there is exposure and other useful information that will
hopefully aid in helping any one to duplicate these results. Click on the
album of you choice.
Thank you for your interest,
From: Rick Dawson [email protected]
I can't recall anyone discussing the Zork (or Zoerk in English since the
O has an umlaut) lens adapters with medium format. They make several
adapters for various medium format cameras including the P67 and P645.
I am curious because my ex-wife is a photographer whose specialty is
interior shots. She uses both the P645N and the P67. But shift/tilt
lenses for these are VERY expensive and almost impossible to find used.
I suggested the Zork adapters after finding the website via Monaghan's
wonderful Medium Format photo pages.
I have also heard rumors that an American distributor has done a deal to
sell these in America. Otherwise, they must be bought from the original
German source. I am interested in hearing any experience, gossip, or
facts about their products. They seem to be an almost ideal solution for
MF architectural shoots.
The web pages are:
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/links.html (for Monaghan's MF page)
and
http://www.zoerk.com/Zoerkweb_Home.html (for Zork adapters)
Thanks for any help.
Rick Dawson
From: [email protected] (Colyn)
On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:19:30 -0500, Dante Stella [email protected]
wrote:
I have remounted TLR lens before on a miniature speed graphic.. You
will need to countersink the flange in the board then screw the
len/shutter assembly into it.. As for the filter mount, you'll need to
use a series 5 or 6 adapter... one that slips on..
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999
Erik Ryberg [email protected] wrote:
Someone probably has some scientific way of doing it that I'm sure Richard
Knoppow will chime in with ;) but here's how I'd do it:
1. Get a big box with lots of cardboard- like from a refrigerator or a
TV. Or buy it from the art store.
2. Make a "camera" that is about 260 mm from the front to the back, i.e.
make a box.
3. Cut a hole in the front to hold the lens and cut another hole in the
back to allow light in. Probably 7 x 19 would be good.
4. Look in the lens at working aperature and, if you can see to the
corners of the back, it will cover.
Jeff
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999
Orion sells T-mount adapters for medium-format cameras. I am not certain
whether they market one for the Hasselblad.
One major problem with astrophotography on medium format is that the image
circle produced by most amateur telescopes is only around 15mm or 20mm
across, so the increase in film size over 35mm is wasted in many instances.
"Nordin" is, of course, the Indispensable Book:
Nordin, Richard. The Hasselblad System Compendium. West Sussex, England:
Hove Books Ltd, 1998. ISBN: 1 897802 10 2.
Rick is a member of the List.
MarcR
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999
from: [email protected] (Sam Sherman) 5-1-99
Dear Bob,
Thanks for your reply and related information.
This morning I spoke to Jimmy Koh who told me that he (previously a camera
technician at EPOI/GMI and repairing Bronicas) had purchased all of the
focal plane Bronica parts from his previous employers. He used to put in
the beefed up gearing in the S-2 models, but now tells me that he is out
of parts. I said he could use an S2a junker parts camera for parts, but
said he didn't have one.
I told Jimmy that it would seem that the outside side plate was also
replaced as the diameter of the S2a wind knob looks wider, but I can't be
sure. He said this conversion was only done for
S-2 and not C. I have been studying the repair text for the S-2 and C and
they both look very much the same, and I think that the C or C-2 could be
upgraded, with some modifications.
On the practical side, I bought a used S-2 some years ago that has the
smoothest (easiest)
wind that I have ever encountered on any Bronica and have used it fine for
many years since.
The S2-a has seemed to me to have more resistance to winding than this S-2.
As I don't mistreat my equipment and am careful in winding Bronicas and
Pentacon 6 cameras, I don't think I will ever overwind or damage either.
However, just for the fun of it, I would like to buy another "C" and have it
modified to
S2-a gearing. So that will be a project finding a new "C" and a junker
S2-a for parts and someone to do the work.(Maybe Ken Ruth at Photography
on Bald
Mountain.) Somebody willing to attempt such a modification and who finds the
project interesting.
Over the years I have succesfully modified about a dozen unusual lenses for
Bronicas, including
178MM f2.5 Aero Ektar, 52MM Kaligar, 180MM f6.3 Zeiss Tele-Tessar and
others.
The Zeiss Tele-Tessar is a small uncoated lens head intended for Contax
Rangefinder cameras in the 1930s. It is an incredibly sharp lens that will
cover 6x6. I did not destroy a rare collectible lens to do this, but bought
some of these lens heads from Burke and James, when they were going out of
business and they had lots of odd lenses. I then fit this lens head into a
mount which ended in a 39MM Leica screw thread. This I then screw into a
very rare and valuable adapter - the Novoflex 39MM Leica screw/ to Bronica
57MM adapter.
This combination of parts makes for a really tiny and lightweight tele for
Bronica that is easy to carry around with a "C" in a small shoulder case
that is lightweight and will not grind a groove into one's shoulder.
Keep those Bronicas clicking.
Best, Sam Sherman
rec.photo.misc
Hi All,
Perry, Charles or Mary wrote:
While most lenses are optimized for a particular purpose, we do tend to
limit ourselves to only those and not experiment enough. OTOH, you can
stack any lens with another (depending on plumbing/adapters used) and
yield an image, BUT is the resulting definition adequate? Depends on what
you're after, I guess. Hmmmm....
One well-accepted alternative use of lenses, that I am familiar with, is
fitting those from now obsolete process cameras with shutters and mounting
them to a lensboard to cover 8x10 and similar large-format cameras for
regular use. Very cost effective considering price of an 8x10 anything.
Also, lenses from old aerial cameras make excellent objectives in
astrophotography and large-format.
Any lens of a smaller format while inadequate to cover the larger format
at infinity can be excellent and cover adequately the larger format when
used with extension in the close-up and macro range.
I once got a very tiny lens (1/8" dia.) from Edmund Scientific (a very
nice source for such projects) and drilled a hole on my 4x5 enlarger's
lens turret handle, so I could see the enlarging lenses' aperture marking
magnified (sort of like a peep hole on a door, but close-up). The focal
length/working distance had to be figured out prior to ordering. Once
fitted to a tiny brass grommet over the hole, it worked like a charm.
Using the appropriate adapter (in the Minolta line there are two: M-1 or
M-2) you can fit standard (20.32mm dia.) microscope objectives to the
camera body w/ or w/o extension rings or bellows for a terrific
photomicrography set-up at a fraction of the cost.
Normal (for 35mm-format) 50mm lenses, which can be had for a song used,
reversed make excellent loupes for examining prints and/or slides.
If I can think of other uses, I'll let you know. HTH,
Dirk Bakker
[Ed. note: copier lenses are often found in surplus for $10-20 US!]
From: "Norris" [email protected]
I have used old copier lenses - a Fuji and a no-name - to copy large
paste-ups onto 8X10. The resulting contact prints were great! I shot a fully
opened newspaper (two pages) as a test first, and it was sharp corner to
corner, even with a 4X loupe. The lenses were mounted on mat board lens
boards, and I used another piece of mat board for a shutter - I was shooting
in a studio.
Sheldon Hambrick [email protected] wrote
[Ed. note: Lens Hacker Pete Kiefer provides some info on making a body
cap blank from aluminum epoxy putty in a related posting, and makes the
following interesting pointer regarding even 16mm movie lenses on 6x6
cm!]
Pete Kiefer - [email protected]
In honor of lens hackers everywhere I just completed a fine quality
(gross hack) lens retrofit for a Bronica S. The lens I used is an
Angenieux type Y2 135mm f/3.5. It was in an Exakta
mount. I bought it for about $7.00 out of a junk box at National Camera
in Minneapolis. I'd seen these lenses before in Arriflex mounts for 35mm
motion picture cameras and (I think) in a
standard mount for Bolex 16mm as the longer tele. I remember them as very
sharp on those formats (and small enough in diameter to fit in the Bolex
turret mount. They are screwed into
their helical mounts and are easy to remove and remount elsewhere
WARNING: French lenses have tricky mounts and hidden screws. This one had
a set screw holding the lens in under a cover screw.
The lens covers 6 X 6 nicely with room to spare and is breathtakingly
sharp. It works shifted or tilted on a bellows as well.
[Ed. note: see UV Photography Pages for more
info:]
Lim Meng Shi wrote:
the facts are mixed up here. A typical lens designed for the 35 mm
format projects an image circle of approx 43 mm (not 36 mm) onto the
film, when it's focused on infinity. Pulling back the film plane will
increase the projected image circle. However, concomitantly the front
focus will be closer, by the optical conjugate relationship, so
magnification in the film plane by definition increases. Many 35 mm
lenses can thus be used on a larger format camera for close-ups only,
but will *not* focus to infinity. I have used Micro-Nikkors 55 and 105
mm for close-up photography on 6x9 and 4x5" with great success.
However, there do exist 35 mm format lenses which render a much larger
image circle than the nominal size needed for this film format. Such
lenses can be applied to larger formats. I personally own two of these,
viz. Bellows-Nikkor 105 mm f/4 and 135 mm f/4. Both cover the 6x9 format
with good corner-to-corner sharpness even at the infinity setting. I
have used these lenses for large-format UV photography.
regards
[Ed. Note: see my version of the 135mm f/4 bellows
lens on Bronica adapter 57x1mm mount tube...]
From: [email protected]
I now have got my first set of web pages up and running. So far it is
mainly the DIMP department that is ready (DIMP = Done It Myself
Projects). This includes pages on
1) Building a 4x5" Field camera
2) Building a tripod of wood and aluminium.
3) Making your own camera bags.
4) A way of carrying all your equipment using a freighter frame.
5) How to transform your High Power NiCad pack for your Canon F1N
into a High Power NiMH pack with double the power for half the
cost compared with just replacing the NiCad cells with Canons
package.
Come take a look at
http://welcome.to/gurans_photo
/Guran
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999
I have a Leitz 400mm Teylet -6.8 that I am positive would cover 6x6 at
infinity. The lens has just 2 rare earth elements and these are at the
extreme far end of the barrel. There is an adapter tube (so you can break
the lens into 2 pieces for transport) that makes this a safe bet. I have
always wondered about this extremely sharp and superb lens on a Hasselblad
but alas, I have only the 500cm...
Joe
...
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999
At 07:39 AM 5/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
This has been done by Jim Lager. He wrote an article about it in Volume 1,
Number 34 of the Viewfinder, LHSA journal. He used the 400mm F5 Telyt lens
head. I f someone would like a copy of the article let me know. Mabe I
could scan it and send it to the HUG.
Bill Grimwood
[Correction, the article in the viewfinder should have been
Volume 31 #4. from followup post...]
First, I apologize for not having photos of the below, however if you
find it worthwhile, I would be happy to do some.
The lens is a Tair 300mm F4.5 with a pre-set diaphram.
You will find this particular lens very easy to work with. It is quite
modular - built to accomodate various adapters including one for the
35mm camera and a C-mount for motion picture cameras with lots of rear
offset to fit medium format as well. The original adapter is attached to
the lens as a simple screw-on affair. Further, the focusing barrel can
be easily removed, as can the diaphram assembly, and the lens cluster,
leaving whatever parts you wish to work with.
Okay, the details - the very short version because by your page I can
see you are already a great lens hacker.
1. Remove the lens-to-camera adapter from the lens. Remove the jam-nut
ring from the adapter. Keep that ring. Put the rest of the adapter away.
2. Dissasemble a Pentax 67 #1 extension tube and remove the
auto-diaphram lever assembly. Put aside everything but the
camera-to-extension part. It will serve as our new mount.
3. What you have now is a mount, but the Tair lens will not quite fit
through it. That's good. File or machine out the edge of the interfering
plate (about 1/8") until the rear of the lens passes through.
4. Screw the jam-nut you aquired in step #1 to the end of the Tair you
prepared in #3.
THAT IS ALL THERE IS TO IT! Certainly, this is not the most attractive,
nor the most robust solution, but it works and you can do pictures right
away. As you know, you can always take the results to a good machinist,
pay the money, and have an elegant mount manufactured. But that's not
within my economic model. :)
And thanks for the link to your page. It goes to the top of my
bookmarks.
My next wish is to make a good, wide-angle 6x9 camera, something like
the Veriwide. The 47mm Super-Angulon, however good it is, is terribly
expensive.
Very best,
John Stafford
and an addendum:
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999
Forgive if this is a mispost - I've lost track of my messages - but if
you received the short-course on mounting the Russian 300mm Tair lens to
the Pentax 6x7, here is an important follow-up.
I screwed up. The lens turned right out of the adapter-mount yesterday,
so add to the procedure that one must put a set-screw through the
jam-nut and into the threads, lest the jam-nut turn out to cause the
lens to rotate, and at worst it could fall out and into the Pentax body.
This requires that you drill one tiny hole through the side of the mount
(extension tube fragment).
One other detail - if assembed following the original procedure, the
assembly's focus does not stop at infinity, but focuses slightly
'beyond', meaning that you must focus shots made at infinity. I do not
find this to be a problem because I never trust 'infinity' anyway.
However, it can be obviated by making shims (I used aluminum stips cut
from a pop can) and reassembling: that adds the extra millimeters
necessary to have auto-infinity, HOWEVER it also shortens the grip of
the jam-nut. See paragraph one. :(
Humbly, your toolless shade-tree mechanic,
John J. (Jac) Stafford
[Ed. note: Now this is another slant on homebrew lenses!]
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999
Bob: My lateness in responding is due to lack of checking email on
Deja-News. Designing and building lenses is not as daunting as it may
sound, but in order to pull it off you must be willing to invest a lot of
time and some money (typically more than buying a new lens from a normal
manufacturer). I'm not aware of any related websites, but then I never
looked. I was fortunate in having an optics shop and a machine shop
available to me while working on my Ph.D. in optics at the University of
Rochester. I also had a supply of old Bausch and Lomb optical glass
produced back in the 1950's and 1960's that I could use for just about any
purpose I wanted. Admittedly, these are resources which aren't widely
available to most people. However, the techniques used by amateur
astronomers are more than adequate for making precision photographic
lenses. Grinding and polishing the optical surfaces isn't the real
problem - almost anyone with patience and manual sensitivity can do it.
The challenges in lensmaking are getting the mechanical dimensions right,
such as center thickness and centration. It usually turns out that lens
element wedge and decentration are much more harmful to a photographic
image than moderate departures from the ideal surface figure. Large
lenses are easier to make than small ones because it is easier to measure
and correct the mechanical errors. Large format lenses are much easier to
deal with than 35mm or medium format because they are generally easier to
design, have looser tolerances, and the mounting is simple since you can
buy off-the-shelf shutters. Another problem is the lens coatings.
Although I did these myself (more exotic equipment I had access to), there
are a number of coating houses that cater to amateur astronomers that can
do the work for a fee.
I built lenses for 11x14 inch format because commercially available lenses
were either insufficient for my needs or incredibly expensive. The
results I get with these lenses are quite gratifying, easily meeting or
exceeding what I can do with my Schneider, Rodenstock or Nikon lenses.
I have occasionally toyed with the idea of producing really exotic 35mm
stuff like a 135mm f/1.4 or a 10-12mm mirror-up super-duper-ultrawide, but
the mechanical problems involved in mounting 35mm lenses (especially
designing and machining helicoid focussing mounts) are a bit daunting to
me. Ordinary fixed focus or zoom lenses for 35mm would probably be more
trouble than they are worth, although it might be interesting to re-design
and re-produce the old Nikkor 200-400mm f/4. (I have the design, but would
have to re-optimize it for commercially available (non-Nikon) optical
glass)
If you are interested in designs I can help you since I'm a professional lens
designer and I also publish a database of nearly 30,000 optical designs from
the patent literature
--
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 23:42:24 Robert Monaghan wrote:
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999
from: [email protected] (Sam Sherman) 8-18-99
to:Mike Wilson and Bronica list members-
This is a black plastic cap that fits on the very front bayonet (small) of
all focal plane Bronicas from Z/Deluxe to ECTL II.
I have made a "lens board" from one as follows:
Drilled out a hole in the center of it and mounted into that a 39MM Leica
female screw mount.
Now I can mount 39MM enlarger lenses into this cap/lens board for Macro use
on Bronica S2A.
- Sam Sherman
Edwin,
There were actually two different bellows sold for the classic Bronicas.
Lance has what's known as (I think!) a Type 1 bellows; there was also a
Type 2 bellows which you can see at:
As an owner of a Bronica Type 2 bellows, I can offer the following comments:
1. It's REALLY well made. Built like a bloody tank!
2. To the best of my knowledge, it can be used with all of the
C/S2/S2A/EC/EC-TL/EC-TLII camera bodies to varying degrees, although it
was specifically sold for the S2A and later. It cannot be used on the
earlier bodies because it requires removal of the helical focuser to get
at the large bayonet mount. (Lance, does your Type 1 bellows fit the
large bayonet or small bayonet?) If you look at the photos on Bob's web
site, you can see a flat plate on the camera body carriage with a large
hole in it, as well as two small round plastic bushings. These must be in
place to correctly use the S2A and earlier bodies with the bellows, as
they serve to locate the body correctly on the carriage and align it with
the bellows standards. The plate and plastic spacers must be removed to
mount the EC and later bodies, as these cameras fit directly to the top of
the carriage and are located by two of the screws that normally hold on
the flat plate. In the photos, you may also notice a spacer between the
camera body mount and the rear standard; this should be removed for use
with the S2A and earlier cameras, and must be installed for EC and later;
otherwise, the shutter release lever on the rear standard holds the EC
shutter button depressed enough that the camera won't operate correctly
(this spacer is not to be confused with the "bellows adapter" that was
sold to adapt the small bayonet of the S and earlier cameras to the large
bayonet of the later bellows). Apparently, the shutter button on the S2A
and earlier cameras doesn't protrude as far from the camera body as the
one on the EC.
3. Tilt/shift is only really possible at relatively short-distance focus
settings, in order to get enough bellows extension so that the rear
elements of the lenses clear the camera body (remember, the old Nikkors
extend a good bit into the camera body). 'Course, if one is doing some
serious close-up work and needs to manipulate DOF, etc. the bellows is
terrific.
4. There is no auto-diaphragm function with the bellows; the front
standard holds the lens' diaphragm stopped-down, and you use the lever on
the top of the front standard to open up the diaphragm for composition.
5. I can't focus any of my lenses (50mm f.2.8, 75mm f 2.8, 200mm f4
Nikkors and 100mm f. 2.8 Zenzanon) at infinity on the bellows with an EC,
even after removing the spacer mentioned above (although I can come very
close if I do remove it). Since I can remove the spacer, and since the
lens/focuser/film plane registration distances on an EC MUST be the same
as on an S2A, I must conclude that it can't be focused at infinity for any
of the cameras. That's OK; if I need to focus at infinity, why would I
use the bellows, especially since I can't tilt/shift at infinity focus
anyway? Remember, the bellows is a close-up attachment, not a substitute
for a view camera (although I wish it was...). I can't offer any
explanation as to why Bob's site indicates that infinity focusing is
possible (I'd like to know the real source of this information); I know
for a fact that it is not. It may be possible that the Type 1 bellows
will focus at infinity, but I can't speak to that.
6. If one gets tired of the stock lenses, remember there's nothing
preventing one from latching on to, say, a 135mm Nikkor-W view camera lens
(or any similar lens in barrel or in shutter), boring out a 57 x 1mm cap
to fit it, and then attaching that to the bellows in lieu of the regular
lenses. Now you've got some fighting room! Note that this is true for
any of the old Bronicas because they all have the 57 x 1mm thread on the
inside of the lens mount bayonet.
Whew! Enough for now. Hope that helps in some way.
regards,
Mahlon
Lance Bledsoe [email protected]
08/19/99
To: [email protected]
At 05:37 PM 8/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
I happen to have one forsale on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=146917530
Lance
[Ed. note: one source is Bronica's own ads, from Jan 1972 Pop Photo Fish
Market ad quoted from bronads.html#great]
Quote:
Bellows made this possible. I tilted the front standard to keep that icy
stare perfectly sharp. I was using the 75mm f2.8 lens.
[photo of head of dead fish in ice, some ice crystals on fish, eyes in
focus and so is plane of fish]
Believe it or not, this is a bellows shot too! I still had the bellows on
when I saw these two guys. I was afraid they'd move, so I just refocused
and shot. The Bronica's
bellows focus clear back to infinity which - obviously - can be handy.
[photo of two men framed by columns in market talking]
Endquote:
Hence I recommend you carefully check bellows and any adapter rings to be
sure they work with your setup, as it appears there are some glitches
possible...
[Editor's note: Homebrew Prisms - interchangeable prism using base of
WLF and shim setup?]
Actually, it probably would not be that hard to make. When I first got my
6006 I could not find a prism finder I could afford. So I took an old 45
degree finder from a Kowa Super 66 and a screwed up Rollei folding hood
and grafted the two together. It worked just fine, but looked like hell,
and got me some really evil looks from Rollei purists! When I finally
found a prism at the right price I took this thing back apart and sold the
Kowa prism.
The only hard part is making sure the prism sits at the proper distance from
the focusing screen.
Bob
----------
From Rollei Mailing List:
Mark Rabiner wrote:
Mark
I am working on just THAT! I will let you know the results. Right now I
need a junked folding hood for the Rollei to scavenge the parts. I don't
have a spare hood to sacrifice. I am willing to pay a fair price for
one.
I'm hoping to use my 45 degree meter prism. What a combination!
Jerry
From Nikon Manual Focus Mailing List:
Re. recent correspondence:
I think the least expensive way to get hold of Nikon-fit mount components
is my way and believe me, as a Scot living in Yorkshire I'm CHEAP! Buy used
noname or lowname 2x or 3x converters. Each one will give you a male and a
female mount for your experiments.
Another use for them is as an extension tube - strip them, remove the glass
bits and reassemble.
Have fun!
[Ed. note: followup on Rick's projects!...]
Dear Bob M.:
Thank you for the leads. I have posted a IRQ on a couple of Astro sites
but after a month I have had no response. Fortunately repairing lenses
is not new to me, just my local supply is gone. Crazy but UPS and
Summers charges about $20 to send a mere 4oz bottle of cement.
Funny about the new and old cement. I have 100 year old Balsam cemented
lenses and in fact all my balsam cemented lenses are perfect and all my
synthetic cemented lenses need a reglue. Makes me wonder as to what
authority says the latter is better?
I have enjoyed your lens hacking page. I mentioned my own hacking from a
kid, to you about a year ago. I had the 320mm fl f:4 binoc objective
that I mounted onto a speed graphic with a 35mm strapped on the back and
used a hindge for a mount. I was given a small lathe for my Birthday
since then and have gone fancy.
See what I made at :
http://web.cari.net/~crockett/cm.htm
I made a SCT version of that last one. It used a compression ring and
the larger SCT ring to give an unvignetted medium format image from 10"
and upward SCTs. Both have bayonets that I managed to cut on the little
lathe.
Thanks Again:
-Rick
[Ed. note: 2 element achromatic objectives are used in astronomy...]
The old Leitz long-focus lenses like telyt 400-560/5.6 and 400-560/6.8 in R
or visoflex mount were all built with only two elements in one group. How
could they reach a good quality with only two elements?
Are these lenses still good performer compared to today's standards? Which
are the better, the 5.6's or the 6.8's ?
Why this type of construction is possible only with very long focal length?
Why does today nobody build long focus any more ? They build telephotos only
for a length problem ?
Any web link ?
Thanks in advance
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999
I thought I'd let you know how I ended up making out with Zoerk. They now
want $250 + shipping for the tube adapter, and want payment by a bank wire
(another $25.00) which comes to almost $300.00!! Looks like your pvc tube
and epoxy technique is the only budget way to go anymore.
Thanks for your help, and I am sorry Zoerk got greedy (or cambridge camera
got to them about selling direct)
Andy
[Editor's Note: need a really, really cheap 800mm medium format
lens? ;-)]
Seems to be quite an interest in Lens Hacking with the S2 & S2A, I make up
four 57X1mm adapters and they all went so quickly I made up a couple of
more.
Those when to I made up another 5. Two of these are sort of spoken for
but its open season on the remaining 3.
For those just tuning in these are used for lens hacking projects and
screw into the helicoil focusing tube of the S2 and S2A (and maybe others
as well).
They have a knurled edge, small hole in the middle that can be enlarged
to the size you need. They are threaded to fit the focusing mount. I
have tested them on both an S2 and S2A I own and on my extention tubes so
I know they fit.
If you have any questions let me know. These are also $35 each plus $5.00
shipping & handling (payment via Postal Money Order), prefer not to ship
internationally. If you are considering doing some lens hacking in the
future you might want to pick one up so you have it when you need it. I
make these up when the urge hits me to do some metal work in my shop so
their availablility is spotty at best.
Just out of curiosity, any interest in out there for screw type reversing
ring. say something 57X1 to 67mm for reversing the lens on the helicoil
for macro shots?
Also, I did convert a Wollensak projection lens using one of these
adapters and some black PVC painted inside with flat black. In testing it
I found that in the center of the image it was very light. I have since
put some black construction paper inside to cut down on any glare. Do
these lens need a shade? I was shooting away from the sun (at my back) in
all the test frames and they all came out the same, it was a little better
in those stopped down to F22 from F16 but still not acceptable (almost 2
stops to light). I also noticed the lens has some cleaning swirls on it
but I wouldn't think they would cause this sort of problem....Sharpness is
great though. Any Ideas?
Spiratone 400mm works great except that it needs to be used with a 2X TC
to eliminate viginetting which is excessive in aperatures smaller than
F11. But with the TC in place I can go to f32 with no problem.... What a
treat, an 800mm MF lens for under $100 (under $250 if you add in the cost
of the TC).....
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999
My article on Bob Monaghan's Classic Bronica website, explains how step by
step I adapted the 180MM pre-set (not automatic version) Sonnar to Bronica
S2-A.
However, I don't know exactly how much magnification one may want on a
lens for portraits.
The 180MM Sonnar is good for exterior portraits as at wide apertures, you
can blurr out the background.
However, I have taken excellent portraits on Bronica S2-A etc. with the
75MM Normal Nikkor f2.8 and the 100MM f2.8 Zenzanon, which is even better.
For a cheap portrait solution, I suggest a good enlarger lens of 135MM or
150MM adapted to something which will screw into the front of the Bronica
57MM focusing mount thread.
Anything from 75MM to 180MM can be used for portraits, it all depends on
one's technique and how the lens is employed.
Is a portrait just the head filling up an entire frame, is is head and
shoulders or does it come down to chest level. All of these are portraits.
I prefer the head and shoulders and further back approach and this can be
done with the 75MM and 100MM lenses.
- Sam Sherman
From Bronica Mailing List:
Tony,
So far I have a 209mm Wollensak, a 127mm Wollensak, a 400mm Spiratone
(have to use the 2X TC to avoid viginetting when going smaller than f11)
and have a 320mm APO coming in the next day or so.
I would like to find an inexpense shutter mounted lens to convert so I
would lock the shutter open in the body and use the leaf shutter in the
lens... Haven't had any problems with camera shake so far but I haven't
converted one of these lens yet either.
Keeps up like this and I am going to have to start selling some of these
converted lens to make room for new ones. Anyone Interested?
I also have made up a few more lens adapters and reversing rings for the
S2 & S2a. They are aluminum and in the white so they need to be painted
flat black. If you interested they are $35.00 each plus $5.00 S&H (in
US). Prefer payment via postal money order. Not sure when I will get back
to making any more though.
From Bronica Mailing List:
Tony and Don,
Just adapted a Kodak Enlarging lens - 161MM f4.5 to Bronica S2-A and it is
a great portrait lens.
Go to camera shows or old Camera stores and look through boxes of
inexpensive enlarging lenses there are great bargains there for picture
taking.
I paid only $15 (US) for mine.
- Sam
From: Rockett Crawford [email protected]
I think you can get a rough idea by holding the eyepiece upside down
and pointing the open barrel towards a fairly distant light source like
a street lamp.
It should form an image on a sheet of paper at it's effective focal
length.
take care,
From: [email protected]
If you use this method, where do you measure from on the eyepiece, when
you measure to the image on the sheet of paper? According to my optics
book, you are supposed to measure from the appropriate principal plane
not the lens surface.
The problem is finding that plane. It can be done by finding the
corresponding nodal point as described in optics books.
Don Taylor
[Ed. note: adapting an enlarger lens tip...]
What thread is the leica screw mount ??? I know it is 39 mm but
Dear Sofjan,
To my knowledge, enlarger lenses are mounted via a "Leica screw thread" of
39mm. Jam nuts (the threaded ring that holds the lens to the cone) and
mounting flanges (a flat threaded ring with three screw holes for flush
mounting) should be available from large supply houses like Calumet.
If you have access to an enlarger, see if your lens will go on the mount.
Stan Patz NYC
[Ed. note: the theoretical pitch is 1/25th of an inch or 25 t.p.i., but
there is some variation, which is one reason Leica thread mount lenses and
esp. foreign copies (russian rangefinders) may not align precisely...]
[Ed. note: Thought the availability of a 120 mm (4 inch) achromat from
China might interest someone needing a BIG and LONG lens! ;-)]
Group,
I've added a new section to my web site with impressions on how my "old"
4.1" Jaegers stacks up against a newer made in China 120mm achromat. Stop
by if interested. Click under scope impressions.
Clear skies,
Angel -Astro Dog
From: J Greely [email protected]
[email protected] writes:
Tape them to the camera, max out rise and shift, focus on a detailed
surface indoors or early in the morning, stop down to f22, and take a
picture using your hat as a shutter. You could use a bit of geometry
to calculate the exact figure at infinity, but since you want them for
portraits, who cares about infinity?
-j
From: [email protected] (qwerty)
Gary Frost [email protected] wrote:
I guess I'm not the only one thinking about this. Actually, I really like
the Holgas lens qualities (or lack therof).
However, while experimenting,
I removed the lenses from an equally cheap plastic Vivitar (a weird two
lens camera, 35mm & 70mm) and found the 35mm two element plastic lens
mounted on the Holga makes for a great wide angle 6x6 camera.
Unfortunately, this mod requires extensive (but not insurmountable)
shutter relocation work.
One wonders why they designed the Holga lens so poorly. Single element
plastic lenses don't have to be THAT bad. $30 Polaroids with Plastic
meniscus lenses have much better optical qualities. It almost seems they
intended to make a cult camera. Not that I'm complaining.
[Ed. note: an update... ;-) - Thanks to Tim!]
First of all I must say that your Medium Format Pages are an absolutely
remarkable and overwhelming wealth of information. Keep up the good
work.
I was also surprised to see my usenet posting from several months ago
on your lens hacking page. I wrote about modifying a Holga by adding a
cheap plastic f=35mm doublet lens from an cheap plastic Vivitar point 'n
shoot. I thought I might give you an update on the experiment.
After hacking the shutter closer to the film plane to accomodate the
significantly shorter focal length, I decided that I couldn't be
satisfied unless the lens had absolutely full 6x6 coverage. (The
Vivitar plastic lens covered almost all of the 6x6 frame except for the
very corners.)
So I dismantled the gizmo and substituted an even cheaper 35mm lens
from a Kodak disposable camera which easily provided full 6x6 coverage.
This is a setup that I've been happy with. As a dedicated Holga user, I
appreciate the very high pincushion distortion and blurred edges this
lens gives. Not to mention the wide angle view.
I've thought about using other cheap (or good) lenses on the modified
Holga. I'm partial to bad wide angle lenses, but am also considering a
plastic 90mm Polaroid lens from a disposable PopShots camera (whose
image size seems identical to 6x7). Or maybe I'll use it on a homebrew
6x9 camera...
Tim
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000
It is well worth giving process lenses a try..also enlarging lenses can be
surprising. You will have to see for yourself. I took some CU pictures for
my old radio book with a 135mm Rodenstock Omegaron F4.5 on the 45 Graphic.
Then out of curiosity, I turned it out to infinity and looked at our
distant test target and it was excellent, sharper than most Tessar type
lenses. I also once owned a 13.5 inch Cooke Series V F8 process lens that
was quite good. Person who sold it to me thought it was a rapid
rectilinear! Well worth trying these lenses , but dont buy without a test.
Ed Romney
[Ed. note: see Process Lens Myth -
describing how process lenses work well at infinity as well as 1:1, so
they can be used for homebrew landscape lens uses too...]
[Ed. note: check date - these may be gone fast!]
As many of you know I have been making lens hacking adapters and reversing
rings for the Bronica S2 & S2a (along with other models using the 57X1mm
threaded helicoil focus mount). By the way still have a couple of each
left at $35 ea. + $5 for S&H in the US.
I have been searching for a a real flat black paint to use in painting
these and up until just recently found that most "flat" blacks were more
of a satin rather than flat. I had suggested folks line, as I have, the
adapters with black construction paper to eliminate light scatter. Well,
good news, I just ran across a flat black from Kylon that looks like it
will fit the bill. It is their Camo paint, comes in a spray can and is
advertised as Ultra Flat Non-Reflective. It comes in the standard camo
colors, Green, Brown, Tan and BLACK!
I have done a couple of adapters with it and it seems to do the trick just
fine.... Give it a try....
Also, it seems I have more lens than I need.... Got a little carried away
with the conversion thing. I am looking a parting with a few, set up on
adapters already to screw on your body. I don't have them in front of me
right now but I beleive there is a 320mm APO, 209mm, 127mm. These are all
enlarger/projection lens that have been converted. All have some cleaning
marks, the 127mm is probably the best of the bunch then the 209mm with the
320mm being the worst but they all take excellent pictures that are sharp
and clear. The 320mm will give some viginetting when stopped down smaller
than F11 but this disappears if it is used with my 2X TC which makes it a
nice 640mm lens... If your interested let me know, I will need about $100
a piece for them plus shipping....
Thanks for your time!
From Bronica Mailing List:
Went to the Fstop Camera Swap in Minnesota last weekend and picked up a
Spiratone 400mm/6.3 Sharp Shooter Lens. Mint condition and couldn't pace
it up at a price of $40.00. Worked up an adapter it would slide into,
removed the back rear portion of the lens, about a 60mm tube to get it to
focus to infinity. I am not sure but the removal of this section probably
brings the lens down to a 340mm (400mm - 60mm extention = 340mm).
Rapped off the last couple of images on on a roll of slides I had left in
the back. Got some vignetting in the corners but since I started using
Super Slide mounts these crop out the vignetting with no problem. Image
is good and sharp but a bit over exposed, about 1/3 to 1/2 stop. This
would lead me to beleive the lens to aperture ratio has changed slightly
due to the removal of the 60mm of extension. The images didn't seen to
have the depth of field I am accustom to seeing when set to F16 as these
images were.
I also picked up a 209mm/ 8.25" Wollensak Raptar projection lens. Fstop
goes from F4.5 to F32 and I couldn't pass it up for $25.00. I am going to
make up an adapter where I can slip a piece of PVC over the adapter that
is 2.50 OD and the lens is 2.5"OD so it will slide in the other end.
Since it is a 8.25 lens and the standard lens registration on the Bronica
S2A is 101mm (about 4") that means the tube will need to be about 4.25" in
length. I will let you know how things turn out.
Can't wait for the next camera show, lens hacking sure opens a whole new
reason to frequent them.
If anyone has any suggestions to getting rid of the vignetting on the
400mm I am certainly open to suggestions.
From Bronica Mailing List:
Don,
Keep up the good work.
Now we know that the Spiratone 400 has no lens at the back and the tube
can be shortened.
Projection (enlarging) lenses are also good to adapt.
I recently shot some photos on an S2-A with my adapted 500MM lens and did
not like the definition and vignetting.
If the rear tube is small it will cut the corners. The best idea might be
to shorten the whole thing right behind the last element and then mount it
in a much wider tube.
My 500MM may need the internal lens elements cleaned, I will try this or
write the lens off as not too great.
- Sam Sherman
[Ed. note: as noted above, few 35mm lenses let alone zooms will cover
6x6cm..., but let us know if you find one! ;-)]
From Bronica Digest:
Hey Kevin,
I have used the the basic old fashion method of using a cardboard tube
taped to the back of the lens to block out the surrounding light and hold
it in front of the body, move it in and out till you get infinity in focus
and mark it. May not be perfect but it seems to do the job. To fine tune
I get the lens mounted close and use a piece of ground glass in the back
with the insert out to do fine adjusting. Been lucky so far as I haven't
had to move the adjustment as it showed in the viewfinder yet.
I have been sticking to folder lens or enlarger/projection lens as they
offer the distance needed to get infinity focus (usually 4 inches or more)
I am not 100% sure but pretty confident that you might have a problem
getting a 35mm lens close enough to the film plane on the Bronica to get
it to focus at infinity. This is because their design is such that the
back of the lens is only an inch or so from the film.
Good luck,
Don
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999
Don,
I hope you are deciding to stay with Classic Bronica use and collection.
We need to have enthusiatic people like yourself in this hobby.
Regarding adapting enlarger lenses and projection lenses - just do as you
thought, have the ring with the lettering face forwards and the threaded
ring or back to the camera.
When adapting lenses remember one can innovate and so you can try anything
that will produce a picture. Some soft focus pictures can be very nice, as
are razor sharp shots.
Some advice for adapting lenses quickly-
They used to make an adjustable lens mount flange. This is an item with
screws around it to mount on a view camera lens board. In the center hole
there is an adjustable diaphragm that tightens around a barrel lens and
holds it in place. If you can find a relatively small one and mount it on
the front of a Bronica bellows, you will have something which will take
countless lenses for Instant mounting.
I adapted such an item to the front of a Pentacon 6 bellows with great
success in adapting lenses.
I also have the old Bellows #1 for Bronica and have used it successfully
with many odd lenses.
Good luck.
- Sam Sherman
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999
We make all sorts of close tolerance parts from many differnt
materials. Drop us a note with your needs. CNC Digitizing & Milling!
Tolerance within .0012!!!! Affordable work!!! Thanks!
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999
Sam,
If I might offer a suggestion with regards to the Bronica Body and a
500mm
lens. Since most of these come with some sort of tripod mount, a straight
piece of almost anything from wood to steel could be used as a base to
mount the camera body and lens tripod mount on. Granted the height might
be different on the two mounts requiring a spacer for one end or the
other. Once complete mount the base to the tripod using the balance point
as the spot to put the mounting screw.
Had to make one of these for my (dare I say it) Minolta 35mm with a
100-400. This lens didn't come with a tripod mount so I used a piece of
PVC pipe as a cradle for the lens. Works great.
Hope you didn't mind the intrusion on your thread. By the way Bob, I may
be making some adapters for the 57X1 focusing mount starting with the flat
ones with the hole in the middle. Will probably be in the $35 range
(sound reasonable) and will come unpainted, don't have access to anyone
that does anodizing locally and since in most cases the hole will need to
be enlarged to fit the users needs they would likely need to be refinished
again when modified.
Thanks,
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999
yep, good points - as I noted the 500mm f/8 lens is surprisingly light (I
think it is lighter than my 200mm and 135mm bronica lenses by at least 50%
and these are screw-in 57mm mounting older presets, so my guess is that
the 57mm mount is easily able to take the lightweight 500mm lens - like a
pound and a half or so; also it has an internal focusing mount and preset
setup in the lens which can/should be used with the bronica helical
focusing mount left at infinity. I suggest that a lens caddy bar or
similar lens support can be used if you like with the bronica on the
tripod (a bar is a fourth support from the tripod to fit and support the
lens via tripod socket), but the 500mm is so light that it hasn't been an
issue (well, not if it isn't very windy, anyway ;-)
I wish there were a low cost source of large body mounting hardware, but
the only other source is the Komura mounting units, and they are pricey
and harder to find than the lenses that go in them ;-) Nikon also made a
few (as in handful) of mount adapters for bronica, as did some other
makers, but again, these are hard to find.
Sam's articles on getting such custom hardware made make interesting
reading - see his articles under fall and summer 1999 on the main bronica
site at:
http://medfmt.8k.com/bronica.html
part of my motivation in ading to Sam's prior post was to encourage folks
making custom hardware to consider sharing the setup costs by making extra
units for resale to other bronica fans; the first one costs a lot, after
that, they may be a tenth the cost for each copy given setup is done;
allowing you to cut your overall costs and help other lens hackers too ;-)
grins bobm
[Ed.note: digital hacking...]
Hi Bob:
Thank you for mentioning my site and I would like to reciprocate. What
is your best entry point address? I will see about putting a page
together on my camera hacking. After all those years of sawing and
carving wood and epoxy however, I make no apologies for using
metal...:o)
By the way, How about digital Hacking. Yesterday I decided it would be
nice to use a digital camera for the Lunar eclipse. I have a Sharp
640x480 with the tft view screen. It has a swivel head all in a nice
little package. It is a great camera but something is wrong with the
battery consumption. Sometimes I can only get a couple of shots out of
new batteries. I will make a 12VDC adapter for it to run of the car
battery. Meanwhile opened it up and found that there were three screws
holding the cover to the head on and accessible only from the inside
through one access notch. the screws screwed into the inside of the
plastic cover. I took the out by rotating each in tern to the notch.
Then I got some 2-56 machine screws and put them through the mount
backwards and into a small nut which I then heated with a soldering
iron. This let me set the nuts flush into the mount so it would rotate.
I then epoxied over the notch so the nuts could not be pushed out. Then
by drilling the cover on through I am able to bolt through the cover
backwards to hold it on. A piece of snap on trim hides the screws so the
modification is completely hidden. Then I took the original lens out and
machined an adapter that slides into the focusing socket that the camera
lens came out of. I have steps on the barrel so that it seats in the
focusing socket and the hole in the housing. This is a smooth fit but
firm enough to support the weight of the camera. With a small screw
driver I can go from adapter back to the regular lens in less than three
minutes. Again with no external signs of modification. How does it work?
Unbelievable but I needed an in-between size lens around 500 mm. Here is
a C-5 shot from prime focus f:10 means 1250 mm. I used a heavy duty
camera tripod but the pressure to push the button caused the image to be
a little soft. A brighter image would have used a faster electronic
shutter setting which is automatic in this camera.
Happy Hacking,
[Ed. note: Is there another focal plane medium format camera in your
future? If so, your "investment" in Bronica S2A/EC lenses may live on. The
very long 101.70mm lens registration of the Bronica Nikkors, Zenzanon, and
Komura lenses means they can also be used with a simple tube adapter to
mount them on other focal plane medium format camera bodies (such as
hasselblad, mamiya 645, pentax 67/645, and even kiev). Most of the lenses
of medium format cameras are clustered around 85mm lens registration
distances, so they can't easily be modified to use each other's lenses
with simple mechanical adapters. Lots of folks have caught on; one reason
I am stocking up on bronica lenses while I can ;-)....]
From Contax Mailing List:
They looked really good. I still have files of images shot in the
early 70s with 40, 80 and 150 Nikkors on a Bronica S2A. The longer
Nikkors from that era are much in demand since people have them
converted for use on Hasselblad 2000 and 200 series cameras.
Bob
[Ed. note: some interesting points about lens coverage from a noted lens
repairperson and expert...]
you wrote:
I am catching up with e-mail so this is probably a long gone thread.
The fact that a lens for a 35mm camera will cover a larger format is
not an indication of its superiority. In fact, modern lens design
philosophy is to limit the image circle to that needed for the format
since that tends to reduce flare and cut off areas of the lens which are
not so well corrected.
The narrower the coverage of a lens the easier it is to correct. So, a
lens of longer than normal FL for a format can be corrected more easily or
more economically than if it had to cover a larger format. 90mm is about
normal or a little longer than normal for 6x6cm Its not surprizing that a
reasonably well corrected "normal" (not telephoto) lens of that FC would
cover, or at least illuminate, the larger format. I suspect that if Leitz
made a 90mm lens for 6x6 it would be designed somewhat differently than
this one.
Illumination of the image is dependant of FC alone except for some
special designs. The illumination falls off at the rate of cos^4 theta
where theta is the half-angle of the iamge point. There are three
components to this.
1, cos theta due to the obscuring of the stop at an angle. The stop
becomes cat's eye shaped.
2, Another cos theta due to the angle at which the light is striking the
film
3, cos^2 theta from the fact that the margins of the image are further
away than the center. This is the inverse square law.
Multiplied together these become cos^4 theta.
Some lenses are designed with a so called tilting entrance pupil. Some
wide angle lenses lenses have this characteristic. Its possible in such a
lens to eliminate the first cos theta term, the one due to the vignetting
of the stop, so that the overall fall off becomes nearer cos^3 theta.
Fish-eye lenses can further reduce fall off because of he barrel
distortion built into them. This results in a variation of magnification
with image angle, effectively compressing the image angle.
Normal lenses all have the same fall off for the same image angle. So,
a 90mm lens will have the same fall off at, say, ten milimeters from the
image center regardless of the size of the image circle or the size of the
format.
----
From Rollei Mailing List:
Richard -
This is an interesting idea. I suspect that you could adapt one of the
Leitz lens heads to the SL66 fairly easily via the SL66 lens mount blanks.
A 90mm might not quite reach infinity but I presume that the 135 wouldn't
be so much of a telephoto that it couldn't get infinity focus.
I remember years ago that we looked at all the Leitz lenses on an arial
bench. The Leica lens performance graphed out in a "butterfly" curve,
showing peak performance at about one third off axis on the diagonal of a
35mm frame with the corners not too far off the on-axis results. This
kept the albiet fine performance quite uniform, even out into the corners.
This is why I think those lenses might show quite well on medium format,
especially with center oriented compositions.
Tim Ellestad
....
From Rollei Mailing List:
you wrote:
I sometimes find I have a lot of unread messages in the lists I
subscribe to. I have a tendency to read current stuff and If I am busy and
miss a days worth sometimes I forget to go back over it.
As far as light fall off. It is dependant on the angle of the light
from the lens. This will be the same, for instance, for andy format if the
lens is of a focal length equal to the diagonal of the format. So, for
35mm a "normal" lens is about 44mm, for 8x10 its about 300mm. If the fall
off is measured at, say, a point in the image twenty degrees from the
center the fall off will be exactly the same for both lenses even though
it will be about six times the linear distance for the 8x10. OTOH, the
fall off at the edges of a 35mm negative for a 300 mm lens will be
negligible because the angel of view is so narrow.
What I was getting at is that a 90mm lens intended for use on a 35mm
camera will not have better eveness of illumination on 6x6cm than a lens
of 90mm focal length intended for 6x6. In fact, since it doesn't have to
cover 6x6 in normal use it may be worse.
A 90mm lens for 35mm may, however, have better corrections than one for
6x6cm since the narrower coverage angle may allow better correction near
the center of the image.
The best relatively elementary book on photographic lenses is Rudolph
Kingslake's old one _Lenses in Photography_ seciond edition, it is so long
out of print that its probably available only at a library. A current book
which covers much of the same material but is not so clearly written is:
_The Photographic Lens_ second ed. Sidney F. Ray, The Focal Press ISBN 0
2405 1329 0
Its just barely possible that Kingslake's book may again be available
from the Silver Pixel Press, they seem to have reissued some of the older
books by Kodak people.
----
From Rollei Mailing List:
I've known photographers who had Leica long lenses adapted for their
SL66 and 200/2000 series Hasselblad cameras. They worked very well.
One pro I know who uses 2000 series Hasselblads managed to find a
complete set of the old Nikkor long lenses originally made for Bronica
and has had them adapted and gets excellent photos from them. Then
there is the guy who spent WAY too much money to buy a brand new
Olympus 300mm f/2.8 and have it modified to use on his Hasselblad.
Some people have more money than sense!
Bob
...
From Rollei Mailing List:
Both.
It is titled "Flatness of the Film Plane" and was published in
Sashin Kogyo, Vol. 137-140 , by Dr. Katsuhiko Sugaya. Original text
is in Japanese, but with an English extract at the end.
It explains his measuring techniques and shows isobar images of the
lack of film flatness in 35mm cameras. Of course the problem in 35mm
is much less than in medium format, but still significant if you want
maximum lens performance.
I'd guess that Dr. Sugaya may have published more on this topic since
this publication is more than ten years old.
Bob
----------
From Rollei Mailing List:
Austin Franklin wrote:
Austin
I'm too busy right now to dig them up, but you might want to look at
Rollei's own literature on the need for the plate-glass back used on the
later TLR's and the Reseau Plate adaptations used on the Photogrammetric
cameras (currently, the 3003 and Rollei 35). And Hasselblad has put out
similar publications: they did a nice one about the Hasselblad cameras
taken to the Moon and why THEY had Reseau Plates installed.
Film flatness IS a problem with MF cameras, be they Super Ikonta B's or
Hasselblad 20x's. This is one of the limiting factors on superspeed MF
lenses, as the DOF would be shallower than the tolerated variations in
film flatness. Is it a problem in normal use? no. Is it a problem which
has ever afflicted me? I don't believe so. But it is a minor, but quite
real, concern -- and it is the reason why I always use a fresh roll of
film in my Hasselblad 2000 FCM when I am going to do some jazz shoots with
it. At f/2.8, there's damn little DOF to play with!
Marc
From Rollei Mailing List:
Austin Franklin wrote -
The Leica lenses that I was referring to have the optical units removable
from the helicoid and mount barrel. As a result they probably have less
barrel vignetting than would other 35mm lenses. I suppose they wouldn't
perform as well in the corners as a medium format configuration but that's
why I suggested compositions that were mostly concerned with the frame
center. You're right that many 35mm lenses would have light circles that
would be barrel restricted to a much smaller diameter than the 80mm 6x6
diagonal and, yes, most were formulated to have their performance
concentrated within the 43mm 35 diagonal. I wasn't suggesting that these
adaptations would be preferable to using a good medium format lens of the
same focal length.
Still . . . check out the MTF plots on the photodo.com web site. Most of
these medium format lenses aren't exactly electrifying in the corners.
Tim Ellestad
From Rollei Mailing List:
I had this same thing done to a tele Bronica-Nikkor mount after reading
about it in Satterwhite's book. It has provided me with faster (400 4.5
vs. 350 5.6; 600 5.6 vs. 500 8.0) and much cheaper long lenses than what
is available with shutter. My longest shutter lens is the 250 for the
R6000 series. The B-N-H is, however, a bit bulky to handhold!
Nevertheless, I just used the setup this past week with the 600 to shoot a
number of bald eagles lined up along the top of the breakwater at the
entrance of our harbor, on end to compress their line-up. I propped the
lens on a handrail to do the shot without a tripod. I have also supported
the arrangement on the windsill of my PU (also a convenient blind) to
shoot swans from the road out on the Copper River delta. (A massive bird
migration is expected here in the next few weeks).
Tom
From Rollei Mailing List:
Austin,
Many lenses for 35mm, particularly longer ones, have their image
circles intentionally vignetted by the barrel and/or internal
baffles to get it down to the size of a 35mm frame. By remounting
the lens head and removing the restrictions these lenses can be made
to cover larger image areas, usually up to 6 X 6 and sometimes even
up to 6X7 or 6 X 9. It is quite common for view camera users to use
the same lens on 6 X 7, 4 X 5 and 8 X 10 as I do with my old
300mm Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar. The bellows absorbs stray light from
the oversized image circle when I use it on the smaller formats.
The famous Carl Zeiss 180mm f/2.8 Olympia Sonnar was sold for use on
both 2 2/4 cameras and 35mm, and the version for the Praktisix type
mount could be used via an adapter on Exakta or M42 thread mount
cameras, even retaining auto diaphragm operation. I use mine on
medium format most of the time, but on my 35mm cameras now and then.
Bob
....
From Rollei Mailing List:
Well, my friend, you must be a very new kid on the block. People have
been mounting just about everything on everything so long as
physically possible. It's called "lens bashing" and I even have a
certificate from one of the medium format sites commending me for my
lens bashing efforts on behalf of old Bronica. In the 70s I did
some modifications for photographers so they could use Soviet
telephoto lenses on Hasselblad 1000F cameras. The lens mount on the
old Salyut predecessor of the Kiev 88 was similar to the old Hassy
mount, but had an extra flange which had to be machined off.
What killed lens bashing for Hasselblad was the switch to 500C. You
can't use a lens on this camera in any practical sense unless you
manage to mount a Synchro-Compur shutter in it. That's just too
difficult for most lenses, and would make fast lenses slower due
to the narrow throat of the shutter. So very little lens bashing
was ever done for 500 series 'Blads. It got easy again with the
2000 series, but the cameras were so expensive that few had access
to them.
When I had my old S2A Bronica system I put a lot of view camera and
enlarging lenses on it with home-brew adapters. Did the same with
my Rollei SL66. Can't do it with my Rollei 6000 due to interlens
shutters again, so did it with my Mamiya 645 Pro and the host of
Kiev 88s and 60s I've owned.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
----------
Oh, then I only have about seven years on you. I was guessing a lot
more.
I don't hang around with photographers at all. Too boring! I tend to
hang out with camera repairmen,lawyers, computer geeks and science
fiction writers. Much better company.
However, I found that when I was doing camera repair lots of working
pro photographers came to me wanting to put X lens on Y camera.
Sometimes it could be done, sometimes not. When it could be done, I
did it. When it couldn't be done I sent them to my old pal Marty
Forscher and he did it! One of Marty's specialties was making
Leicaflex lenses work on Nikon F series cameras.
But, if you've used Hasselblad for those years and hang out with
Hasselblad users, you won't generally run into lens bashing because it
is just too complex and expensive to do on Hassy 500 series cameras.
The 2000 and 200 series are dream machines for lens bashers, but have
generally been too expensive for many to own.
Rollei SL66 was always easiest since it has its own focusing so you
can discard the helical when adapting and just use the lens head, and
Rollei supplied the blank adapters which cut down on machine shop
costs. I've seen all sorts of things adapted for SL66.
I prefer quality over quantity, myself.
Never had strawberry rhubarb jam. Love it as pie, though. Specialty
of the Double T Diner in Ellicott City, Maryland.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
You learn something new everyday! I had not heard this term before. As
long as they don't get bashed in!
They made a special shutter to be able adapt the Luminars but yes the
throat and distance to the FP is a limitation as with a similar gadget
currently available for the Rollei 6000 system.
Now though the bodies can be had very reasonably second-hand. I bought one
specifically for lens bashing but later succumbed to the siren call of the
CZ shutterless lenses
I good reason to own a FP shutter body too! Leica
supported lens bashing to a degree when the M was introduced since they
allowed an extra mm to put in an LTM adapter, there are some new LTM
lenses (already discussed on this list) that folks are bashing with OTC
adapters. Does 'bashing' include adapting without modification to the
lens?
Tom
From Rollei Mailing List:
I don't think there is a formal definition of lens bashing, so I'd say
it's OK to consider putting a Voigtlander/Cosina on a Leica a form of
lens bashing.
This term may come from another hobby of mine, building scale models.
When you combine parts from different kits to produce a model of
something for which there is no kit, we call it kit bashing.
Bob
....
From Rollei Mailing List:
RUGers
To me the Ultimate Rollei Lens Swap was done almost 50 years ago,
when a Rollei buddy of mine bought an early 2.8A model which had
the worst lens I had ever seen. Results were like a $5 box camera.
We found a Hasselblad f2.8 80mm Kodak Ektar lens with a mount
that had been dropped. We took it to the best camera repair tech in
NY. Frankly, I forget if it was Oscar Heinemann or Marty Forscher.
He turned it out into one of the finest Rolleis we had ever seen. We
had to dispense with the lower bayonet, but we could use all the
Series VII filters, lens hoods, etc. Aperture settings were on the
front ring of the lens barrel itself, as we could not adapt the Rollei
setting wheel at the money we had available. I wish I could find that
camera now!
Jerry
From Rollei Mailing List:
--- Austin Franklin [email protected] wrote:
I don't think anyone needs to be a graduate from
the Wharton School of Business or Harvard to realize
that to have a large (or small) staff of machinists
and techs adept at making parts from scratch or
re-configuring parts to another function takes quite a
bit of money to keep going. As for demand, there must
be quite a bit if making any part for any camera
(Photography On Bald Mountain makes this claim) is the
order of the day. One does not set up a shop to do
this on a piece-meal basis.
That's not the point to many photographers who
desire to use Canon glass on their Nikons. Or vice
versa. There are a few out there that believe the most
ergonomic (for them) body used with what they consider
the best lenses is hog heaven. Many would like to do
it, few can afford it.
Not so! Witness the el-cheapo 2 element 500mm
long-focus lens sold by Cambridge Camera for lo these
many years. The ultimate in lens-bashing!! When this
lens proved to be so popular in the 35mm format and
was being converted to use on (flourish, please)
Hasselblads by a large number of impecunious pros as
well as amateurs, it was decided to make the exact
same lens available in several MF mounts and up the
price about 3 to 4 times. So, now, you have
lens-bashing done at the factory.
Jon
From Rollei Mailing List
You know, I have one of those! Actually it was first lens
bashed by Herwig Zorkendorfer who even built a tilt/shift
version of it!!! Zork makes the adapter tube that Cambridge
puts on the lens.
Talk about lens bashing, Zork is the cream of the crop lens
basher. Last time I visited him in Munich he was taking
Russian mirror lenses and re-spacing the mirrors so they
would work on medium format SLRs. Showed me some honking
fine photos shot with them!
Most of Zork's clientelle is working pros.
BTW, wonder if Austin has ever seen a Hulcher camera or
a Simon Wide.
Bob
----------
From Rollei Mailing List:
Both Hulcher and Simon (Nathan) have been lens bashers of the highest
level for many years. I don't know if Mr. Hulcher senior is still
with us, but if not his son certainly is. They've custom built
specialty cameras for working pros for many years in Virginia Beach,
VA. Among their specialties, the Hulcherama rotating panoramic
cameras.
Simon Nathan used to write for the photo magazines in the 60s and
70s and had a specialty of building his own special purpose cameras.
The pan cameras he built were called Simon Wide. He shot a famous
aerial panorama of New York City with one and it ended up on a US
postage stamp.
I hope Simon is still living. I haven't heard from him for several
years. He and Norm Rothschild were inseparable buddies.
Bob
....
From Rollei Mailing List:
Javier,
Yes, Forscher's people used to modify Leicaflex lenses to fit on
Nikon, since the Leicaflex would not hold up to heavy pro use and
pros wanted to use those lenses. All of the ones I ever saw did
not have auto diaphragm after the conversion. You just used them
stopped down. It was all a matter of price, since I am sure they
could have coupled the diaphragm (maybe transplanted a Nikon diaphragm
assembly) if the buyer wanted to spend the money.
Marty is still alive and well. I saw him in February at the PMA
show. He works for NPC (Newton Polaroid Corp.) these days. He
seems very happy.
When he "retired" he sold his company to some of the guys who worked
for him. Professional Camera Repair is the company and they are
still in business in NYC.
Marty tells the story of how he learned camera repair. He got hold of
a Rollei TLR. Took it completely apart. Put all of the parts in a
cardboard box and shook it up. Put it back together again. Over and
over until he could almost do it blindfolded.
Bob
----------
[Ed. note: homebrew astrophotography using simple spherical mirror...]
I made excellent solar eclipse pictures with a simple spherical 150mm
mirror. Its focal length was 1580mm for a 4.5x6 format. And the mounting
was simply hershellian. Portability was good. I made two boxes, one in the
other for transport, and assembled in situ. In the boxes my photographic
furniture were well protected.
JMB
[Ed. note: large achromatic tele-lenses at low cost source?...]
An easy way to remember which way to orient a plano-convex (breast-
like) lens is to have the flat side toward the focus and the Curved
Side Towards the Longest Conjugate (toward infinity and beyond). CS-TLC
works for plano-concave lenses as well. Surplus achromats 80 mm in
diameter from Melles Griot can be found at
http://www.sro-optics.com/ Sterling Resale Optics. Soon
air-spaced objectives in 3-4 lens cells will be listed as well.
-Robert always focused Nichols
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Glenn,
Check Edmunds Industrial Optics Cat. (p.84-85, 1999) They have focus
tubes
and such fot C and T mount lenses.
http://www.edmundscientific.com
AZ
From Bronica (Egroups) Mailing List:
Sam's post on the 200mm Komura inspired me to see how hard it would
be to adapt my 135 f4.5 Leica screwmount Hektor to my Bronica C. It
turned out to be remarkably easy. The front part of the Hektor, with
the lens and the iris, screws off. I don't know what this thread is,
but it seems to be about 43mm. I have a reverse T-mount to Nikon F
mount adapter that is a fairly snug fit in the Bronica helicoid.
(T-mount threads sticking out, and the Nikon mount not connected to
anything - the outside of the adapter just happens to fit snugly into
the helicoid.) I only needed some kind of connector to hold the
T-mount adapter and the Hector lens head about 1/8 inch or less
apart. I found that a toilet paper roll is exactly the right size to
fit over the threads of the reverse T-mount. (Probably every lens
hacker already knows this.) The Hecktor head thread is about 1mm
bigger, but still threaded in tightly. I cut down the tube a little
at a time until the infinity focus was right. A little black tape to
cover the joints for light leaks, and it works great. Now, I can
screw off the Hektor head from it's normal lens body, put it on the
tube, and tape the adapted lens into the helicoid. Certainly, a more
durable adapter could be made, but this is really easy, and it works
great. Oh, and old Hektors are cheap.
-Mark Walberg
From COntax Mailing LIst:
Maybe. But in photo equipment tolerance terms, a deviation
of 0.1 millimeter would be like buying a car and finding
that one of the wheels did not touch the ground!! This is
a really BIG measurement in the critical lens to film distance.
I don't know the official factory tolerance on this measurment
from Leica, but I just pulled out the shop manual for the
Rollei SL35E as an example, and the flange to film plane
distance is 44.67 (longer than Leica M because this is an
SLR) and the tolerances are from +0.02 to -0.01.
Muchan, you may want to look in the Contax repair manual you
bought and see what sort of tolerances they allow in this
measurement. My guess would be that Leica M tolerances are
tighter than those for SLRs where focus is confirmed directly.
Bob
...
[Ed. Note: Micro/Macro/Astro Photo tip..]
Miguel Ferreira [email protected] wrote:
Remove the the camera lens and mount the camera body above the eyepiece
(projective) of the microscope, using a rigid tripod or even better a
solid copy stand (to prevent vibrations caused by mirror shake!).
The image is now projected right onto the film plane, so you should be
able to see it on the ground glass of the view finder. Move the camera
up and down, until the image is in focus.
If you work in a bright room, you have to shield your setup against
stray-light, e.g. using black cardboard.
Alternatively you could try to attach the camera to the microscope with
a modified extension tube.
Hope this helps,
Oliver
--
Since these Bronica lists have gone silent again.... shhhh!!!
I thought I'd write something again.
Some years back I bought some used/broken Komura 200MM f3.5 lenses for $10
to $19 each. These were imitation Kilar lenses which ended in a Leica 39MM
screw thread for use with various Komura adapters for popular 35MM SLRs.
Most of the lenses had frozen focusing mounts, which I later removed and
held over a burner on a gas stove to melt the frozen lubricant. The lens
is also known as Asanuma/King. The back focus is too far out to adapt
this lens to a 6x6 SLR, but the front lens body unscrews from the focusing
mount and this can be adapted to the focusing mount on the old Focal Plane
Bronica cameras.
On one of these lenses I removed the focusing mount and got the rear 39MM
section to mount into the fixed lens body. This then screws into a
Novoflex 39MM to 57MM Bronica adapter to mount into the Bronica focusing
mount.
What is amazing about this lens is its sharpness and how small and compact
it is. Probably the smallest 200MM lens for a 6x6 cm SLR on which it gives
full image coverage. I cannot recommend this lens highly enough. There are
still plenty of these around and they are cheap and as good or better than
the regular 200MM Komuras sold for Bronica.
Last week on a day in New York City, I used this 200MM Komura lens on my
Bronica S-2 to take various interesting city shots. I took two rolls - one
Kodak Gold 100 and one Ilford XP-2. I took various shots of odd old
buildings and modern strange shaped skyscrapers, like the "Lipstick"
building on Third Avenue.
Both of the rolls of Color and Black and White came out very sharp and I
will be having some blowups made.
The quality of this lens/camera combination is just excellent and anybody
examining the final results would never think it was one of my low cost
"specials" but something taken with a high end modern medium format
outfit.
Just a tale to think about and inspire.
- Sam Sherman
From Bronica Digest:
I thought I would add something to this-
I have gotten extremely sharp images with my old Bronica S-2 and the
adapted 200MM Komura lens and here's how.
1- Although I have been shooting HAND HELD, I shoot at 1/250th and 1/500th
second speeds to eliminate any hand held movement. Forget mirror shake on
these cameras- there is little if any- the shock one feels is the mirror
returning AFTER the exposure is already made.
2- I usually try to shoot at f8 exposure which is stopping down enough to
the lens' most critical aperture and still gives a bright enough screen in
daylight to focus on. That is how I use pre-set and manual lenses -
shooting at f5.6 and f8 and focusing at these apertures, so I don't lose
focus by the lens' natural focus shift from wide open to its stopped down
auto aperture on auto lenses. (That is why it is important to check focus
with the stop down button on all tele lenses on ALL medium format cameras
to be sure the image is critically sharp.)
3- I have replaced the film insert in the S-2 back with the later S2-A
(improved) insert - these can be noted by sometimes seeing an "A" stamped
on the side of the back, having only one top roller (not 2) and sometimes
having teflon coated rollers. This insert gives a much flatter film plane.
4- I have super-aligned the position of the ground glass/fresnel screen
combination after removing the finder foam (see my articles on Bob
Monaghan's Classic Bronica website -
http://medfmt.8k.com/bronica.html
5- Bearing the above in mind, with my adapted 200MM Komura and other
adapted lenses, my focusing ring does not stop at infinity as the lens
focuses past infinity. To get those sharp distant photos, my focusing
screen, film flatness, overall alignment and my own ability to focus
sharply must be 100%.
Hope this was of interest to Bronica focal plane shutter camera users -
and some possibly to leaf shutter users too.
- Sam Sherman
[Ed. note: tubing is handy for eyepieces and macrolens mounts..]
[email protected] says...
MetalMart.com has both sizes:
http://www.metalmart.com/
I've never dealt with them, so I can't comment on their quality or
service.
- Jeff
From: "John Bridgman" [email protected]
If you go to any Home Depot, they have a "metal rack", usually in the same
aisle as fasteners. One of the things they sell is 3' and 4' lengths of
1-1/4" OD aluminum tubing. Fits perfectly into my eyepiece holders, cuts
easily with a hacksaw.
They sell hacksaws too ;)
As the other posts mention, 1-1/4" INSIDE diameter is a pretty standard
size for plumbing parts, just look around and be creative...
JB
From Pentax Mailing List:
Lens collars CAN be fabricated by purchasing an item called " Split Set
Collars " in the proper ( next size smaller ) diameter. Any good
machineshop can find these items for you at a modest price. Or you can
check the Mc Master Carr Supply Company (see attachment)
These can then be machined inside to be just slightly smaller than
the diameter of the lens. If you are going to add a thin cushion or pad,
which I would do if it were me, and take into account the thickness of
the pading materials. Also remember to place the thinest washer you can
get on the screws holding both halves togather. ( one on each side
holding the split ring open just a little )
Take it to a machineist for a 10 min job. You will pay for 30 min.
minimum which will include explaining what you want and letting them
finish their coffee. Then take both rings ( I did tell You to get two
didn't I ? ) and weld, silver solder, or bolt them to a piece of 1/4 X
1 X ( however long you need ) . If bolted, first file a small flat on
the bottom of the ring half which has the tapped holes in it and then
drill and tap a hole in the bottom of this ring. after which You can
drill a pilot hole in the piece of attachment plate,
I would prefer to bolt them to the piece of 1/4 bar so that I could
move and or exchange them for another lens combination. The top and
bottom 1/2's of the set collars are held togather by countersunk
allenhead screws and are treated in a black machine type finish.
The idea is to compress the top and bottom enough to keep them from
shifting yet not have them so tightly attached so as to cause any
distortion. I have used this type of mount to attach expensive optics to
rifles with signifant recoil and this specific type of mount to hang
precision optics to robotics for 24 / 7 production requirements.This
could also be used to keep rigid the stacked extension rings and or
teleconverters some members seem so fond of.
I hope that this is a usefull contribution.
Long live analog
ROBB
BASEURL=http://www.mcmaster.com/cgi/findtab.cgi
BASEURL=http://www.mcmaster.com/toolbar.html
BASEURL=http://www.mcmaster.com/products.html
From Pentax Mailing LIst:
Having checked the Mcmaster - Carr site, there have been some
changes to their prduct line. I would like therefore to make some
changes to my coments here. The Set collars are called " Clamp on
shaft collars " and are available in aluminum and nylon as well as steel
and stainless steel. they are available in sizes from 1/8 " to over 3 "
diameters but are available in that range in steps of 1/16 ".
This being so, there is no need to have the collars machined if some
other softer material which will act as a gasket to hold snugly is used.
THIS IS A JUDGEMENT CALL. I would expect that geting the next larger
size collar and trying out gasket materials for best fit would be the
most prudent choice. The shaft collars are more expensive than I
remembered, but are sized in a fine enough set of ranges as to oblivate
the need for a machineist .
ROBB
sci.astro.amateur
Sorry, but in my lexicon, a relay lens is a lens that takes a focus
point and reimages it in another point. The barlow doesn't see a
focus but rather just moves the focus of the other optics. The
difference here is that the relay lens looks at a focus point on one
side of the optic and puts that light at another focus point on the
other side of the lens.
--
From Bronica Digest:
I became involved with the contruction designs of long tele lenses when I
began adapting various lenses for Bronica S2-A type cameras and others.
I found that in Kilar, Astro Fern and various other brands, lenses longer
that 300MM many times only consisted of two elements - a cemented doublet
at the front and then a diaphragm, focusing mount and a long tube leading
to a lens mount.
Even on a lens originally intended for 35MM use only, if one removed part
of or shortened the end tube, it could be possible to get true infinity
focus on 6x6cm cameras, generally get full coverage, except if the tube
was small and cut off some image in the corners.
Continuing my experiments, I wondered if 400MM lenses and others designed
for 35MM only could be adapted to 6x6 cm. Some of these have a doublet at
the front and one or two elements at the end of the tube. To focus at
infinity and work on 6x6cm one would have to remove these rear elements.
Could this work?
Many years ago I adapted a Piesker 400MM f4.5 Picon to Pentacon 6. I got
sharp images at infinity and full frame coverage. I had bought the lens
as-is with part of the rear tube and the mount missing.
Now I have seen the complete lens, for 35mm Exakta, and realize that in
addition to the missing mount one or two rear elements were also missing
and their loss or removal caused no apparent deterioration in quality.
I now acquired a 400MM f6.3 Japanese "Vemar" tele lens which looks similar
to a Komura lens (which it may be).
I would like to adapt this to Bronica S2-A and so removed the rear tube
and one glass element there (another may have meen missing) and in my
tests the doublet alone in front gives a sharp image on 6x6cm - filling
out the full frame.
I am continuing my experiments to mount this on Bronica S2-A.
Does anybody have any information about the doublet tele design? Some of
these lenses run from 200MM to 800MM and up.
I would like to know why some of the enhanced designs had the rear glass
elements and why removing them still allows the doublet to sharply
function on its own.
- Sam Sherman
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000
A company called American Science & Surplus has a separate optics
catalogue
(separate from their main catalogue; you have to request it) with lots of
low-cost achromats in it.
Find them via web search.
--
From: [email protected] (AuctionFan)
Not being a rich boy, I've had to make do all my life, so you can bet I've
put together some fun lenses.
If you need a big lens, try a 21-1/4" Kodak copying lens (about 540mm)
which covers an 8x10 easy and adapt a 2x medium format converter to it to
make it a 1080mm lens.
These lenses are on eBay all the time for about $50.
AF.
[Ed.note: surprising coverage of bronica SQ lenses report...]
Although I've sold my SQ-Ai body, I still have a few PS lenses left.
This morning, out of curiosity, I mounted the 80mm lens on a piece of
cardboard cut to fit my Galvin view camera and was surprised to see it
covered 6x9 with just the merest hint of fall-off in the corners, which
got me thinking...
There are two sets of three contacts on the back of the lens, presumably
one set of which controls the shutter and the other of which controls the
aperture, both of which are controlled by the body. Although I'm not an
electronics wiz, I figure it shouldn't be too difficult to put together an
external controller for the lens and this will allow me to use it on my
view camera. Since I typically shoot 6x6 and 6x7s, I'll have enough
coverage left over for some movements and get the benefit of the using a
high-resolution medium-format lens on rollfim instead of a
lower-resolution large-format lens as I've been using until now.
Has anybody ever tried this before? Does anybody have a schematic for the
SQ series bodies or know which pins on the back of the lens do what?
I'll try getting in touch with Bronica, of course, but my gut feeling is
that they'll probably not be too helpful.
Anyway, thanks in advance for any input/advice you can offer me.
Jeffrey Goggin
Date: 21 Sep 2000
That's exactly what I was thinking ... I've hacked timer circuits together
before using this chip but before I hook one up to a lens, I'd like to
know more about what Bronica did first. I'll keep you posted...
I've also figured out the mechanism needed to cock and release the shutter
externally and I'm going to fabricate this from some scrap aluminum sheet
later this week. With a little luck, I'll be able to fit all of it inside
the lenscap that I'm using as an adapter and cut a slot in the side for
the lever to pass through. Making it spring-loaded would be nice but this
may have to wait for the Mk II version. :^)
BTW, one other alternative approach I thought of is simply using an
extension cable out of an SQ body -- I've seen cosmetically challenged
ones for as little as $200 and I won't need all of the SQ-A and SQ-Ai
features -- and adding a connector to the front of the lensboard. While I
would prefer not to haul an extra body around with me, it would serve as a
backup in case my view camera ever broke (yeah, right!) and I would always
have the option of using the Bronica lens on the Bronica body, too.
Hmmm...
JG
[Ed. note: mounting lenses for Hasselblad leaf shutter mount bodies
post:]
Hi Jim:
I'll be happy to share my "Photoshop" experiences with you any time. Do it
yourself in Photoshop, apply Calypso's LightJet profile and take advantage
of the $25 special pricing on 16x20 (or 16 x 16 for Hassy) prints.
The 100 mm setup is a Symmar with Compur shutter mounted in a Hassy #40037
Lens Mount Adapter. The adapter has been out of production for a while but
you can still find them. I recently picked up another from New York for
$95. The adapter is a chunk of aluminum with the Hassy mounting flange
with a 1/2 inch or so hole in the middle. You'll need to do some simple
machining to open the hole to around 2 inches. Also need to cut the length
down by a 1/2 inch or so to permit focusing at infinity. The Hassy mount
allows attachment to the body at four positions, 90 degrees apart. I
offset mounted the Symmar by about 1/2 inch. This setup gives me 1/2 inch
shift without camera controls. By positioning the lens in the correct 90
degree oriented, you can add the camera shift and get a full inch of shift
(or rise depending on the orientation of the camera).
Glad you saw my exhibit at Calypso - too bad they lost their wonderful
lobby space - I guess it's all due to the high cost of Silicon Valley
rents!!!.
Let me know how you are doing.
Phil
From hasselblad mailing list:
Gregg Laiben wrote:
No. They are basically a solid (small hole through the middle) aluminum
block (round) with a Hasselblad lens mount on one end. You have to machine
away the aluminum to the proper thickness with the correct diameter hole
to mount a lens such as the 100mm Symmar. Focusing has to be done via the
FlexBody macro focus mechanism. This won't work on a regular Hasselblad
body. The 40037 was actually made to be used on the bellows with a 2x, 4x,
8x, etc, close-up lens.
Jim
From Kiev Mailing List:
Hi Kevin Lee - yes, got it, from Oct 31; still catching up after being
sick recently, but it is on my list for posting on the wide angle lenses
pages ;-) again, thanks for the great resource. I was reading the Wide
Angle Lens book by Joseph Poducca (Sp?) earlier this evening, no mention
of the 16/17mm pelengs (no big surprise), however, he did mention that the
35mm fuji/kodak disposable panoramic cameras come with a 17mm lens and
1/100th sec shutter for ASA 400 film - for $10 new with the 35mm film roll
;-) [some models are 24mm and others 32mm, so check carefully] - another
idea for a lens hack with a mirror lockup body? ;-) Wonder if you could
mount it in front of a Kiev film back or similar hassy/bronica back and
shoot its circular image for a fisheye effect? more late night strange
thoughts ;-)
I just posted another "catchup" article from Sam Sherman on his results
using a Vemar at http://medfmt.8k.com/bron400mm.html [updated URL]; this is one
of those 400mm f/6.3 lenses we probably all have gathering dust
what blows my mind about Sam's approach is that he removed the rear
elements of the lens, and thereby improved the coverage while still
getting some sharp results with careful focusing etc. Basically the front
elements of a lot of these longer teles is a doublet, often achromatic,
rarely a triplet, which can probably cover lots of 6x6/6x7 if used right?
I have one I picked up from Don T. which he had machined and remounted on
bronica 6x6cm focal plane; the lens works pretty well at f/8 or f/11; I
really just wanted the precision machined mounting pieces with the lens a
plus, but I am planning on using it tomorrow on a trip to our local zoo
(before it gets too cold, and half-price on Tuesday, also just got some
new film stocks to try out..).
I was also doing some research earlier this evening, reading Andreas
Feininger (experimental design..) describe his 28 inch and 40 inch super
telephotos for 6x9cm using some barrel lenses. Again, I think I may start
looking for one of those 1 meter lenses myself after seeing his stunning
results. He had another shot taken on 4x5 with a magnifying lens and
cardboard stop that was also pretty shocking in terms of quality per $ of
lens cost ;-) I'm actually thinking about a collapsed telephoto design,
using front lens element and two front surface mirrors in Z shaped
config. to reduce lens length to about a foot for a 1,000mm lens ;-) I
have seen similar amateur telescope refractors using this design too...
In short, my betting would be that you might find, as Sam did, that the
lens head might work pretty well, if you can get it into a reasonable
fitting and precisely set infinity focusing and so on mechanically. When
you consider the cost of longer telephoto lenses, this becomes pretty
handy, even with low prices on kiev optics ;-) I have circa $200 US in a
trio of 320mm APO, 400mm and 500mm lenses for 6x6 using this route...
so like Sam notes, if you can get one of these oldies cheaply enough,
they might be worth testing on any focal plane Kiev or other med fmt rig
esp if you have an air space at rear of tube or can get just the lens
head at front for experimenting - just might surprise y'ah ;-) bobm
From Kiev88 mailing list:
Nice idea! However, I think it is easier to skip the Kiev/Hassy/Bronica
body and just use the film back and make a black plastic/cardboard
attachment to the film back. At a first glance I think that the focal
distance for that little Kodak lens is too short to be attached at the
front of the entire 6x6 camera. I am thinking of the small dimensions of
the disposable camera itself. We do not need the shutter in the 6x6 camera
anyhow. Just use the entire lens-shutter-front ass'y from the disposble
when you shot the original roll full. The film is nicely creeping back
into its 35 mm cassette when shooting the disposble in an ordinary way.
When finished, just disassemble the camera, take out the roll, hand it in
to the lab. Then use your Black&Decker or Dremel tool and attack the
disposable camera.....
I will certainly try!
/Robert
...
From Rollei Mailing List;
* Also Alpa 2000 Si, Argus, Chinon, Contax D and S, Cosina, Edixa,
Fujica, GAF, Icarex TM, Mamiya/Sekor, Petri, Pentacon, Ricoh,
Spiraflex, Vivitar, and Yashica SLRs with M42 universal-thread mount.
This chart is from the 1970s, so any corrections are accepted. Ed
[Ed. note: on using one camera viewfinder/prisms on another...]
....
I mounted a Hasselblad focusing hood on the bottom part of a Rolleiflex
hood assembly. I use it on my Rollei 3.5f with interchangeable hoods.
By the way, according to some experts on the matter, the f/3.5 Planar
on the 3.5f Rollei is the best lens on any Rollei. Ed
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
--- In [email protected], Mike Perkowitz map@c... wrote:
Hi Mike,
If the Salyut's lens-to-focal-plane distance is 10-15mm greater than
the Nikon's 46.5mm, say approximately 60mm, you have to find some way
to attach the lens, at that distance from the film plane, in order
for it to focus to infinity. One or two of the very thin K1 extension
tubes (5.5mm each), or something to that effect, might be useful as
spacers. You would then have pre-set operation only, of course.
I'm far from being an expert tinkerer, but I've done a couple of
adaptations that might give you some ideas. The first was to attach a
Leica 39mm thread enlarger lens to the front of Nikon bellows. I
simply used a BR-2 lens reversing ring and a 52mm filter stacking
cap, drilled out the cap, and epoxied a 39mm lens retaining ring to
it. Now all Leica thread camera and enlarger lenses fit just fine.
The second was a way to use my Nikkor camera lenses on my Beseler
enlarger; in other words, the reverse of the first. There, I screwed
a Heliopan 39 to 52mm stepup ring onto the lens board and put a K3
ring on the stepup ring, thereby procuring a way to mount F-mount
lenses on the board. Why? I know that camera lenses are not very good
for enlarging, but I just had to try the freaky idea of enlarging
shots made with my 20mm through the same lens.
So, if you were to use a BR5 reversing ring, then placed a stepup
ring for a 62mm-to-larger-size filter (72mm, 77mm...) on the BR5,
then put a screwin metal lens cap on the stepup ring, you may have
enough room on the lens cap to drill it out and install the female
lens mount from the Salyut onto it. Would this provide the exact lens
to film plane distance you need? Doubtful, but it would fit on Nikon
bellows.
By the way, I know a fellow who has modified a Bronica tilt-shift
bellows to accept 35mm cameras through a T mount, and will allow them
to focus to infinity, at least with 100mm or longer lenses. The
beauty of it is that it uses superb, and now cheap, Nikkor medium
format lenses. The problem with it is that, as Bob Monaghan has
pointed out elsewhere, there are no affordable medium format lenses
below the 50mm focal length, which is what you really need if you're
going to shoot with movements on 35mm film...
Regards,
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000
should be easy to do with their pricey rollei 6k aux. shutter adapter, see
related post at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/rollei6k.html on the
rollei auxilliary shutter for the rollei 6k series; this adapter is made
to enable hacking oddball view camera lenses and so on to the rollei 6k
more complex than the older Rollei SL66 lens blank for machining as it
has the shutter mechanics etc. You could probably fake one of these by
removing glass from a normal lens with busted glass (or remove glass for
later resale after use completed?) and getting the mount and mechanics
and shutter, but would need to convert for optics (probably limited to
long focus lenses only?) to mount with machinist?
you would probably need a lot more info about lens construction and
operation than pinouts, since most of these puppies use various stepper
motors or other pulse width modulation control schemes (cf Bronica etc);
I presume this is what is built into the controls of the aux shutter??
perhaps rollei USA could provide some info from repair techs, or even
repair manuals for body/lenses (minimum order price may be an issue?)?
HTH bobm
From Medium Format Mailing LIst -EGroups
The Rollei shutter adapter is pricey indeed -- around $1300 -- and it
really isn't available stateside (nor was I able to find any European
that carried it). I did find a fellow in Germany who will manufacture
a leaf shutter adapter for various MF cameras including Rollei. I
expect the unit in this week. My interest is macro.
I hate to do this with one of the expensive extension tubes for the
Rollei, but I am going to put external contacts on the thing so that I
can hook it up to my scope and see what is going on!
--- In [email protected], Robert Monaghan rmonagha@p...
wrote:
...
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000
Wayne D [email protected] wrote:
I've been giving this a bit of thought, though with an eye towards the
Pentacon-6 mount cameras (Kiev 60 etc).
The two biggest problems with mounting lenses intended for 35mm on a
focal plane shutter MF rig are image coverage and register position
(assuming you want to maintain infinity focus). A 2x teleconverter
element could solve both of these at the cost of 2 f-stops and some
optical quality, a sacrifice which might be worth making in some cases.
What about taking the guts from the Arsat 2x teleconverter (designed to
cover 6x6, unlike some 35mm teleconverters which may induce vignetting)
and mounting them in a tube shorter than the original teleconverter tube
by roughly 20mm (such as a short macro tube). Bolt a billet aluminum
plate on the front (painted flat black of course) and tap it for T-mount.
It looks like the teleconverter lens assembly is small enough to permit
this. T-mount is a natural choice here as the register position is the
closest of widely available 35mm mounts to MF rigs.
A nice side effect would be that the whole assembly would be usable on
a M645 with a $25 adapter. True, you lose light gathering and double your
focal length, but this could still be extremely useful for getting long
telephoto lenses or cheap zooms (a budget f4 70-210 turns into an f8
140-420, something I've often wished for when doing wildlife shots).
Since any T-mount would cover your film area you could go hog wild with
specialized lenses not normally available in MF (or available for more
than the price of a new car).
Has anyone tried this? I'm sorely tempted to go out and buy an Arsat 2x
just to mutilate/play around with.
-James
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000
Robert Monaghan [email protected] wrote:
True (and a great resource it is!), but I'm thinking about mounting
various other nontypical T-mount equipment where coverage is a significant
issue. Just being able to slap on any T-mount device with no modifications
and have the FOV across the negative be roughly equivalent would be
useful.
Some of the lenses I've been testing do cover 6x6 (or very nearly) but
they seem to lose quite a lot of resolution by the time they hit the
corners. A good teleconverter (maybe a 1.4x would be a good intermediate
choice) might give "cleaner" results across the whole negative frame.
1.4x would only require 4x4cm coverage or so, this should be achievable
from almost anything.
One problem is that really fast T-mount lenses are rare. If an extra
centimeter could be gained in the mounting assembly then a more modern
(Nikon etc) mount could be fitted. An f1.4 prime plus a 1.4x
teleconverter would give around f2.0, very fast for MF.
Then again, I like MF because I can shoot with very grainy high speed
films
in low light and still have it look good, so maybe I'm just weird.
-James
[Ed. note: more on prism interchanging between medium format models..]
Hi Bob
Basically that is what I did when I mounted the Kiev metered prism to an
S2A. I started with a waist level finder and removed the base and work
down the base of the Kiev with a file until the Bronica base would fit the
base of the Kiev finder.
I've had several inquires as to how I calibrate the finder with the
camera. It's really very simple. I start by getting a reading with my spot
meter to find the F stop and shutter speed then turn the Kiev meter on and
get both lights lit then turn the F stop dial on the Kiev to where the
shutter speed and F stop agree with the spot meter. You can change lenses
and not have to recalibrate as long as the lenses have the same F stop.
The only time you need to recalibrate is when you have a lens with a
different F stop, like going from an f2.8 to an f3.5, or if you change
film that has a different speed.
I hope this all makes sense.
Ron
...
From Medium Format Mailing List:
I love http://www.uspto.gov - found all the neat details on my
Minolta/Beseler 45a, unsharp masking, dithering, etc. Not that I want
to hack anyone's patent, but the background information and multiple
sources are just great.
I have a couple shutters from Tektronix scope cameras - these use
polaroid backs - they have a synch feature which can trigger the scope
for single shot trace. Tek scope cameras are really cheap goint for
about $20 on the Bay. I doubt that the optics are any good.
I've done some microcontroller programming so PWM and steppers aren't
that difficult. It is interesting that 6001 bodies are very cheap
since Rollei was essentially giving them away with the purchase of a
6008i. The problem, of course, is that the optics are extremely
expensive. Kind of razors and blades times 1000. Thus, to hack the
control mechanism of the 6XXX could open up some interesting stuff.
...
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000
skgrimes wrote:
Which appears to cost $895.00.
Or you could use a garden-variety R/C servo ($10 to $15 for standard, $30
to $50 for monster size) and build a driver circuit--there are a number of
web sites with circuits. Here's one:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/gadgets/servo1.htm
If you substitute a fixed resistor and a pushbutton switch for P2, you
have a two-state system. Push the button and the servo moves its full
travel. Release and it moves back. Use the servo to push the plunger on a
standard cable release.
If you need to drive multiple servos, you can duplicate the driver
transistor, T1 / R2 /R3, circuit and connect several in parallel from the
555 output.
You'll need a 4.8 to 6 volt battery. Get a 4-cell battery holder from
Ripoff Shack and stuff it with alkalines or nicads as you prefer.
You should be able to cobble this together with one servo for no more than
$25 or $30 and that's if you have to pay single-unit prices for every
part. Add another $15 per servo if you want more than one.
[Ed. note: hacking a polaroid back to bronica bodies is feasible
too...]
Hullo! I'm new to this group. I have and use several kiev cameras,
both the 88 and 60 types, most are not working, but the ones that do
perform well.
I have modified an old "30120" Hasselblad polaroid back for my Kiev
88.It uses the smaller polaroid format (not typ 669), typ"87"
or "Viva" as it is known here locally.
The modification I did was to file one of the catches where the
retaining hook of the Kiev 88 body inserts into the film magazine. I
realised then that these hooks also run deeper than that of the
Hasselblads, so I also had to take out a metal part inside the
magazine. Luckily, the magazine's functions were never impaired by
the loss of this part. I also had to take out the glass cover of the
magazine since this sinks to far into the shutter plane, touching the
curtain itself.
The magazine works well inside the studio, but outdoors is a
different story. Light leaks into the magazine, and it does not come
from the place where the camera body joins the magazine, but from the
dark slide groove.
Anyone here done the same?
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001
Mark Anderson wrote:
Hi Mark. I once saw a RB67 modified with a linhof front standard for sale
on ebay. Since then I've thought about how to make and adapter for mine.
My concern is that I would have to open the lens, focus and compose, close
the lens and then shoot with the double cable release. Am I missing
something here? That sounds like a lot of hassle, and kind of defeats the
advantages of an slr for me. I might be as well off to use the lenses w/
my Crown Graphic and gain the advantage of perspective controls. I know
I'm not offering any help, it just sounds like we are thinking in similar
directions. Good luck.
Sincerely,
J. De Fehr
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
Just a few quick comments. With large format lenses on medium format you
are
dealing with the center of the field - the "edge" resolution numbers are
irrelevant. The published #'s for large format that you allude to are
probably at f/22 vs. the medium format #'s which were probably done at
f/11 - f/16 - it makes a big difference. I am in the process of testing
aerial resolution of my lenses and have seen 140+ lp/mm with large format
lenses at f/8 - f/11 - the resolution falls like a rock beyond f/16
(diffraction). The limiting factor in my system is the microscope - I am
unable to see greater than 140 lp/mm, I am in the process of rectifying
that. I also suspect that the differences in resolution numbers on film is
partly due to the lack of film flatness in 4x5 and larger formats - medium
format will be more consistent.
Wayne
"Jess4203" [email protected] wrote
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
[email protected] (Mark Anderson) said
this on the Internet:
Mark
I was considering this as well, though not using a bellows.
You can try using a Mamiya lenscap for your 'board' to mount the lens.
They are made of very tough plastic and have a large flat circular area. A
size 1 copal should fit with no problems.
You'd also need a double trigger cable release to use such a contraption
with an RZ67 - the first to flip the reflex mirror up, the second to fire
the shutter.
If you're thinking of just using a lenscap as lensboard and screwing it
into the camera without an extension bellows/tube, BE CAREFUL that the
rear element doesn't poke the reflex mirror. I tried a 120mm Angulon and
it focussed nicely using the RZ's built in bellows, albeit not to
infinity.
(I wanted to ask SK Grimes if he could modify the front of my RZ to get
some tilt, but ended up buying a Zoerk adapter for a 645 camera instead.)
Regards,
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
Jess4203 [email protected] wrote:
Your comments, (and subsequent) are worth considering.
I'm considering the option for these reasons:
1) Cost (I have the lenses)
The shutter inconvenience issue isn't of much concern to me. I'd gain
the convenience of interchangeable roll film, and an SLR rather than
film holders and darkcloth.
--
[Ed. note: tip from Camera Makers Mailing List on condensor enlarger
optics; recall these are large lenses in 4 inch and larger range; might be
worth checking out? Ditto projector condensor lenses? Plain
glass, but cheap? ;-) ...]
From Camera Makers Mailing List;
[email protected] writes:
I know this sounds dumb but what is a condenser lens exactly. I know
several sources for a variety of different kind of lenses, maybe I could
help.
Gene Johnson
[email protected] wrote:
A condenser lens is actually a pair of matched Convex lenses,
(Convex/plano?) placed 'back to back' in such a way that the curved
surfaces face each other in the middle, and the flats are on the outside.
(The convex lenses are basiclly just magnifying lenses, but flat on one
side) The idea behind the condenser lense is to allign the light rays into
a more or less straight path. A four inch diameter condenser is just about
the smallest one should try to use for 6x6. I know of no source of such
lenses outside of the photography industry. One might try Edmund
Scientific... They sell a lot of lenses. I have a set of condensers such
as one would use for 6x6, but I'm keeping them, sorry! (I also have a set
for 8x10, lets talk!)
Someone sugested replacing the Printmaker, via eBay. I agree. This could
well be the best way to go. Even if one could get the 6x6 setup working
with the printmaker, you must realize that the extra weight of the bigger
glass would tend to make it unstable, and top heavy. Find an old Bessler
23c II. VERY rugged, very stable, parts still available.
Best of luck:
From Camera Makers Mailing List:
Surplus shed has some 4 1/4" plano convex lenses.
Gene
...
From Contax Mailing List:
Lens mounts have been adjustable on most cameras for some time. The
systems vary from using thin shims under the screws which hold the front
casting to the body casting, to the very elegant system used by Pentax on
their Spotmatic and K cameras which uses concentric screws to allow very
fine adjustment of the flange to film distance. Normally it is done with
a metal plate where the film would be and a depth gauge which rests across
the lens mount and protrudes back to this plate. It is checked at several
places and adjusted. It is a time-consuming process. I can't imagine an
RTS III getting out of the factory misaligned. Film thickness has nothing
to do with it since it is the front surface of the film riding on the
guide rails above and below the shutter opening which determines film
placement. The reason the pressure plate is mounted on springs is to
allow for different thicknesses of film.
Bob
From Bronica Mailing List;
Hi
Was toying with the idea of building a panorama back with a spare 6x7 120
back I have ... Basically cut a 120 spool and use it as a spacer to
accomdate a 35mm cartridge on the left, and take-up on the 120 spool on
the right.
I reason that the crank cycle would be moving the same physical length of
film in 35mm as it would on a 120 roll... so spacing shouldn't be an
issue. The only catch is perhaps having to unload the roll in the dark.
[Ed. note: using 35mm ranefinder/SLR lenses on medium format note..]
Jan B�ttcher wrote:
The original 4/13.5cm Sonnar was produced for the Contax RF line and was
then moved over to the Contarex line. (The same lens also surfaces as the
Jupiter-11 in USSR production for LTM and Contax RF BM.) It is a superb
lens in every regard.
I do not know, however, if this is the same design used in the
Tele-Rolleiflex. Possibly, as most Zeiss lenses of
medium-long focal
length and beyond provide MF coverage.
From MEdium Format Mailing List;
some cautions may be in order, as there are known problems with using
even PQS lenses on older 6xxx series bodies (burns out bodies due to
current drain?) see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/rolleislx.html
frankly, it looks like even Rollei/Zeiss screwed this up - be warned! ;-(
I don't even have access to rollei 600x series lens registration
distances, not in http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm table
but if it is like the rollei SL66 series, as I expect from mannheim's
book on lenses for SL66/SLX variants being similar designs see notes at:
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/rolleisl66.html
then you might have only the mamiya RB/RZ series lenses for leaf shutter
lenses covering 6x6/6x7 and circa 100+mm lens registration distance; for
non-leaf shutters, only the Bronica S2/EC would come close; but view
camera lenses would still be open, as would some 6x9 folders or ??
I'd be interested in learning more about any future tests and info on
hacking these 6xxx lenses, even lens registration distances etc ;-) this
may be the Everest of lens hacking, or at least K2 ;-) ;-)
re: prices I've got the same "problem" with my hasselblad zeiss lens
prices ;-) the leaf shutters add too much to the lens prices, and lack of
access to cheap leaf shutters keeps competitors from making lenses, so I'm
told (e.g. Kiev). My suspicion is that I can clone an optodetector or Hall
detector (magnet) into the hassy lens mount (body cap?), to detect the
time of triggering the lens, then use some solenoids/relays and timer
circuits to stop down and pop the view camera/TLR/RF/SLR leaf shutter lens
on a focusing tube or bellows mount, providing autodiaphragm operation,
but requiring manually recocking lens (too much trouble to automate?) as
well as readying body in the usual way (no instant return on 500c). In the
blads, the 500C body does its thing, opening rear baffles and moving
mirror and then tells the lens to do its thing ;-) So not much digital
data transfer here, nor worries about pulse widths or programming ;-)
grins bobm
[Ed.note: if building a 5" or 6" fast telephoto lens, the new
apo/achromatic chinese refractor elements may be worth checking
out?..]
Color is still evident on bright blue white stars, like Sirius and
Rigel. Also on Venus. For the most part, though, color is not an
issue on this scope with the Chromacor in place.
It souds like you have a semi-apo lens, if color can be seen on bright
stars and Venus.
High priced apos have some other things that add to the expense. In
triplet apos, the third element allows for fast focal ratios (F6 and even
F5) while reducing the color error over the whole visual PLUS photographic
spectrum, WITHOUT filtering out some of the important blue end of the
spectrum. This is especially useful now that CCDs sport extended blue
response. How much of the blue violet light is filtered out with this
Chromacorr?
Secondly, expensive Apos also use top quality components in their tube
assemblies i.e. rugged focusers that can hold lots of equipment, like
filter wheels, and heavy CCD cameras, which would severely tax the thin
tubing of the typical Chinese refractors.
Thirdly, a less expensive apo lens can certainly be made, if imaging is
not a prime consideration, if the spectrum in focus is limited to the
visual wavelengths. Add to that a cheap tube with die cast parts, and the
total retail of a competing design using only 2 elements (no color
corrector needed) could be as low as $1200 for a 6" scope. This assumes,
of course, that the wavefront error does not have to exceed in the
aggregate 1/4 wave (essentially machine polished glass). Some, of course
will be better, and those owners will feel like they got the bargain of
the century. Others will not be so lucky and those scopes will be traded
around until they find a home with a feeble eyed individual. As a
telescope maker, I would not be tempted to make such an animal, preferring
instead to build better lenses and tube assemblies.
As the tester noted, there was more detail visible with the added
correction (even though in past postings he suggested that the basic
Chinese achromat had essentially perfect images comparable to higher
priced apos). How much more detail becomes visible when the color
correction AND the spherical correction is even better as in a top quality
true apo?
Roland Christen
From: [email protected] (RKroeppler)
I noticed that Surplus Shed sells eyepiece "kits" (less housing) for
$5-10. Anyone have any experience with making their own? I know there was
an article in Astronomy or S & T. Anyone know what issue, or is there a
website I can check out. Thanks. Scott
From: [email protected]
The article you refer to was in the February 2000 issue of Sky &
Telescope magazine.
Gary Seronik
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001
http://www.crbest.com/astronomy/
This guy makes his own eyepieces.
George
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001
hi bob,
i have been mainly a 35mm photographer for about 15 years with modest
excursions into medium format with tlr's and zeiss folders. fiddling
with intersystem adaptations has given me fun for quite some time.
so i was very happy to discover your great general photography and
medium format web site. to make a long story short i got intrigued by
your articles on the old focal plane shutter bronicas and their great
potential for lens adaptations. there is one fine route to lens
adaptations which i wanted to share with you.
my main 35mm system is minolta mc/md mount (xk etc.) and when i saw a
57x1 metric thread mentioned in the bronica articles a straightforward
lens adaptation came to my mind, which seems to have passed unnoticed as
far as i can tell after reading a lot of your pages (possibly an
incidence of nikon tunnel vision...). my recent purchase of a nice bronica
ec-tl allowed me to make work in practice what i had on my mind:
minolta produced a non diaphragm coupled extension tube set up into
the early 80's (referred to as "extension tube set II"). this tube set
consists of 5 rings, base ring EB which gets you from MC/MD to a female
M57x1 thread (!), 3 rings with threads on both ends, and the so called
EL ring with male M57x1 and MC camera body style bayonet. the trick is
to simply screw the EL ring (nice solid brass) into the bronica and it
behaves like an inflated mc/md body. this opens up a wide variety of
further options:
(a) mounting a minolta bellows head like my 100mm/f4 for distances
from a few feet down to moderate close up's. just use more thread
rings between the bronica and the EL ring for real close up's.
(b) mount any other mc/md gear and have fun. the long telephotos
like my 300mm/f4.5 seem to cover 6x6 quite well (i still have
to check corner definition) and allow tight portrait shots at
reasonable distances.
(c) add a minolta L-adapter to expose a M39 leica thread and have
more close up fun with enlarger lenses.
(d) variant of (c): use enlarger lenses with focal lengths about
135mm or longer and focus them to infinity. use one or more
of the M57 extension tubes to get really close.
(e) take a short mount 200mm telyt head and mount it using EL ring plus
L-adapter. hektor 135mm head might also focus to infinity, remains
to be tested whenever i get my hands on one.
(f) combine EL ring and minolta P-adapter and use any M42 thread lens
(mainly in close up mode)
(g) use a minolta bellows on your bronica (the minolta autobellows iii
allows tilt and shift but the thread origin leads to an awkward
orientation). in practice i use a novoflex bellows for convenience
because it has a 360 degree rotatable camera body mount.
............
the good thing is that all necessary parts are easily available on the
used market, the l-adapter being the only exception (seems to be turning
into a collectors item like the e-adapter). the p-adapter for pentax screw
is very common and there are 3rd party md->M42 adapters and step down
rings from m42 to m39 (heliopan). this combo might be a lot cheaper than
the original l-adapter. all parts are very precisely machined.
the best thing is that these adaptations are not limited to minolta and
m39 gear. there are several ways to mount almost any other 35mm system
accessories one might wish:
(a) use a minolta reverse adapter E55, filter step up ring E52->E55,
add a nikon BR3 and you can mount any nikon lens you wish.
(expensive alternative is to use L-adapter and Novoflex LEINIK
adapter).
(b) use minolta L-adapter and canon B-adapter (M39 to FD mount) and
recycle all those fd lenses (micro heads!).
(c) get a minolta T2 adapter and look for one of those reverse T2
adapters for your preferred 35mm system. i recently came across
a whole bunch of them (nikon, minolta, miranda, konica) intended
to mount camera lenses on some soligor "flexomatic" bellows.
(d) use minolta E-adapter and mount exakta gear (somewhat difficult
because the e-adapters are really rare).
(e) get one of those pentacon six/exakta66 to pentax screw adapters
and use with EL ring and P-adapter.
(f) same game with the pentax67 to pentax screw adapter.
(g) use the minolta or a pentacon (35mm version) microscope adapter
to get your bronica straight onto a microscope. the pentacon
is sturdier and easily takes the bronica. the rest depends on your
microscope...
so far everything involves commercially available (though not necessarily
common) adapters, some even in current production. i think that the well
built threaded tubes of the "extension tube set ii" are a good starting
point for an improvised lens barrel for any other glass which is not too
big. mind that there is an earlier and less common minolta non diaphragm
coupled extension tube set which looks fancier, but unfortunately uses M45
threads between its components.
as a corrolary of the above, the minolta EB ring in combination with
bronica extension tubes should allow mounting bronica lenses on minolta
bodies. adding a combo of a minolta reverse T2 adapter and a regular T2
adapter for any other 35mm systems mounts the combination on the slr of
your choice, possibly with infinity focus.
i hope that these comments might inspire more lens hackers without
giving rise to skyrocketing prices for the extension tube set and the
minolta l- and p-adapters..... at least i already have by box full of
adapter rings.
kind regards, marius
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001
I have built several, and they are all terrific eyepieces, that is,
they
surpassed my expectations. Try the following sites:
for cheap achromats:
for eyepiece design:
see new site at http://www.astronomydaily.com/preview.asp
[Ed. note: was at http://www.atmpage.com/ep.html ]
for eyepiece making instructions:
http://www.voyageronline.net/~lifedata/eibasic.htm
for a great eyepiece making page:
http://www.crbest.com/astronomy/
(this last page is the best--I made ten eyepieces successfully using
his instructions. Good luck.
Larry Browsn
From Speleonics Mailing List (cave electronics):
Doug,
Meder Electrionics (www.meder.com) makes very small reed switches and
will soon be releasing ones that are surface mount and ity bity
(1mm). The claimed reliability is very high - higher than most
regular mechanical switches. Gone are the fragile glass envelopes
and thick reeds. If these were coupled with a latching electronic
front end, they might well do the trip. Very low magnetic flux is
needed to activate them.
Henry.
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000
Robert,
Astronomical objectives are generally high f/value by design, compared
to "normal" camera lenses. The lenses used in cameras are designs far
more complex than telescope lenses, to allow a better f/value so that
wider pictures and faster shutter speeds can be used, all other things
being the same. Except for a few Mak-Cass units which are typically
f/5.6, I think you would find most astronomical objectives very slow and
very narrow.
If you DO want to look at a source, however, one would be at:
http://www.surplusshed.com/
where you can find all sorts of stuff that you might mess with,
including camera lenses used for aerial photography, etc.
Bill.
....
[Ed. note: a fused fiber optic plate section may solve film plane position
problems for digital and polaroid backs - but at a high price!...]
Jan:
Thanks for your note. I will keep my eye on eBay and be aware of that
glass issue. When I talked to NPC about it, they said they would have to
use a slice of the fiber optic glass just like they do with their other
35mm designs. I know that the film plane on the 3003 is inside the body
instead of inside the magazine as on medium format cameras like the
Hasselblad. For this reason, they would have to have that fiber optic
glass slice to transfer the image from the camera film plane to the
Polaroid film, and if it is chipped, it would be a very expensive
replacement, just as you say.
The fact that it was chipped in the one you saw may mean that you have to
be extra careful removing and replacing it on the camera. This may be a
very important design weakness. With a Polaroid back for a Hasselblad,
there is no exposed glass on the back when you are taking it on and off
the camera. When you use an NPC Polaroid back with a 35mm system, you
usually just dedicate a camera body to the back and don't remove the back
at all, hence the fiber optic glass is never exposed in the normal course
of you work. With the 3003, there sounds like that piece of glass is
exposed every time you change between the film magazine and the Polaroid
magazine. This means there is great danger that you might chip it during
every removal and replacement.. I won't know for sure unless I ever
actually see one, but you bring up a very, very important point and I
thank you for it.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my query.
Chris Sorensen
sci.astro.amateur #184718
A big long tube is cumbersome and difficult to drive. Consider folding
the optical path as these gentlemen have done:
http://bhs.broo.k12.wv.us/homepage/alumni/dstevick/weird.htm
What you will gain in drive accuracy and portability is worth it.
L Brown
[Ed. note: 1000mm f/8 anyone? ;-)]
Ask B. Halle Nachfl.:
(they may have f=1000, diam. 125 mm achromats on stock)
From Contax Mailing List:
It is interesting that Carl Zeiss Jena developed most of their telephoto
lenses for use with both medium format and 35mm. The famous 180mm f/2.8
Olympia Sonnar is a good example. For use on 35mm cameras an adapter tube
is added to the rear of the lens which both moves the lens the proper
distance from the film and masks down the image circle. I don't know if
it is still true but Pentax used to make some of their long telephotos
for both 6 X 7 and 35mm. They worked the same way. You turned a bayonet
ring on the rear of the lens and a section came off. The front part then
would fit directly on a Pentax 6 X 7. Put the rear tube back and it would
work on M-42 mount. I had one when I owned a Pentax 6 X 7 briefly around
1975. I think it was a 500mm f/4.5. It was very good on both formats.
These days when I need perspective correction in 35mm I use an adapter
from Zoerk which has shift capability and put my 50mm CZJ Flektagon on my
Contax or Canon. The images are very sharp.
And, of course, with the NAM-1 adapter you can put Contax 645 lenses on
your Contax N series 35mm SLR. I haven't done it, but reports are that it
works very well.
Bob
From Camera Makers Mailing List:
Test what ever lens you may have yourself by making ground glass and
placing the lens on the outside of a box with your head and ground glass
inside the box. Move the glass ( mark out 120 size on the frosted side) to
where it focuses and inspect for coverage. I think it has been explained
you can make ground glass by using fine rock tumbling compound or wet and
dry 600 grit sandpaper, use it wet..
[Ed. note: looking for a really, really long lens candidate that's low
cost? ;-)]
It always helps to buy from someone like this. I got my two current
Rubinar lenses at a camera fair in Wandsworth, London. This was 8 or 9
years ago and the price, brand new, was ridiculous. I think I gave no more
than 300 quid for the pair! I never bought the 300, just not much
interest. I also got from the same dealer a LOMO that some enterprising
person at the factory had labeled "Canon" on the front and "Made in Japan"
on the back!!! Talk about ridiculous! I still have that one in my
collection of weird cameras.
My friend Herwig Zorkendorfer in Munich reworks the 300 and 500 Rubinars
internally and adapts them for 645 medium format cameras. He let me try
out a 300 on my Mamiya 645 Pro and it was very nice. I haven't bought any
of his modified ones --- yet!
The astronomical telescope adapter normally comes with the lens. At least
one came with each one I bought. Does someone sell them separately at a
high price???
Now at the other end of the spectrum, I have borrowed and shot with both
the 500 and 1000 mm Zeiss Mirotar lenses. They are the pinnacle that all
other mirror lenses seek to achieve. Incredible sharpness.
Bob
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
I am almost through with a project which will do just what you want. It
is a basically a Hasselbad mono-rail view camera. L standards front and
rear with full movement movements with bag and standard bellows.
This mini-view takes Hassy lenses or view camera lenses on Horseman 80mm
boards. It has mounting plates in the rear giving the option of
mounting a ground glass adapter and hassy backs on the back, a
Hasselblad body on the rear, or a 35mm SLR with t-mount adapter on the
rear.
This unit is a little crude but sturdy and usable when movements are
needed or special lenses may be needed. The shortest view camera lens
usable at infinity with a Hassy body will be about 120mm. By using the
Hassy back only, a 35mm lens can be mounted with full movements.
When I get finished I will post photos of my project.
Bob Eskridge
From: [email protected] (Roy Overton)
How successful could it be to attach my Pentax 67 to the rear of an old
Calumet 5x4 monorail?
I read that one could take a P67 flange ring and screw it to a lens
board for a 4x5 and install it at the back of the camera. This would
allow the use of inexpensive shuttered lenses and extensive movements on
rollfilm, right?
I also assume that one would one be able to use the SLR's viewfinder and
metering.
Is this reasoning sound?
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001
I'd be careful expecting to use the full movements that the LF monorail
and Nikon lens would appear to allow. While the medium format image would
seem to allow even more extreme movements because the film format is
smaller, the image still must be projected *though* the camera body. At
more extreme angles (and maybe not so extreme angles) of rise, fall,
shifts, rear swings, and rear tilts I'd expect the lens mount on the front
of the camera to vingette the image. I'd expect front swings and tilts to
be fine as long as they keep the lens centered in front of the camera's
lens mount.
Todd
Roy Overton wrote:
[Ed. note: thanks to Michael Gudzinowicz for sharing these notes...]
Roy Overton [email protected] wrote:
It is easier to see and plot than to calculate. For your example
of a 300 mm lens, place a sheet of graph paper 300 mm (11.8")
from the film plane of the SLR. To represent the aperture at f/16,
cut a circle from piece of paper 18.75 mm (300/16) or 3/4" in diameter,
and place it on the graph paper. Open the camera's shutter (no
lens) and sight from the corner of the shutter to the lens mount
edge nearest or on the same side of the lens axis as the corner.
Move the circle so its edges just start to vignette. Mark the graph
paper at that point. Move the circle so it is completely vignetted,
and mark the paper. Repeat for every corner, and you'll have a plot
of maximum movement without vignetting, partial vignetting, and
complete vignetting. If the lens mount opening is less than the
6x7 frame size, movement will be less than 6x7.
Mounting an SLR on a view camera usually works well for macro
work with enlarging lenses where shifts aren't required, but
tilt might be desirable.
If you want to avoid the purchase of a roll film back for
infrequent "long shots", it's easy to crop 4x5 sheet film.
However, you might want to measure the film plane and mark
your best holders for that purpose, and stop down to at least
f/22-32.
<---
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000
http://www.windrivers.com/company/stormtech/easyphe.htm
8 mb!
http://www.windrivers.com/company/stormtech/easyphi.htm internal drivers
5.4mb
$30 http://store.yahoo.com/pinecom/easphotread.html
check for power supply - about 14 volts at
http://www.driverguide.com/boards/storm-technology/
regards bobm
--->
Date: 29 Aug 2000
For the record, the Polaroids use 114mm lenses. Best to use is a
shutter/lens from any Kodak 616 camera like the Monitor or Vigilant.
They use 126mm lenses so a simple 1/2" extension is easy to do.
AF.
From: [email protected] (Tillamooky)
K.H. Tan told us:
Judging by your description you probably want a camera with adjustable
aperture and shutter speeds, X-sync ability, and easy focusing, with the
purpose being to check lighting. Someone suggested one of the many fairly
common folding "pack film" Polaroid cameras but they lack shutter speed
and easy aperture controls. I do use electronic flash on mine just by
plugging a PC cord into the port on the side of the front standard. I
don't know, but I assume, studio type flash units would work okay with one
of these cameras. At least you would see how the shadows fall and how the
ratio looks. Keep in mind that the minimum aperture on the folding pack
film cameras is f 8.8 so you may or may not have enough flash power to get
an exposure suitable for evaluation purposes.
The TLR modification sounds more versatile but I suspect a worthy attempt
would require professional machine milling of the camera body to obtain
the correct lens to film plane distance and to keep the film back square
to the lens. I feel that if this is worth attempting, it's worth doing it
right the first time. For that reason I wouldn't bother with a Seagull
TLR, I would find an old Yashica for this purpose as I consider the Yashi
to be more durable than the Seagull.
Finally, keep in mind the correlation between the lens that you use on
the 35mm camera versus the one on your Polaroid testing camera. If
there's a large focal length discrepancy between them, it's possible that
none of these improvised cameras will be worth the trouble and you would
be better off using the RZ.
What we all need for flash testing is a cheap digital camera that takes
any 35mm or medium format camera lens and has external flash capability.
Then we could just download to a laptop and look at the exposure and
lighting and all the rest.
Heavy sigh, look of dejection...
From: Larry Brown [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Cheap Achromatic Lenses?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001
Apogee sells 80 and 90 mm achromats in the 65-125 dollar range. Try them
at:
http://www.apogeeinc.com/
They should have everything you need. I built a terrific 90mm scope with
their compnents.
Clear skies. L Brown
From: Larry Brown [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Cheap Achromatic Lenses?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001
I picked up an 80mm air-spaced achromat (560mm focal length) for
$75.00 . They sell some aluminum tubing but you will need to machine a
cell that will hold the lenses in the tubing. I ordered gray abs plastic
tubing from Plastruct (626) 912-7016 that was smaller in diameter than
the aluminum tubing and much lighter. Apogee also sells a metal focuser
for $40.00. I found a plastic focuserfor much less--not the highest
quality, but also extremely light weight.
I turned a cell from abs plastic to hold the objective and fitted it
to the tube. Then I turned an adapter to fit the focuser to the tube. I
believe Apogee sells tubing to fit their focusers for $15.00. If you
don't have a lathe to turn parts, there are other ways of fitting the
objective and keeping it flat (i.e., not cocked at an angle). The total
cost of my scope was less than $125.00 and it gives absolutely superb
imaging. I will put it up against any commercial achromatic scope any day
(or night).
I cut two baffles from plastic and glued them in the tube before
painting it black inside. I recommend putting black flock paper near the
objective, instead of paint, covering about five inches of the tube,
because this is the only area visible through the tube with the baffles
in place, when you are looking through the focuser without an eyepiece.
Flat black paint is still extremely reflective when viewed at a sharp
angle.
This is my travel scope, I can carry it anywhere because of the
extremely light weight. You can get a camera tripod adapter for your
camera tripod. I finally bought a CG3 mount from Gary Hand (used) for a
very low price and made some wooden legs for it. The scope now sits in my
living room with a solar filter in place, and we carry it out on the
balcony whenever we get a solar alert. I have a 10-inch reflector and a
6-inch refractor for star parties, but this little scope is still the
most fun.
Clear skies. Larry Brown
From: [email protected] (Craig Levine)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Cheap Achromatic Lenses?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001
Much appreciated Larry,
My wife probably doesn't appreciate it ;-) but to be fair, she is
very understanding. I'll order the components next month. I have a
big sheet of Baader solar screen due to arrive this week, as well as a
laser collimater (from http://www.helix-mfg.com - reasonably priced) ,
a UHC and OIII filter (from Gary Hand), 2 books...
This is what we do on the Canadian East coast when it's too stormy to
actually observe the sky - we shop.
Clear starry skies,
- Craig
From: [email protected] (Chajo02)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Date: 21 Jan 2001 23:24:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Cheap Achromatic Lenses?
>Can someone tell me the name of a suplier of cheap Achronmatic objectives.
Yes, Sky Instruments of Vancover, B. C. sells two grades of 80, 90, and 102mm
objectives starting at $59. They advertise in the back of Sky and Telescope.
John
From: Dennis Woos [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Cheap Achromatic Lenses?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001
Hi,
Paul Rini has both 75mmx300mm and 63mmx486mm cemented achromats for $25 each. I
have built refractors from both of them, and think they are great deals. The
63mm has much less color and can be used at higher powers. I make lens cells out
of plywood and mdf, and use plumbing parts for the rest. I have recently
switched to a commercial focuser ($38 from HandsOnOptics) for the 63mm. Paul's
email is [email protected].
Dennis
....
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: endoscope
the medical and most industrial endoscopes are major $$ - kilobucks
if you just need one for lighting and not visual inspections, you would be
a lot cheaper to look at a fiber optic lighting pipe, or better yet, a
clear pipe made of plastic to conduct the light (rough up surface for
effects) similar to what dentist stations often use. Places like edmund
scientific (www.edsci.com) sell fiber optic bundles for lighting etc. but
again, not cheap. A cheaper alternative is fishing line, which is larger
and clear and very cheap - conducts light moderately well over short
distances and you can make up thicker bundles as needed by cut and glue.
HTH bobm
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002
From: Paul Raackow [email protected]
Reply to: Paul Raackow [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Lens specials for Bronica
Hi
today I found a set of 3 Carl Zeiss lenses for old Bronicas. Biometar 2.8/80,
Biometar 2.8/120 and Flektogon 4/50.
These lenses were obviously modified in the 60ies or 70ies in East - Germany.
The work is done very well and is working exept the transmission of diaphragm
on one of the lenses perfect.
Best regards from Berlin/Germany - Paul Raackow
kuenstlerfoto rattenscharf
- paul raackow -
http://www.kuenstlerfoto.com
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002
From: kelvin [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens adapter
And in most cases, you will have severe light fall-off towards the edges
as the M42 lenses were mostly designed for a 24x36mm format.
Exceptions include some Zeiss Jena lenses made in the 30s with the flektostop
(did I spell that right) rear mount or some later lenses from other
manufactures which had a screw off M42rear adaptor which could be
replaced by a P6 variant.
you wrote:
> jawewers at [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of an adapter to allow use of 42mm thread lenses on
>> the Kiev 60 or Salyut-C body?
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002
From: "uen1y" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens adapter
...
> (did I spell that right)
Flektoskop
> rear mount or some later lenses from other
> manufactueres which had a screw off M42rear adaptor which could be replaced
> by a P6 variant.
Only 300 and 500 mm Tele.
mfg u.e.
From: Stephe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Mounting a 1920's 150mm f4.5 tessar to a K-60.
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/tessar_150mm.html
Just finished this project and I think this is going to be a cool portrait
lens. Ended up with about $75 in this and about two hours worth of work. I
was lucky to find this lens on this strange focusing helix/tube. Anyone
have an idea what this was originally off of? Someone sugested a 4X5 SLR
but I checked it and mounted on the smaller diameter ext tube that came
with it, it wouldn't cover 4X5. It almost covers 4X5 without the ext tube
or the brass adapter and with the screw mount removed from the back of the
main tube it did cover 4X5 straight on.
--
Stephe
From: Stephe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: This discussion reminds me....
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002
....
This is something I've found when I started using long lenses for
landscapes. So many people just assume you need a 50-80mm for landscapes
and a 150+ just for portraits. I've been shooting some landscapes in
the120-250mm range and am starting to get some REALLY interesting images.
I found a 1920's 150mm f4.5 non coated tessar that I've adapted to my K-60
that creates a look none of this modern glass can produce. Everything being
tack sharp isn't all there is to photography. I've used everthing from that
old lens to a modern fuji rangefinders and having different tools and using
them to create different looks is what makes photography so fun.
--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Viewing through the taking lens
Pablo Kolodny at [email protected] wrote:
> I think that building a home made shade to attach to the Rollei glass, the
> one that comes with film plate holders set would be easier than: firstly
> getting that device, then checking it and at last I feel uncomfortable
> switching lenses from one to another just to view and then take the photo.
> Viewing through the taking lens would be the best. I don't think that the
> Mamiya is so reliable as would be the other way.
You're talking about a home made viewing shade? Sorry if I'm wrong but I
missed most of this thread. If so, why not a "chimney" viewfinder for the
Kiev 88 cameras? They're available inexpensively, have a very nice
magnifier, and could be adapted to fit most such ground glass backs.
Bob
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Mar 2002
Subject: Re: 500mm f/8 glass lens from 35mm to MF Re: 500mm mirror on med fmt
On the Kiev Report/Delphi Group, it is Leonard Flanagan who has a link to his
website on how he converted the 500MM Rubinar to 6x6cm format.
Years before Cambridge discovered converting the long 500MM non-mirror lens to
6x6cm format, I had successfully done so. My lens ends in a 39MM screw mount
(short mount) which allows me to use basic Kilfitt adapters for a variety of
6x6cm reflexes.
What I further discovered - to get sharp photos with this rig-
you must use a steady tripod, have a camera who focusing screen is exactly
aligned to the film plane focus - and focus carefully on
the plain groundglass area of the finder screen.
- Sam Sherman
From: [email protected] (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 35mm lenses on medium format
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002
[email protected] wrote:
>dialuc [email protected] wrote:
>: Mamiya, Pentax or Contax 35mm lens for medium format ?
>: You can see the difference on quality ?
>
>: Thanks
>
>Yes, you will be able to see the difference in quality quite easily. If you
>could fit a 35mm camera lens on a medium format body, you would get a
>circular image in the middle of the medium format frame. 35mm camera lenses
>in general will not cover the whole medium format negative when you focus at
>normal, non-macro, distances. For high magnification (macro work), a 35mm
>camera lens will often work on a medium format camera.
not all of them. I have seen a 500mm mirror lens mouned on both the
Mamiya and Kiev 120 cameras and they work quite well.
THOM
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filter size for Pentacon 500mmF5.6
[email protected] at [email protected] wrote:
> You can find the filter size on www.commiecameras.com. As far as purchasing a
> set of filters goes you had better have a lot of money because they are huge
> and cost proportionally.
This lens is made with a rear tube that can be removed by unscrewing a large
collar. This is so you can put different camera mounts onto the lens. It
would be very easy to mount a filter inside the adapter. You could take an
old filter and remove the glass and epoxy the ring inside, and then screw on
whatever filter you wanted to use in a more reasonable size. I have never
used filters with mine, but this is what I would do. You could also take
off the adapter and put a gel filter on the rear of the lens with gaffer's
tape.
Bob
[Ed. note: low cost source of 1.4X teleconverter optics for med fmt experiments?..]
from kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002
From: "kievgurl" [email protected]
Subject: 1.4X converter quality
As some of you already know, this arsat MC converter is a great item.
I'm still amazed at how good this works. I've used it with the 80mm
arsat and with a MC 180 sonnar and can see no quality loss whatsoever.
It costs 1 stop of exposure which isn't much and fills in the gaps
between lenses nicely. Anyone thinking about this inexpencive item
shouldn't worry about lossing quality as the optics of this converter
are top notch!
Stephe
from kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: 1.4X converter quality
Hi Stephe,
Should anyone doubt you word, I have two of these lovely little devils, one
in K-60 and another in K-88 mount. Both perform just as you said- no visible
degradation of the image. I showed a fellow photo nut at work some prints of
my tests, and he was blown away. The 1.4X Arsat converters are really great!!
Kevin
[Ed. note: Special thanks to Paul Cotnoir for sharing these resources and tips
on his bronica hacking successes!]
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 03:48:10
From: Paul Cotnoir
From: [email protected] (Marcel Schmittfull)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Calculation of 'Schmidtplate'
Date: 15 Apr 2002
Hello
I'm almost finished with the Schmidtplate-Applet.
It's on http://www.schulphysik.de/japtik: JAPTIK Navigation - Applets
- Schmidtplatte - Starten (in the menu on the left).
Or directly: www.schulphysik.de/sd_st.html
thx for your help !!
Marcel
Marcel Schmittfull
e-Mail: [email protected]
Homepage: www.schulphysik.de/japtik
[Ed. note: thanks to Stephe for sharing this tip and URL - looking for a 6x6cm 500mm mirror lens?]
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
From: Stephe [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: mirror lens hack
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dnlflanagan/rubinar.html
Hope this helps Bob.
BTW have you seen the mirror lenses Mike from kiev camera has on ebay?
--
stephe
From: "Steve Grimes" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500mm mirror lenses adapted to Kiev60 or other FP-shuttered MF
cameras like Bronica, Pentax 67, etc?
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002
It can sometimes be done. Coverage of many of the long lenses for 35mm is
greater than needed for 35mm. It can be a problem to get infinity focus,
however, since the MF cameras are always much greater distance from
lensmount to film. See:
http://www.skgrimes.com/product/adap/specadap/index.htm (scroll down the
page to see a picture of a 500mm Zeiss Mirotar modified to fit Contax 645)
SKG
--
S.K. GRIMES -- MACHINE WORK FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS
153 Hamlet Ave. (5th floor) Woonsocket RI, 02895
+ Lenses mounted into shutters.
+ Shutters repaired, restored.
+ For more info-- http://www.skgrimes.com.
Q.G. de Bakker [email protected] wrote
> Lassi Hippel�inen wrote:
>
> > You can use even fairly short focal lengths on MF SLRs, because the lens
> > is so much pulled out. There is a limitation though: you can only use
> > them for macro shots - because the lens is so much pulled out.
>
> Yes, yes. But the point is that there are 35 mm lenses long lenses that will
> cover 6x6 at infinity.
From: "Axel Farr" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500mm mirror lenses adapted to Kiev60 or other FP-shuttered MF
cameras like Bronica, Pentax 67, etc?
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002
Hello Wayne,
"W. Catalano" [email protected] schrieb
> In my limited experience, I've never seen anyone commercially offer
> 35mm-format 500mm mirror teles (they would be equivalent to approximately a
> 270mm lens on a '35') that have been modified so that they would work as
> interchangeable lenses on focal-plane shuttered MF cameras.
You generally can't fit any 35mm lenses to MF, becaus the image circle of
most 35mm lenses is so limited that they would produce a circular image on
the 6x6 neg. Even a 6x4.5 neg would only be lighted up to the rims of the
4.5cm short base. Only at very short distances, it is possible to use 35mm
macro lenses for MF macro work.
> I've seen the Cambron(sp?)-brand all glass 500mm teles offered, but not the
> inherently shorter and lighter mirror-type lens. I'll bet no one could
> hand-hold those glass monsters, but a short, light mirror optic might be
> what the doctor ordered.
There also exist 5.6/500mm glass lenses from Arsat in Kiew and 5.6/500 glass
lenses from Pentacon (not Zeiss, the longest they made is the 4/300mm
Sonnar, this optics was made by Meyer G�rlitz and they lack the automatic
aperture). There are also mirror lenses with 500 (rare) and 1000mm from
Zeiss. The Zeiss lens has an opening of 5.6 at 1000mm and is quite rare,
because most lenses are nowadays used by astrophotographers. On eBay
Germany, once or twice a year such a lens appears, at costs of about ~2000
to 4000 Euro (I did not see any lens be sold, I suppose they get sold after
the auction for something less). But the size of such a barrel is impressive
(1000mm/5.6 is ~ 200mm diameter, the lens must be nearly half a meter or 1,5
ft long), a Pentacon Six at the end of such a lens looks like having a smal
compact camera fixed at the end of a 5.6/500mm Meyer G�rlitz.
Foto Wiese in Hamburg/Germany has a 10/1200mm mirror tele lens noted on his
homepage, but I do not know anything more about it:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/fotowiese/
(look for the lenses of the Pentasix 636).
> Has anyone seen modified mirror tele lenses advertised?
>
> If they were available, would there be much demand from sports/nature/travel
> photographers (1/2 the potential sales to portrait photographers might be
> lost because of "donut"-Bokeh).
No. Nowadays, most professional photographers needing such long focal
lenghts use 35mm or even a digital camera with a 35mm bayonet such as the
EOS D60. This (with their focal length multiplier of 1.6) makes a 800mm lens
of what uses to be a 500mm lens on 35mm. Action photography with a
manual-focusing MF equipment is a torture. Even for nature photography,
35mm equipment has been winning in times when there was no AF available,
since the time of a camera like the EOS 3 and 1V with their area AF system
any manually focussing system is out of competition.
And for portraits, the cheapest way to get a decent lens is to buy a
2.8/180mm CZJ Sonnar. These can be adopted to any 6x4.5 camera, and there
exist even adopted lenses for Pentax 67 mount (the image circle of the
Sonnars is very wide, originally the Sonnar construction was that of a
normal lens, it got later replaced in this segment by the Biometar
construction and has now its place as a tele construction). Nobody would use
a mirror lens for portrait work, aside from the fact that even 300mm is too
long for portraiture.
Greetings, Axel
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001
From: Russell Hippert [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: bronica hacking nomination
Mr. Monaghan,
Too bad you don't have non-Bronica Lens Hacker Awards because I'm
finishing up on some good ones for Kiev MF. They are as follows:
*Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Telemegor 250/5.5 (cut down barrel and new mount)
*Tou-Five Star 75-200/4.5 (removed rear element making it about a
150-400/9, infinity is still retained. Probably never use it but it's
fun to show)
*(prototype) 35mm SLR lens to Kiev 88 adapter (acts as a 2x and retains
infinity, prime lenses only. I'm working with MD mount lenses but other
mounts are possible. After I figure out how to couple the thing I go
back and make an APO converter to increase resolution)
Russ Hippert
P.S.- I've started on the K88/Salyut-S edition of the "Kalibration"
manual. This I will end up publishing with the K60 edition as one
manual. I be sure to keep up updated on a release date.
[Ed. note: thanks to Ralph for sharing these tips on his fisheye conversions, see
related notes on his nifty Vistashift 612 cameras!]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Question for seller -- Item #1221838865
years ago i examined the 30mm russian fisheye. the stats say it must have a
filter attached at all times , uv if the color aren't wanted. at that time i
concluded and a couple technicians that the lens wouldn't make infinity on
the current hasselblad mt without leaving off the filter. the rear of the
mts might be easily removed if they were designed logically as the same
lenses are in both imitation 1000f mts and praktisix mts. i put about a
dozen 35mm fisheyes on 45 with a ilex 5 shutter but the price of the pentax
67 fisheye is now too high to adapt, though the perfect 4" circle is
unbeatable. never the less i'm going to the russian 30 into an ilex five for
a somewhat smaller circle at a greatly reduced price. some of the lenses i
put into 500c compur shutters were 12o imagons and 150 apo=lanthars but my
source for focusing mt and auto shutters has joined the great yellow father
in the sky. anywhay, happy hacking, ralph
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: 6x12 on Brooks
Robert: in the post below early i am [email protected]. i would
appreciate it if that was changed to [email protected] .
putting the 30 russian fisheye on 45 will be cost effective but lacks the
impact of the 4" circle of the pentax 67's 35 fisheye puts on 45.
either lens can be put into a #5 ilex shutter. i've done this a number
of times, going back ten years. the spacing of course is the same as the
parent camera, and the focusing mt works perfectlly. ground glass focusing
and viewing is a waste of photographic time. possible
the 30 mm russian could be used on the 34 polaroid with xl fittings. will
report after trial if the circle fits.
regards, ralph
> From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001
> To: Bert MC-CLURE [email protected]
> Cc: rof [email protected]
> Subject: Re: 6x12 on Brooks
>
> thanks very much, Bert, for your interesting note; I have added it to the
> veriwide related postings at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/veriwide.html
>
> Sounds like you are exploring a number of the permutations; I have been a
> bit shocked by the realization that many of the big 6x12cm and bigger 6x17cm
> cameras take in less subject matter than the 47mm SA; and that's before
> modifications such as you have made ;-)
>
> I am gradually accumulating tips and ideas on various cameras including
> the veriwides at my medium format site; it hasn't been around for more
> than 3+ years so far, but over 1 2/3rds million visitors, so worth the effort
>
> Roger Hicks in Brit Jrnl of Photogr. described adapting the unique Kiev
> 30mm fisheye to a 4x5" back holder, with a spacer body and shutter combo;
> provided a fisheye effect; and there are some various odd-ball ultrawide
> lens (35-47mm) 4x5cm cameras out there see homebrew camera links at
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/homebrew.html
>
> I think the interest in ultrawide and panoramic camera options is
> growing, and lots of us are caught up in the wider is better - as the
> 14mm and now 12mm lenses on 35mm format cameras are showing - ;-)
>
> regards bobm
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] optical glass source: plattens, mirrors, etc
For glass, lenses, etc., try American Science and Surplus (8oo)-934-0722.
Their optical brochure lists "windows: flat parallel surfaces. Commonly used
to protect optical systems withhout distortiing images or light signals that
pass through." The biggest listed is 127x178mm x3.1mm. If 127x178 is big
enough, the y have one that's only 2.4mm but that's still about 1/8 inch.
$10. If you're thinking 120 format, they have one 64mmx104mmx1.1mm thick. $3.
I don't know about the quallity, but the first-surace mirror I bought from
them was great. OR you culd get a BIG (expensive) multicoated UV filter and
cut it down. Best chance to eleminate light loss, ghost reflections and newton
rings (interference patterns.) 105mm would cover 6x9, right? Just last night
I was cleaning up the cuts I made to the mirror with a $3 glass cutter from
home depot using diamond burs I got from woodworkers warehouse ($5/set) on a
dremel tool. very good results. Wet-sand the edge for a final finish, if
you're picky. That will take a while. Best of luck.
Roger Stevens
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001
From: Gene Johnson [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Another source for lens, mirrors, etc
You might also try surplusshed.com. They have tons of stuff. Great
place for cameramakers.
Gene
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mounting 35mm lenses on MF cameras
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002
[email protected] wrote:
> Has anyone tried mounting a 35mm lens onto a MF camera? What the
> biggest image one could expect?
That's hard to answer. It differs from lens to lens.
The lens' back focus would have to be long enough to clear the longer MF
body and still retain infinity focus.That means that only true long focal
length lenses (not telephotos, standard or wide angle lenses) can be used,
and that their mount has to be shortened quite a bit.
Perhaps with some lenses you can assertain that they will provide a big
enough image circle without having to change their mount, but with most that
appear not to have enough coverage you wouldn't know for sure if that is
because of the mount vignetting or not, until you have actually taken the
hacksaw to the mount. And then it's too late to put things right again if it
turns out that it will not cover MF after all.
So best chances of success will be with long lenses, and the best lenses to
experiment with are cheap ones. I heard Russian or Ukranian made 500 mm and
1000 mm mirror lenses can be converted, and i happen to have one of those
1000 mm Maksutov design things myself (bought for next to nothing from a
Polish trader on a flee market in Germany just after the Wall came down.
They have gone up in price by huge amounts since then, but still pretty
cheap) and have thought about adapting it to be used with a MF camera
myself. Haven't tried it yet.
But if you don't mind losing infinity focus, and are happy using a 35 mm
lens on MF as a macro lens, there is nothing stopping you. Almost any lens
will do that. The exception being retrofocus lenses.
From: Stephe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mounting 35mm lenses on MF cameras
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> So best chances of succes will be with long lenses, and the best lenses to
> experiment with are cheap ones.
I did this with a cheap 400mm f 6.3 lens and it works fine. I think I paid
$40 for one in mint condition, unscrewed part of the lens and made an
adpater out of an old ext tube. It does have a VERY slight vignetting from
the barrel on 6X6 but in a 6X4.5 crop you don't see a bit of it. Pretty
cheap for a decent med format 400mm lens!
Also 35mm lenses make nice macro lenses on med format, I have used both a
80mm F4 olympus bellows lens (on a med format bellows) and a 35mm shift
lens reversed with good results.
--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/
sci.astro.amateur
From: [email protected] (TMBack)
Date: Fri May 31 2002
[1] Re: 4" APO lens only?
>APM Telescopes sells TMB APOs also as lens-in-
>cell-only.
As does TMB Optical in the US and Canada.
Thomas M. Back
Owner and Designer
TMB Optical
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.tmboptical.com/
http://www.apm-telescopes.de/tmboptical/index.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tmboptical/
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002
From: zhang wentao [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Rifle, lenses, prism scoure
Rifle, lenses, prism scoure from China
www.winsbinoculars.com
If you are not interested in this please delete, sorry for disturbing you.
With best regards,
Zhang Wentao
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002
From: Gene Johnson [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SSL66 Lens ?
This is a little short of 250mm, but Surplusshed.com has some copier lenses
by B&L that are about 210mm and go for the mighty sum of 10 bucks. I have
one I used on my view camera with a shutter mounted behind it and the
Polaroids looked quite nice. They don't have mounting rings. but for 20
bucks, you could get one from Steve Grimes. I think these are 5 or 6
elements and have a lot of heavy glass in them in a very high quality barrel
with a nice iris.
Gene Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SSL66 Lens ?
> you wrote:
> > Jim I know
> >that I saw a few with an Ektar lens. Absolutely superb portraits came
> > The 3 1/4x4 1/4 version came with an f4.5 Ektar. Jerry Jim Hemenway
> >wrote: Here's a nice SLR with bellows and interchangeable lenses. Since
it
> >appears to have a Graflok back, you can use rollfilm holders in
> >6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 sizes as well as Polaroid, &item=1363076553 --
> >Jim - http://www.hemenway.com [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> Jerry,
> The f/5.6 Optar for the Super-D Graflex is also an excellent lens, I have
> one. Its one that Wollensak did right.
> I think the smaller Super-D had only the f/4.5, 152mm Kodak Ektar
> available. The 4x5 had either a 190mm f/5.6 Ektar or Optar. The speed
> limitation was due to the existence of only one size of automatic diaphragm.
> The focal length limit of a Graflex is something longer than the diagonal
> of the format because the back of the lens must clear the mirror box. This
> is true of most SLR cameras although a couple have been made (Mentor
> Reflex?) with mirrors which both raise and slide, allowing a somewhat
> shallower mirror box.
> My 4x5 Super-D is a favorite cameras dispite its size and weight. Mine
> has a Graflok back. I think they could be ordered factory installed
> although I suspect mine is aftermarket.
>
> >> What other SLR has a focal plane shutter and a bellows?
> >>
> >> Bob
> >> >
> >> > You can do that for any SLR with a focal plane shutter and a bellows.
> >> >
> >> > Jerry
> >> >
> >> > mdelman wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Gents:
> >> > >
> >> > > I have an SL66e that will accept an adapter plate for use of 3rd party
> > The onely requirement is that the lens opening is equal to, or
> >> less
> > Does anyone
> >> > > have recomendations for large format tele and wide angle lenses that
> >> would
> > I'm looking for lenses above 250mm
> >> and
> > Hopefully, relatively recent lenses that are coated.
> >> > > Thanks.
> >> > >
> >> > > -Mark
> >> > >
> >> > > Lens adapter without thread
> >> > > To be custom adapted to third party lenses
> >> > > Maximum diameter of lens opening: 58mm
> >> > > In production from 1968-1995
> >> > > Order #: 208 790
> >> > > Price (1995) DM 256 ($ 130)
> ----
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> [email protected]
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Polaroid back for 2x3
Matt M wrote:
>
> I have been playing with my Century Graphic 2x3 for a little while
> while following this list and have a question that some of the
> engineers here may be able to answer for me.
>
> Coming from a commercial background, I tend to rely heavily on
> polaroid for previewing a shot. Neither polaroid or NPC have a back
> for the camera, however, npc has offered to build one. I am still
> waiting on a price, but I think it will be outside of what I am
> willing to part with.
>
> I have part of one (the box and the rollers) and just need to build
> an extension to make it attach to the camera. The tricky part will be
> getting the film plane in the right area. NPC and Polaroid use
> coherant fiber optic bundles to "pipe" the image from the camera's
> film plane to the surface of the polaroid. It looks like I will need
> a bundle that is 6x9cm by 15mm thick.
>
> Now my questions:
> Has anyone here had any experience making a polaroid back?
> Does anyone know where I can get the coherant fiber optic bundle?
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Matt McKee
I have modified many Polaroid Colorpack cameras for use with Graphic
type cameras. Essentially, you slice away the camera (plastic) and
fabricate a plate/holding device to allow mounting the resulting
Polaroid film chamber to the camera. Easier than it sounds, and very
cheap as the Colorpacks are going for about one dollar at flea markets
and garage sales.
Regards,
Marv
From: "R.W. Behan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Alternative Lens Caps for Mamiya TLR C330 Lens?
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
Kevin;
There's chap in Florida who has lens caps by the trainload, at competitive
prices. Try the email address below. His name is Bruce.
[email protected]
Good luck,
R.W. Behan
Lopez Island, Washington
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: Photo Plus Expo - short show review
Bob-
Did you adapt a 500MM f8 lens to Bronica focal plane cameras -
or did you buy a Cambridge version?
Either way do you get much vignetting?
I adapted one of these lenses to 39MM Leica/Kilfitt basic mount and can use it
on Pentacon 6 adapters, Hassy 1000F/Kiev88 adapters etc.
with some vignetting.
I also recently did a good professional job (machine shop help) of adapting a
Lentar/Japanese 400MM f6.3 lens to Pentacon 6 mount, which can interchange with
other mounts, not yet as made. There is some vignetting but I get a pretty
large image and reasonably sharp.
- Sam Sherman
From: Rich Shepard [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Photo Plus Expo - short show review
Date: 4 Nov 2002
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> Just wish I knew a source of cheapy 100mm achromats in one meter focal
> lengths or longer and big diameters ;-) ;-)
Bob,
How about the other end of the focal length spectrum: very wide angle lens
for the old Bronica S2As? I have a 50mm Komura that's sharp and produces
excellent results, but sometimes I wish that I had something wider still.
Any recommendations?
Thanks,
Rich
Dr. Richard B. Shepard, President
http://www.appl-ecosys.com/
From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 26 Jun 2003
Subject: Re: Zeiss Jena lenses on a P67?
Ralf,
I have seen and handle the 120mm, 180mm, and 300mm CZJ modified for the Pentax 6X7
Not the same for the 50mm Flektogon. However, I did see the flketogon modified
for Hasselblad
[Ed. note: a cautionary note, be sure to double check online sources for typos...]
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003
From: "Magnus Wedberg" [email protected]
Subject: Film-to-lens mount distance
While fact-checking my 9000 site, I found a strange thing. Sources on
the net says that the register is 44.50 mm, for example
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm
while the 9000 manual says that the "Film-to-lens mount distance" is
44.6 mm. I'm a little confused here... and I can't find anything in
the more modern manuals I have (9, 7, 9xi). If someone could shed
some light on this, I would be happy...
--
Magnus Wedberg
http://www.magnuswedberg.com/
From: [email protected] (pat walsh)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: Photo Gadgets, fabricated and modified. 20 + year toolmaker at your service!
Date: 1 May 2003
At the urging of a photography fanatic friend of mine who is
constantly asking for me to make or modify some part, accessory, or
photography gadget. I come in search of odd machining jobs, I work in
plastic, aluminum, regular and stainless steels. If you have an item
that needs to be made or modified, please email me with a description
of the part. I'll give you my fax number if necessary to which you can
send a drawing. I'll quote a cost to you, make the item and ship it to
you in a timely manner. I have over 20 years as a
toolmaker/modelmaker, and would be happy to assist you on a project.
No part is too large or small, thanks you. Please forward any inquires to:
[email protected]
From Minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Film-to-lens mount distance
Hi Magnus et al.,
IIRC the reason for this apparent discrepancy of 0.1 mm is a simple one. Sometimes the
film to lensmount distance is measured from the pressure plate to the lensmount,
sometimes (more correctly) from the side of the film facing the lens. The 0.1 mm is
roughly the thickness of the film. This I read also somewhere on Willem Jan's site,
maybe not on the exactly here:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm
but certainly somewhere on his photography homepage. Also interesting stuff about
micro lenses, IR photography, panoramic photography (I bought my new Zenith Horizon
202 from him) and some less fascinating stuff about Canon EOSes : )
HTH,
Dick Boschloo
From: "skgrimes" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Pen67on4x5
Date: 24 Jan 1998
--Machine work for photographers
--Lenses fitted to shutters, iris scales engraved
http://www.skgrimes.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: process lenses as enlarging lenses
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998
From: Stanley E Yoder [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: lens coverage
Now that's super coverage, super wide-angle, eh?!
Pittsburgh
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Useful (??) junk
This is interesting. Do some of the Leica screw mount lenses cover
6x6?...
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: 35mm lenses on 6x6
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998
From: Jan Decher [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Useful (??) junk
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Leitz Lens on MF
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Here's One for All of You Lens Experts !
Date: 11 Feb 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Here's One for All of You Lens Experts !
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: 500mm f/8
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998
Tom Fineran wrote:
>
> I've used the "old" style Nikon 500mm F8.0 mirror to photograph
> Blue Herons nesting in tree tops at distances of 25-75 yds. Very
> satisfactory photographs, also very sharp. I've never gotten the
> "out-of-focus-doghnuts" people talk about. Lucky I guess. I don't
> think that there is much difference between the Nikon lens and the
> "off brands". Go for it!!!
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: 500mm f/8
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998
The University of Southampton, UK
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Using a Enlarging lens as a photo lens ??
Date: 09 Jun 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Using a Enlarging lens as a photo lens ??
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998
DColucci wrote:
>
> I have been using my 1970ish Schneider Componon ( 6 element symmetrical
design
> ) as a close up lens and its fantastic - sharp as anything I have seen from
> photo lenses... but I have also been using it at infinity and it seems to
> perform almost as well... tack sharp...I have been just using it with B&W
> negs... COMMENTS ??
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Using a Enlarging lens as a photo lens ??
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
[email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Using a Enlarging lens as a photo lens ??
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998
David Stein
[Ed. note: Thought it would be interesting to point out to other
Homebrewers that once you get some Bronica lenses, you are also able to
remount them to work on Rollei SL66 etc. and many other focal plane
medium format cameras, so your investment can live on and on and on...
;-)]
From: Ari Pesonen [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei]lens mount adapters
>This means that you can probably use your Rollei
>SLR lenses on other mounts with adapters and retain infinity focus, but
>doing the reverse would require an optical adapter in most cases.
>I am wondering which other optics folks have tried on their Rollei SLRs
>using the lens mount plug or other resources in this thread, besides
>enlarger lenses for closeup work? Any infinity mount lenses (such as from
>larger format 6x7 to 4x5 or other lenses? Any tips or ideas to share? thanks!
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei]lens mount adapters
>>This means that you can probably use your Rollei
>>SLR lenses on other mounts with adapters and retain infinity focus, but
>>doing the reverse would require an optical adapter in most cases.
>
>SL66 lenses cannot be focused on almost any other camera at all.
>
>>I am wondering which other optics folks have tried on their Rollei SLRs
>>using the lens mount plug or other resources in this thread, besides
>>enlarger lenses for closeup work? Any infinity mount lenses (such as from
>>larger format 6x7 to 4x5 or other lenses? Any tips or ideas to share?
thanks!
>
>I have adapted a Pentacon 300 mm and a 135 mm S2A Nikkor to SL66 with
>custom made mounts.
>There is a commercial adaptor for Mamiya RB67 lenses to SL66 (Zoerk).
>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment,rec.photo.misc
Subject: How to make a $30 Schneider Loupe
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998
[Ed. note: this section describes adapting Bronica lenses to other Med
Fmt cameras - possibly very handy if your trade up properly ;-)!!!]
From: Ari Pesonen [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: thanks! RE: [Rollei]lens mount adapters
>lenses just are beyond my (student) budget ;-)
... my librarian budget, too!
Pentacon 300mm f/4 on a Rollei SL66 Lens Hack!
Thanks to Ari Pesonen for providing these photos!
Anytime I see a focal plane shutter on a medium format camera, I want to
look closer at lens
registration distances and options. If the
Bronica lenses are similar (e.g., Rollei SLRs) or longer than the given
camera (e.g., Mamiya 645, Pentax 6x7), then that camera might be a
candidate to
mount Bronica lenses onto an adapter mount. When that camera's lens
registration distance is more than the Bronica, it becomes a potential
donor of lenses and optics to the Bronica system.
But Bronica cameras
have a secret! They were designed with a falling mirror system to permit
very deeply recessed wide angle lenses to be mounted. If you remove the
helical focusing tube, you have about an inch or so below the lens mount
before you hit the mirror box sides. Even here, you have even more
distance before a protruding lens rear would cause difficulty with the
falling
mirror design. What that means is simply this - you can cheat and mount
many shorter lens registration distance lenses into the Bronica SLR system.
I am looking into a
Kiev-88 to Bronica adapter for their low cost fisheye lens as one project
(see Kiev fisheye project notes). I
believe such an adapter could be built, despite the shorter mount
distance of the Kiev mount (82.1mm), due to this inner Bronica body leeway.
The key unresolved concern is whether the available just under 3 inch in
diameter throat diameter can physically take the rear of the Kiev lenses.
Given that Bronica lenses are so low in cost, it is hard to find another
source of medium format lenses which could be used cost-effectively
besides the Kiev series lenses. Hint: some of these Kiev lenses were
Zeiss and Schneider lenses at a tenth the cost of modern versions.
The main caution is that the
Bronica wide angle lenses use very retrofocus designs thanks to
Bronica's unique falling mirror design. So I would hazard a guess that
rear-projecting wide angle lenses won't work well with the Rollei SLRs,
which don't use a falling mirror design.
But most of the Bronica telephoto and normal lenses (not Bronica leaf
shutter nikkor?) should work, I hope!
When all is said and done, however, we come back to first principles. Why
bother? If you want more automatic features, look into the EC and
EC/TL-II series bodies. If you like Rollei SLR like integral bellows with
tilts, get the more versatile Bronica tilt/shift bellows. For flash
synch, use the Bronica leaf shutter 105mm nikkor. Need more? Homebrew a
leaf-shutter lens for medium and long telephotos from press or view
camera optics. Need a fisheye? Use an adapter in front of the normal lens
($50) or look into modifying a $200 Kiev 30mm fisheye for Bronica mount.
The Bronica lenses and camera system are still very versatile, and the
costs are ''deja-vu all over again''. While the prices are yesteryear,
the performance is surprisingly current.
I am also looking at some extreme retro-position mounts for a medium
format zoom lens for Bronica 6x6. But I am looking for telephoto 35mm
lenses which have enough coverage and range to be useful (e.g., 100-300mm,
300mm to 600mm).
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SL66 - how many were made?
>Funny story... After I ordered one SL66 and many lenses and
>accessories (new) with four film magazines, the motor, etc.,
>I looked at the list and said to myself, "with all this stuff
>I must have a second body." So I order a second body.
>And later added to the film magazines.
>Cambridge Camera sells a 400mm f/8 (or so) lens for the
>SL66. I'm going to try it.
>Ed
Update on Homebrew Adapters Project from
Greg Erker for Bronica S2/EC/C/S/.. Mounts
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998
From: "John N. Wall" [email protected]
Subject: Building a tilt-shift rig for Nikon
John N. Wall
email: [email protected]
WWW: http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/j/jnweg/html
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998
From: Dave Faulkner [email protected]
Subject: Re: Swing and Tilt Nikon
>Hello Mr. Faulkner,
>I found the contraption you are suggesting extremely intriguing.
>I would like to know more about the results you get and if you found
>errors I should avoid in thrying duplicating it.
>Thanks for your attention
>Pierlucio Pellissier
HC 61, Box 309
St. George, Maine,04857
USA
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Anyone using a Pentax 67 for astrophotography?
From: Dieter Lefeling [email protected]
Subject: Response to Converting Nikkor 35mm lenses for Bronica S2...
Date: 1998-10-25
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Homebuilt cameras
Date: 3 Nov 1998
>I can't believe there is no news group for homemade and home modified
>cameras.
>Have I missed it all this time ?
>I want to share my hobby with someone.
now reports as not found 2/2003]
Home Page about large format camera building with lots of links:
From: spook [email protected]
[1] Crazy lens swaps
Date: Sat Nov 28 21:37:48 CST 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Copier lens adapted for macro use?
Date: 19 Nov 1998
>A few days ago someone here recommended using a copier lens for
>some macro application.
>
>I happened to have a copier lens, saved from some long ago salvage
>situation, so I dug it out; the first thing I remembered is why it got
>stuck so deep in the pile.
>
>The copier lens had a mirror behind it. It's only obvious application was
>to check out particles in one's eye (or, for the vain, to admire one's own
>eye ..). The second thing I realized was that I had tried to separate the
>mirror and the lens before, and failed. Ok, time for a _serious_ attempt
>to get that mirror out of there. No way -- short of destroying the aluminum
>holder. So much for the holder, and I have the lens out.
>So now to the questions. What might one hope for when applying
>such a lens to one's macro project, and what are some general
>suggestions for physically using an "air" lens?
Brian Reynolds | "Dee Dee! Don't touch that button!"
[email protected] | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds | -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438 | "Dexter's Laboratory"
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Copier lens adapted for macro use? (green light)
Date: 20 Nov 1998
B. Z. Lederman Personal Opinions Only
From: Michael S. Cross [email protected]
[1] Re: SPOTTING SCOPES in 35mm photography?
Date: Thu Dec 03 10:32:30 CST 1998
[Ed. note: pages reports as not found as of 2/2003]
>Has anyone used a spotting scope for 35mm photography? Adorama has one
>for $139.99 that's the equivalent of an 1100-3300mm zoom lens. How
>close do they focus, what would the effective aperture be, and are they
>at all sharp? Thanks.
>
>Michael
Michael S. Cross
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.telescopes.meade.lx200,sci.astro
Subject: Re: eypiece projection photography
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998
Roger
Subject: Re: LF fisheye? How about LF lenses on 35mm bodies?
X-Trace: 14 Dec 1998
From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
[1] Re: Zork P67/645 Shift/Tilt adapter
Date: Sat Jan 16 09:07:40 CST 1999
Bob
From: Rick Crockett [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Lens Hacking ETC.
-Rick Crockett
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000
From: Rick Crockett [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Change of address
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
[2] low cost telephoto adapters was Re:
+ Extension Tubes?
Date: Mon Feb 08 22:40:08 CST 1999
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182
[email protected] *
Subject: ****Scopes, eyepieces, binoculars reviewed!*****
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999
From: Philip Wang [email protected]
[1] A bellow + enlarging lens = a regular lens ?
Date: Mon Feb 22 18:58:32 CST 1999
From: "bbb" [email protected]
[1] Re: A bellow + enlarging lens = a regular lens ?
Date: Tue Feb 23 07:11:11 CST 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Cambron / Cambridge 500mm F8 Lens
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: $15-8X Scope test-Nikon 900
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999
now server errors as of 2/2003]
Rick
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Zork P67/645 Shift/Tilt adapter
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Remounting TLR lens for press cameras
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999
>Has anyone tried to remount a TLR lens for use on a lens board? I have a
>Yashikor 80/3.5 I would like to put on a 2x3 Graphic lens board. Anyone
>have any ideas? It would be helpful to retain the bayonet filter mount.
>
>Thanks
>Dante Stella
From: [email protected] (Le Raoul Grande)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: image circle test
> Hello,
>
> Is there a way to test the image circle projected by a lens that does
> not involve building a camera around it? I have a 260 mm Nikkor process
> lens of strange, bulbuous design that far exceeds any movements I can
> subject it to on my 8x10 and am curious to know if it will cover 8x20.
> But I am confounded as to how to tell. Anybody know?
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Telescope attachment
From: "S. Sherman" [email protected], [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: grins, Re: Enjoy your excellent Bronica website 4-9-99
to: Robert Monaghan
From: "Dirk J. Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.help,rec.photo.misc
[1] Re: Alternate uses--lenses
Date: Sun May 02 14:39:25 CDT 1999
> I'm interested in learning of alternative uses for lens assemblies. For
> example an objective lens from one side of a pair of binoculars can be
> inverted over the other side to make a magnifier. An 8mm movie camera lens
> can be used inverted on a 35mm camera body to make an extreme close up lens.
> For a 35mm camera a 28 mm lens can be inverted over the end of a 200 mm to
> yield a 7 X close up lens. Copy and fax machines, microscopes, telescopes,
> obsolete video and film cameras, and who knows what all else all yield
> really neat lenses.... Alternative uses? Any thoughts would be greatly
> appreciated!
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Copier lenses
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999
> Hello Roseann
>
> > Anyone have experience adapting 240 to 300 mm office copier lenses to
> > mid-range (1:5 -1:20) to infinity with 4 x 5 to 8 x 10 formats? I have some
> > generic Xerox and Rank 6 element symmetrical 240s and some 300 mm Zeiss
> > lenses I've used for spotting scopes. I'm wondering if its worth mounting
> > them either as taking or enlarging lenses...
>
> I haven't tried it, but I know where I can get a hold of some lenses like this
> rather cheaply (less that 20 bucks) so I was thinking of trying it. The main
> problem that I can see is that the minimum apertures on the sample that I saw
> were rather large, f8 or f16. This could be kind of a pain trying to get short
> enough shutter speed if your using a Packard or a hat.
>
> Let me know what you end up doing. I'll get back to you if I try it out
> myself.
From: Bjorn Rorslett [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm lenses for medium format?
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999
> >> Given that the camera body is just a light-tight box and the lens
> >> matters most, is it possible to theorectically design such a box with
> >> a focal plane shutter and medium format film backs (135 film on
> >> optional back ?) but using 35mm lens? Will the sharpness be reduced
> >> greatly ? (I guess there could be some chromatic aberrations but maybe
> >> they're OK if the lens is stopped down to the usual MF format
> >> apertures).
> >
> >I doubt it'd fly in most cases. The best 35mm lenses are made so that the
> >image in a 36mm circle at the film plane is pretty much free of visible
> >aberrations. When you hear about cheaper lenses that are sharp in the
> >center but have soft corners, exhibit light falloff and such, that means
> >that their "perfect image circle" is significantly smaller than 36mm.
>
> If you pull back the focal/film plane, wouldn't the image circle
> increase? Getting a good image on this plane may be an issue though...
Bjorn Rorslett
Visit http://www.foto.no/nikon for UV Colour Photography and other
Adventures in Nature Photography
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Web on building LF field camera, tripod, bags, carrying system and
other stuff
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999
From: Joe McCary - Photo Response [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: using 35mm lenses on hassy focal plane bodies Re: Lens sharpness
From: Bill Grimwood [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: using 35mm lenses on hassy focal plane bodies Re: Lens sharpness
>I have a Leitz 400mm Teylet -6.8 that I am positive would cover 6x6 at
>infinity. The lens has just 2 rare earth elements and these are at the
>extreme far end of the barrel. There is an adapter tube (so you can break
>the lens into 2 pieces for transport) that makes this a safe bet. I have
>always wondered about this extremely sharp and superb lens on a Hasselblad
>but alas, I have only the 500cm...
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999
From: John J Stafford [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: econo lens (pentax 67)
>I'd be interested in hearing more about the details - I am interested in
>trying the same trick with an adapter to mount my Bronica S2/EC nikkor
>and other lenses on the Pentax 6x7/67 thanks to its short lens
>registration distance vs Bronica (84.95mm vs. 101.70mm bronica)...
From: John J Stafford [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pentax 6x7 & Russian lens (update)
From: Brian Caldwell [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: query re: homebrew lenses
>Hi Brian,
>
>I would be interested in learning more about any homebrew lens efforts,
>esp any sites posted.
From: "S. Sherman" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Body cap for "S" model through "EC"
>From: "Michael D. Wilson" [email protected]
>Subject: [BRONICA] Body cap for "S" model through "EC"
>Date: Wed, Aug 18, 1999, 12:14 PM
>
>There is an auction on ebay for a body cap for, as described by the
>Gentleman, the S through EC model Bronica cameras. I don't think that
>the S model had a helical focus mount and I'm not sure if it had a
>Bayonet mount like the S2A. He also refers to the cap being used as a
>lens board, to adapt non Bronica lenses to the cameras. Does anyone
>know anything about this cap and what is a lens board?
>
>Mike Wilson
>Pinson, Alabama
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] bellows attachment
Please respond to [email protected]
cc: (bcc: Mahlon R. Haunschild)
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] bellows attachment
>Hi All,
>
>Just wondering if anyone has the bellows attachment for any of their
>Bronicas and wanted feedback on it. Specifically, can the unit be used as a
>pseudo tilt/shift adapter like the old units for the S2 series of bodies.
> Besides some home brew jobs, are there any other third party makes that
>can do the tilt/shift thing for the current Bronica bodies? I am somewhat
>chagrinned that Bronica is lacking in this department but it is tempered by
>the exorbitant prices asked of Zeiss or Schneider for the Hasselblad and
>Rollei T/S lenses. You might as well buy a real 4x5 like a Sinar F1 for the
>prices asked by the Germans.
> Thanks for the help.
>
>Edwin
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] "final warning" change to: 6006 Prism finders?
>From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Rollei] "final warning" change to: 6006 Prism finders?
>Date: Mon, Oct 4, 1999, 8:58 PM
>
> If they made an adaptor so I could use my Hasselblad prisms on my Rolleiflex 2.8
> F I'd be one happy camper!
> Mark Rabiner
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999
From: "G. Lehrer" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] "final warning" change to: 6006 Prism finders?
> If they made an adaptor so I could use my Hasselblad prisms on my Rolleiflex 2.8
> F I'd be one happy camper!
> Mark Rabiner
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999
From: "David Bain" [email protected]
Subject: Bayonet mount components
BFN
David
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000
From: Rick Crockett [email protected]
Subject: Re: Aerial Camera
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000
From: "LuPi" [email protected]
Subject: Telyt 400 and 560
Luca (Italy)
From: Rita and Andrew Schank [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Zoerk got greedy
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999
From: [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [BRONICA] (no subject)
From: "S. Sherman" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] (no subject)
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000
Subject: Re: closeups Re: camera shake
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: adapters
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000
Subject: Re: how do you determine the focal length of an eyepiece?
Rockett Crawford
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: how do you determine the focal length of an eyepiece?
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000
From: Stan Patz [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How about the new Heliar 15mm (Cosina) for 360 deg pan ?
>what pitch ?
> Any easier solution of getting the mounting plate cheap ?
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000
From: "Angel" [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Old vs new
Digital Camera Imaging Web Site
http://aagomez.home.sprynet.com/index.htm
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: how to measure image circle ?
Date: 18 Jan 2000
>How do i determine lense coverage ?
[Ed. note: possible 6x6cm coverage for simple lenses?]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Holga
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000
>
>I'm just wondering if there isn't something in a lens from the
>edmund scientific optical catalog that could replace the awful
>plastic lens crowning the Holga. I have some old box cameras with
>single element lenses that are far better at giving the desired effect.
>Has anyone done such a thing to the lowly Holga?
>It's easy enough to pop the plastic one out...now what to put in
>it's place?
>Gary Frost
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000
From: Tim Escobedo [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Stupid Holga tricks
From: ed romney [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Process lenses for landscape?
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000
From: [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: [BRONICA] Folks Looking for a FLAT flat black paint
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: More Lens Hacking for Bronica S2 & S2A
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999
from: [email protected]
Subject: Re: More Lens Hacking for Bronica S2 & S2A
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Lens Hacker Question
From: "S. Sherman" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Lens Hacker Question
From: [email protected] (doitnow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Camera Parts Made!
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject:
Re: cheap 500mm lens for $100+? Re: [BRONICA] Lens hacking for my S2A
Don
[email protected]
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [BRONICA] good points Re: cheap 500mm lens for $100+?
[Ed. note: was at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000
From: Rick Crockett [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Digital Hacking
Rick
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] 645 flash
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>Actually
>Though I never took a picture with it I once put a 90 Summicron
>M in front of a 2000FC Hassy. The Summicron covered the entire area!
>no vignetting or appreciable light dropoff in the corners, At least not in
>the viewfinder. I suspect that many Leitz lenses are capable of covering a 6x6
>format.
>Perhaps they are designed nearer to the 6x6 so they'll perform even
>better at 35mm. Think about it, say you want a lens that has even illumination
>and linearity in your format. One way of doing this would be to design for
>a larger
>format and then crop the glass a little! A lens designer I aint.
>Javier
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000
From: Tim Ellestad [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>Wow!
>That was a few months ago!
>Thanks for the info.
>If light fall off at the same rate fort a given focal length/aperture,
>Does that mean that 6x6 lenses are naturally more susceptable to light
>fall off than their 35 Counterparts? This might cancel out a any reason for
>wanting to attach a hasselblad lens to a Contax or Leica via that expensive
>adapter!
>Javier
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 6003 vs. 6008 backs
>From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [Rollei] 6003 vs. 6008 backs
>Date: Sat, May 6, 2000, 10:21 AM
>
> Of the film flatness, or of discernable differences in the resultant images?
>
> Either way, please dig it up, I would appreciate it.
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] film flatness/6003 vs. 6008 backs
>I'll ask again, do you have any studies that show there is a discernable
>difference in the resultant image? You make these claims that the real
>world facts just don't seem to support.
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000
From: Tim Ellestad [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>How does that work (well)? Optically, the extents of the projected image
>for a lense made for a particular format camera, project in a circle that
>is slightly larger than the diagonal of the film. The diagonal of a 6x6 is
>8.484cm. The diagonal for a 2.4 x 3.6 is ~4.25cm, roughly half what a 6x6
>is.
>
>Most lenses (actually, I believe all) tend to have falloff towards the
>extents of the lense, which would cause, from minor vignetting, to no image
>projected at all... If you move the lense away from the film plane, you do
>increase the circle, but you then change the focus...you won't get an
>infinity focus. That may work well for macro, but for general use, I don't
>see how it works.
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000
From: Tom Kline [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>I've known photographers who had Leica long lenses adapted for their
>SL66 and 200/2000 series Hasselblad cameras. They worked very well.
>One pro I know who uses 2000 series Hasselblads managed to find a
>complete set of the old Nikkor long lenses originally made for Bronica
>and has had them adapted and gets excellent photos from them. Then
>there is the guy who spent WAY too much money to buy a brand new
>Olympus 300mm f/2.8 and have it modified to use on his Hasselblad.
>Some people have more money than sense!
>
>Bob
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>Date: Sat, May 6, 2000, 9:09 PM
>
> Understood, but do they do it 'well'? If a lense designer has the
> constraint of designing a lense that has the criteria for being used for
> 35mm, I would believe it is not a very good lense for a larger image
> circle. If it were, then people would be re-mounting Leitz glass on
> Hasselblads....and I haven't heard of that one yet!
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>Date: Sat, May 6, 2000, 11:07 PM
>
> I guess if you call 25 years of professional commercial photography a new
> kid, then so be it.
> I don't know what people YOU hang around with, but all the professionals I
> know don't spend their time mounting anything they can, er, as it regards
> to lenses that is. There is sufficiently available glass that does the job
> very well...that is for the people I know.
> I am sure there are some people out there who like to spend their time
> doing things like that, but they are few and far between as compared to the
> number of professional photographers (much less photographers...) there
> are.
> Probably about as rare as the Hasselblad Jam ;-) Do you like Strawberry
> Rhubarb?
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000
From: Tom Kline [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>Well, my friend, you must be a very new kid on the block. People have
>been mounting just about everything on everything so long as
>physically possible. It's called "lens bashing" and I even have a
>certificate from one of the medium format sites commending me for my
>lens bashing efforts on behalf of old Bronica.
>What killed lens bashing for Hasselblad was the switch to 500C. You
>can't use a lens on this camera in any practical sense unless you
>manage to mount a Synchro-Compur shutter in it. That's just too
>difficult for most lenses, and would make fast lenses slower due
>to the narrow throat of the shutter. So very little lens bashing
>was ever done for 500 series 'Blads.
> It got easy again with the
>2000 series, but the cameras were so expensive that few had access
>to them.
>When I had my old S2A Bronica system I put a lot of view camera and
>enlarging lenses on it with home-brew adapters. Did the same with
>my Rollei SL66. Can't do it with my Rollei 6000 due to interlens
>shutters again, so did it with my Mamiya 645 Pro and the host of
>Kiev 88s and 60s I've owned.
>
>Bob
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Lens Adaptation
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000
From: Jon Hart [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Our Sister List
> How do you know how much of a demand there is? Do
> they only do lense
> transplants? What do you believe is 'all that
> money'?
> I do not believe it is near as 'popular' today as it
> was 30 years ago.
> There are plenty of lenses available for Leica,
> Hasselblad, Rollei, Nikon,
> Canon etc. They are not that unreasonably priced,
> and you can certainly
> choose the system that fits your budget...and with
> the advent of the
> Internet, hell, you can get them for half what you
> used to be able to!
> I think this becomes more a hobby issue than a
> professional issue. There
> are always hobbyists who enjoy tinkering, and that
> is, of course, just
> fine. My guess is that custom lense transplants
> are done mostly for LF,
> not so much in LF or 35...
from Deepinaharta, Georgia
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>From: Jon Hart [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>Date: Mon, May 8, 2000, 5:23 PM
>
> Not so! Witness the el-cheapo 2 element 500mm
> long-focus lens sold by Cambridge Camera for lo these
> many years. The ultimate in lens-bashing!! When this
> lens proved to be so popular in the 35mm format and
> was being converted to use on (flourish, please)
> Hasselblads by a large number of impecunious pros as
> well as amateurs, it was decided to make the exact
> same lens available in several MF mounts and up the
> price about 3 to 4 times. So, now, you have
> lens-bashing done at the factory.
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>From: Javier [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List
>Date: Mon, May 8, 2000, 8:05 PM
>
> Hi
> Someone mentioned that Forsher and Co used to
> modify Leicaflex lenses to use on Nikons. How did they
> actuate the auto diaphragm? Nikon stops down in the other
> direction as everyone else! Also is Forsher still around?
> I haven't heard any news about him in years. What about his
> repair shops?
>
> Best Regards
> Javier
From: Jean Marc Becker [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Medium format - telescope recommendation
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000
> I am upgrading from 35mm to medium format for Solar Eclipse photography. I
> am looking for a telescope that can fill a 6cm X 6cm negative at prime
> focus. I need a focal lenght of 1800 - 2000mm and a Cassegrain type design
> for portability - there's not a total eclipse in my back yard untill
> 2099 ). I tried contacting Meade but they claim to have no information on
> image circle size ( I was thinking their 125mm ETX or the 7" LX200 ). I have
> my camera and shutter but now need some advice on the optics. Any
> recomendations or comments would be more than welcome
sci.astro.amateur
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: achromat doublet for refractor - help!!
Date: Wed Jun 14 12:35:45 CDT 2000
....
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000
From: Alan Zinn [email protected]
Subject: Re: Helical Focus Mechanisms
>> Hi All,
>> Does anyone know of a source for helical focus mechanisms, I have
>> checked out Zoerk and they may be a possibility. In Particular I am
>> looking to build focus mounts for a 90 f4.5 Nikkor SW and a 300 f5.6
>> Schneider Xenar., Any tips appreciated, and I am more than happy to
>> cannabalise/modify cheap lenses etc etc.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Glenn
>> --
>> Glenn Barry Photography
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000
From: Mark Walberg [email protected]
Subject: Re: BRONICA S-2 POSSIBILITIES
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Re: Hexar RF(was way OT)
From: [email protected] (Oliver Skibbe)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Photographing the extremely small
> Does anyone have an idea how to connect a Pentax 645 to a microscope?
> I know this is not going to be easy, but, you never know.
Dr. Oliver Skibbe
Natur- und Mikrofotografie
http://www.larger-than-life.de
From Bronica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: BRONICA S-2 POSSIBILITIES
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: BRONICA S-2 POSSIBILITIES
[Ed. note: was at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html ]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000
From: [email protected] (Jeff DeTray)
Subject: Re: Source for 1 1/4 tubing
>I need a good source for short lengths of tubing for use in making
>eyepeice accessories. I need a) 1 1/4 in. inside diameter and b) 1 1/4
>in. outside diameter (threaded for filters would be a plus). Metal or
>plastic is okay.
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 200
Subject: Re: Source for 1 1/4 tubing
From: "Robert Powell" [email protected]
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000
Subject: re - Fabricating Lens / Tripod collars.
From: "Robert Powell" [email protected]
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000
Subject: Fw: re - Fabricating Lens / Tripod collars.
From: "Bob May" [email protected]
[1] Re: Relay lens
Date: Sun Jul 30 17:22:05 CDT 2000
Bob May
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Construction of Long Tele Lenses
From: "Michael A. Covington" (see website for address)
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Source for Surplus ACHROMAT Lenses
Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 05 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Contriving your own long, long lens
Date: 19 Sep 2000
From: [email protected] (OorQue)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Bronica SQ-Ai schematic?
Scottsdale, AZ
From: [email protected] (OorQue)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Adapting a Bronica PS lens for use on a view camera...
if you are really just dealing with a pulse proportional to time to keep
>shutter open, it could be a relatively simple project - look into 555/556
>timer chips (Radio Shack, Forest Mims has some good project books on 555)
>Formulas for simple design (algebra) and use a variable resistor to set
>desired timing range (analog). Nifty. Again, an interesting project...
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000
From: Phil Lindsay [email protected]
Subject: 100 mm Symmar on a Flexbody
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: 100 mm Symmar on a Flexbody
>Phil wrote:
>>The 100 mm setup is a Symmar with Compur shutter mounted in a Hassy #40037
>>Lens Mount Adapter. The adapter has been out of production for a while but
>>you can still find them. I recently
>
>Do the lens mount adapters have a helical focusing mount? If not, how do
>you focus closer than infinity?
>
>....gregg
I'm answering for Phil. I hope he doesn't mind...
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Vemar / Tair lens hacking tips
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000
From: robert svensson [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vemar / Tair lens hacking tips
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] flange-to-film distances, from my files
Alpa bayonet.........37.8mm
Canon Screw Mount....28.8mm
Canon SLR (manual focus),,,42.1mm
Contarex..........46mm
Contax RTS.........45.5mm
Exakta, Classic....44.7mm
Icarex BM........44.7mm
Leica M........27.8mm
Leica Screw Mount...28.8mm
Minolta manual focus...43.7mm
Miranda.........31.5mm
Nikon-Nikkormat.......46.5mm
Olympus OM..........46mm
Pentax K..........45.5mm
Petri Bayonet......43.5mm
Praktica/Pentax*.....45,5mm
Ricoh Bayonet.......45.5mm
Rollei SLR........44.7mm
Voigtlander..........44.7mm
Yashica FR. FX ........45.5mm
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 2.8F vs. 3.5F
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000
From: "Lan Tu" [email protected]
Subject: Re: medium format lenses on nikons?
> it's some kind of screw thread. the lens has to stand about 10-15mm
>out from the body to focus on the nikon's film plane.
> i guess it would work with a bellows, if i could fasten it on. or
>perhaps i could adapt a lens tube. any ideas?
Lan
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [medium-format] re: hacking rollei 6000 series using auxilliary
shutter etc.
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000
From: "Schatzie Walton" [email protected]
Subject: Re: hacking rollei 6000
> should be easy to do with their pricey rollei 6k aux. shutter adapter, see
> related post at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/rollei6k.html on the
> rollei auxilliary shutter for the rollei 6k series; this adapter is made
> to enable hacking oddball view camera lenses and so on to the rollei 6k
> more complex than the older Rollei SL66 lens blank for machining as it
> has the shutter mechanics etc. You could probably fake one of these by
> removing glass from a normal lens with busted glass (or remove glass for
> later resale after use completed?) and getting the mount and mechanics
> and shutter, but would need to convert for optics (probably limited to
> long focus lenses only?) to mount with machinist?
From: James Lockwood [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: T-mount adapter for M645
: I don't keep track of such things but I remember seeing an ad for either
: Adorama or Cambridge (yeah I know) for one of those cheap 2 element
: "telephoto" lenses that was able to be adapted to medium format cameras. So
: as strange as it may seem there may be a "T-type" adapter floating around
: out there. I would have thought that the throat would be too small and cause
: excess vignetting on anything over 35mm.
From: James Lockwood [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: lens hacking pages URL Re: T-mount adapter for M645
: yeah, one approach, but many 35mm long focus lenses will cover 6x6cm as
:
: see http://medfmt.8k.com/bronhb.html lens hacking pages
[PS. many of the nikon F prisms can be used on the later F2.. with
mods..]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
From: Ron Baker [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Metered prism finders for S2A?
www.ronbakerphotography.com
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000
From: Schatzie Walton [email protected]
Subject: [medium-format] Re: hacking rollei 6000
From: Alan Davenport [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cable Release - Solenoid activated
> It turns out that such a device is available off the shelf now. Art Fish
> sent me this link:
> http://www.kapturegroup.com/kap_htmls/electronic_cable.html
From Kiev-88 Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Polaroid backs for Kiev 88
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF lens on MF cameras (specifically Mamiya SLR)
> I'm considering buying one of the bellows focusing 6x7 Mamiya SLRs. I
> already have various LF lenses (in shutter) on Technika size lens boards
> for my Tachihara 4x5. So, what would be involved in adapting to use the
> lensboard lenses on a Mamiya? (I'll make the adaptor, possibly with
> some simple movements built in.) I assume you can get extension tubes
> or close-up bellows for the Mamiya, and then I'd just need an adaptor
> for lensboards to the Mamiya mount.
>
> --
> Mark Anderson
> DBA Riparia www.teleport.com/~andermar/
> "The trouble with good ideas
> is that they soon degenerate into a lot of hard work." Anon.
From: "Wayne D" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF lens on MF cameras (specifically Mamiya SLR)
> Mark, JD:
>
> This may be splitting hairs, but one disadvantage of this arrangement is that
> the LF lenses generally have somewhat lower resolution than their MF
> counterparts because of the larger field they have to cover. Recent lens tests
> I have seen on the Mamiya 6 and 7 lenses show they are superb and help you come
> close to duplicating LF quality. I do not know if the RB/RZ lenses are as
> good, since most of them are, I guess, considerably older. Since you can get
> as high as 95/65 lpm (center/edge) with the Mamiya 7 lenses and most large
> format is a max of 68/60, you can make up some ground. the LF lenses on MF
> will not be as good. The strategy you suggest is a good one if you need a
> specific focal length once in a while and already have it in a LF lens and
> don't want to spend the bucks to get it in MF for just a few pix. Don't get me
> wrong, the lenses will work fine, but you won't get the ultimate resolution the
> format is capable of.
>
> Just my $.02,
> Roy
From: [email protected] (Tan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF lens on MF cameras (specifically Mamiya SLR)
>I'm considering buying one of the bellows focusing 6x7 Mamiya SLRs. I
>already have various LF lenses (in shutter) on Technika size lens boards
>for my Tachihara 4x5. So, what would be involved in adapting to use the
>lensboard lenses on a Mamiya? (I'll make the adaptor, possibly with
>some simple movements built in.) I assume you can get extension tubes
>or close-up bellows for the Mamiya, and then I'd just need an adaptor
>for lensboards to the Mamiya mount.
>
>--
>Mark Anderson
> DBA Riparia www.teleport.com/~andermar/
>"The trouble with good ideas
> is that they soon degenerate into a lot of hard work." Anon.
K H Tan
From: [email protected] (Mark Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF lens on MF cameras (specifically Mamiya SLR)
>The strategy you suggest is a good one if you need a specific focal
>length once in a while and already have it in a LF lens and don't want
>to spend the bucks to get it in MF for just a few pix. Don't get me
>wrong, the lenses will work fine, but you won't get the ultimate
>resolution the format is capable of.
2) I'd also be adding movements in the adaptor
3) Weight and compactness since I wouldn't be transporting
unnecessary lens tubes, etc.
Mark Anderson
DBA Riparia www.teleport.com/~andermar/
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] 4" condenser lenses for enlarger?
> Hello!
> I have a printmaker 35mm enlarger. I'd like to upgrade it to cover 6x6
> Holga negs. There is a kit from Beseler for $100-150 which includes 24"
> condenser lenses which go in the current head. I'd rather not spend this
> much. Anyone have a surplus source where I can buy condenser lenses?
>
> I could build the little tray to hold the lenses.
>
> Any other ideas in converting an enlarger like this to cover a larger
> format,
>
> Thanks
>
> Mac
> _______________________________________________ >>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001
From: Gene Johnson [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] 4" condenser lenses for enlarger?
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] RTS III
> From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001
> Subject: RE: [CONTAX] RTS III
>
> All this is interesting. I did not know that the lense mounts were
> adjustable, and what ever collimating they do at the factory would certainly
> be done with the back off/open...and with no film in place. Would you
> explain why you think film thickness matters at all? It is the front
> surface of the film, no matter how thick, that the image is projected on?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
Subject: Panorama for GS1
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 135mm Rollei Sonnar
>The Tele-Rollei's Sonnar is f4/135mm, the SL 35's Sonnar 2.8/135mm ...
>that could give us a hint ... If I interpret the legend the right way, the
>Tele's Sonnar was derived from a Sonnar previously available for the
>Contarex ... was there a Sonnar 4/135 for the Contarex? Marc? Or
>did they call that lens Tele-Tessar?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: cautions re: current, blads was Re: hacking rollei 6000
> I've done some microcontroller programming so PWM and steppers aren't
> that difficult. It is interesting that 6001 bodies are very cheap
> since Rollei was essentially giving them away with the purchase of a
> 6008i. The problem, of course, is that the optics are extremely
> expensive. Kind of razors and blades times 1000. Thus, to hack the
> control mechanism of the 6XXX could open up some interesting stuff.
From: [email protected] (Chris1011)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Date: 27 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Solution to high priced apos?
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Date: 27 Jan 2001
Subject: Making eyepieces
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Making eyepieces
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001
From: "Yeorgi" [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Making eyepieces
[Ed.note: some exciting notes on adapting a variety of lenses to/from
Bronica's and Minolta's 57x1mm mount!!! Special thanks to Marius
Lewerenz for sharing these tips and pointers!!]
From: Marius Lewerenz [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: bronica lens hacking
a lot more
========================================================================
Pr. Marius Lewerenz Phone ++33-144-2 73023
LADIR/Spectrochimie Moleculaire ++33-616-47 8323
UMR 7075 Sec. ++33-144-2 73021
Bat. F74, Bte 49 Fax ++33-144-2 73021
Universite Pierre et Marie Curie
4, Place Jussieu
75252 Paris Cedex 05, France [email protected]
========================================================================
From: Larry Brown [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Making eyepieces
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001
From: Henry Schneiker [email protected]
To: Speleonics [email protected]
Subject: Re: Magnetic Reed Switches
From: "William H. Foley, Sr." [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: reject astro lenses for photography?
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001
From: Chris Sorensen [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Polaroid Back for Rollei 3003
From: LarryBrown [email protected]
[1] Re: Chineese 8 1/2 inch f-12 achromatic objectives on eBay
Date: Wed Feb 28 2001
sci.optics
From: "Andreas Voss" [email protected]
[1] Re: Acromat lens 1000mm ,help me !!!!
Date: Sun Mar 18 04:50:08 CST 2001
> Dear all,
>
> I am looking for a acromat lens with a F/L of 1000mm and a diameter of
> 100mm.
>
> We use them in a optical laser scanner and we need one (or more) as soon as
> possible.
> Please send an e-mail to my company.
> [email protected]
>
> Many thanks for all of you out there.
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Med Formt
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Med Formt
>
> Hi Austin. Interestingly, if size is all that matters
> (where's Paul when you need him! :), then the higher resolution,
> higher MTF 35mm lenses should arguably produce a greater
> proportional enlargement capability than the lower MTF MF/LF
> lenses precisely because the 35mm neg/slide would contain
> more lp mm of information. However, in my experience and in
> that of the better pro shops I frequent, only a 35mm shot that
> was perfectly focused, metered and exposed and, for the most
> part, shot with Zeiss, Leica or Zuiko glass will sustain
> 16x20 enlargements. OTOH, most MF regardless of make or
> quality of lens used can be blown up proportionately larger,
> routinely. And, perfectly exposed, metered and focused MF
> w/Zeiss can be enlarged "to any size you want" in the words
> of one developer w/40+ years in the trade.
From: "ken watson" [email protected]
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001
Subject: [Cameramakers] Testing 35mm lens coverage
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: MTO-1000
> From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001
> Subject: Re: [russiancamera] MTO-1000
>
> You may well be right about the quality. I bought mine from LAN optics, except
> for
> the 300, which I was finally able to get from the U.K., and there was not a
> bad
> one in the bunch, BUT- I think Boris does do a good job of checking, and in
> some
> cases reworking the lenses.
> All of mine were really fine performers, and I can tell you, testing these
> monsters was QUITE an education!! I also have the terrestrial and astronomical
> adapters to turn them into really neat telescopes, also made by Lytkarino-
> kind of pricey, but worth it!
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001
From: BobE [email protected]
Subject: large fromat lenses on 501cm
> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001
> From: Andrew Moore [email protected]
> Subject: large format lenses on 501cm
>
> In my never-ending quest of going to silly lengths to get view camera
> movements out of a Hassy body, I dare ask the following:
>
> *Assuming* one had a way of attaching / machining / hacking a bellows with
> front and rear movements to the Hassy body, is there any reason why a
> large format lens/shutter couldn't be used? As far as I can tell, it
> would obviously provide the necessary image circle to allow the movements,
> and you'd retain the benefits of reflex viewing, roll film backs, and
> whatever else the Hassy platform allows. So what's missing?
>
> (yes, I realize there are roll film backs, reflex viewers, etc. for view
> cameras...)
>
> --Andrew
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: SLR body to LF monorail?
From: Todd Maurer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: SLR body to LF monorail?
> Wilt W [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > I read that one could take a P67 flange ring and screw it to a lens
> > > board for a 4x5 and install it at the back of the camera. This would
> > > allow the use of inexpensive shuttered lenses and extensive movements on
> > > rollfilm, right?
> >
> > I'll raise a number of issues to consider...(it isn't as easy as it sounds!)
> >
> > 1) But isn't the Pentax 67 a focal plane shuttered camera?!?!?
> >
> > 2) The P67 lenses may not have a large enough image circle to allow much
> > movement before you start vignetting...not being designed to accomodate shift
> > movements.
>
> I was referring to inexpensive, shuttered large format lenses. I don't
> doubt that the Pentax 6x7 lenses don't have much room for movements.
>
> For example, the old Pentax 67 300mm lens costs $1300 (the new one costs
> twice that) while a nikon M 300mm large format lens costs $670. The
> nikon weighs 290g and the pentax weighs 1420g. Plus there's the ability
> of the LF lens to synch at all speeds, which the Pentax by itself cannot
> do.
Date: 7 Jun 2001
From: [email protected] (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: SLR body to LF monorail?
>Todd Maurer [email protected] wrote:
>
>> the image still must be projected *though* the camera body. At more
>> extreme angles (and maybe not so extreme angles) of rise, fall, shifts,
>> rear swings, and rear tilts I'd expect the lens mount on the front of the
>> camera to vingette the image.
>
>Anyone hazard a guess on the math involved to determine the extent of
>available movements with this setup?
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: storm technologies easy photo reader drivers
From: [email protected] (AuctionFan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: hacking test cameras.. Re: DIY Polaroid test camera anybody?
>From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
>the typical
>polaroid lens is circa 105mm
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 30 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: DIY Polaroid test camera anybody?
>I need a lightweight Polaroid test camera to do the occasional lighting test
>when shooting 35mm. I can't bring myself to either buy an NPC Pro back for
>the
>35mm camera and another body, or a converted 110 (too big and pricey), or lug
>my
>RZ out just to take Polaroids.
Tillamooky, the Polaroid Freakazoid !
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [HUG] T Adapter
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Mike-
The image circles of microscopes and even prime focus of very large amateur
telescopes are too small to use the full 6x6 frame. Assuming these
shortcomings don't bother you, the next hurdle is no shutter! You could use
the "black hat" technique but exposure accuracy may become a problem. In the
case of a microscope... a really small black hat.
With an extender and projection eyepiece you could get full frame exposures
on 6x6 but the extra depth of the body could add to longer than desired
exposures. What was your question again??!! Oh yeah...I've never seen one
in 22 years of dealing with such stuff. One could easily be made with the
use of a re-enforced Hassy front body cap (I'd feel better about this if
they were made of metal) with a hole cut in it and a T-adapter from any
35mm. Glue and screw and you're good to go!!
Peter
--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
> Is there such a thing as T Adapter for Hassy 500 series to mate them to
> microscopes and telescopes?
>
>
> Mike
From: "Brian Larmay" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Meteor Shower this weekend
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001
Here is a simpler version of the barndoor drive as displayed on my website.
You can always make the mount non motorized by turning the bolt by hand
which would be a better idea if you are away from a power source.
http://www.astrobri.com/barndoor_drive.htm
Brian
My website:
www.astrobri.com
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1410
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001
From: Cesare [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Hi Bob,
What you ask is possible and can be cheep to do as well. Two years ago I
too was looking into ways of doing this and a Hasselblad user in America
replied to my question of how to go about making a Kiev 88 (NOT the 30mm
lens for the Pentgon 66
Arsat C 74 (This would indicate the register for the Pentagon)
Atsat B 84.1 (The lens I have is Arsat B with register at 84.1)
As Hasselblad lenses have a register of 74.9 you must use the 30mm lens
made for the Kiev 88 (or whatever they call it now). The Kiev lens will
give you a gap of 9.2mm in which to fit the collar and hassy mount, I
found that a collar of 7.8mm and the Hassy mount gave me the registration
of 84.1mm thereby able to focus to infinity. I have a PDF file (made on a
Apple mac) showing photos of my conversion. My friend Tsun, from America
gave me his plans for me to copy so I DO NOT TAKE ANY CREDIT for the
conversion as all I had to do was follow his plans and its he who
deserves all credit in not only doing it but most of all sharing his
work. His email address was
[email protected]> I don't know if he still has the info on his
computer but if he has I=B9m sure he'll be only to pleased to be of help.
When he sent me the plans I got an engineer her in the United kingdom
make me the collar for 45 pounds (that=B9s around $60) an all in one mount
he drilled the holes for the three screws that hold the Kiev mount to the
lens and also the eight holes that hold the hassy mount to the Kiev mount
all I had to do was to take out the Auto aperture pins and change the
direction of the spring to convert the auto aperture to manual aperture.
The lens in the United Kingdom cost New 168 UK pounds (around $250.00) so
all in all around 3 to 4 hundred $ for a 30mm lens for a hasselblad oh
and by the way I=B9ve also have had a Arsat 500mm f5.6 lens converted to a
Hassy mount. When I asked the UK importers about this lens they had not
heard of one and would let me know if one existed, a few weeks later they
came back to me saying their Russian contacts in Moscow knew of plans
for this lens but didn=B9t know if one was going to be made, a few months
later they said if I wanted one they would get me one to order and after
only six weeks after that the contacted me to tell me the lens was ready
to pick up (the UK importers are around 90 miles away from me, and here
in the UK we tend to think 50 miles is a long way to go) looking at the
lens serial number its 00047.
If you would like me to send you **my** PDF file send me your email
address and I'll send you it. As for the one from Tsun with all the info
I think it only fair for you to ask him for it, as its his hard work
That's gone into it not mine.
Hope this is of help
cesare
>Hi List of Huggies,
>
>Just got a 2000FCW (thanks Austin!) and am moving to expand my creative
>possibilities-
>
>I know that the Kiev 88 lenses can be converted for use on Hasselblad 200x
>bodies, and I have a name and # (Stan Nycz, Int'l Camera Repair Toronto,
>800/340-5937) but I have some questions from others who may be already usi=
ng
>these...
>
>I've acquired an Arsat 30mm lens. I have a extension tube I never use, whi=
ch
>I gather I can send to Stan to use as the lens mount. When the conversion =
is
>done, what are you missing? I mean I assume the lens will focus and the
>aperture ring will work like a normal F lens... yes?
To: [email protected]
From: Tim Victor [email protected]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [medium-format] 42mm Lens Adapter?
--- jawewers [email protected]> wrote:
> Does anyone know of an adapter to allow use of 42mm thread lenses on
> the Kiev 60 or Salyut-C body? Thnaks. Jeff.
I haven't heard of one being available commercially. Maybe someone else
knows of something, but it's a tough trick to pull off. Even if you get
the mount physically connected, the lens is still sitting too far from
the plane of film and won't be able to focus correctly.
Here's a page from one of the most clever lens hackers I know of. He's
kinda sorta gotten it to work. It might give you an idea of why it's a
hard thing to do:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dnlflanagan/Xconverter.html
Hope this helps,
Tim
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
Subject: [camera-fix] projection lenses
Hello,
I was offered these projection lenses for a build it
yourself opaque projector(slide projector)from Herbach
& Rademan.
Which could be better on your opinion?
TM89OPT4296 is a angled compact projection lens $14.96
>TM97OPT3072 is a 50mm lens $6.95
>TM90OPT1308 is a 2" f1.6 projection lens $9.95
>TM98OPT3161 is a 114mm f1.3 tv projection lens $15.95
>TM96OPT2921 is a 8mm projection lens $5.95
>We do have a negative menisus lens TM92OPT2310 $3.50
>
Gab-
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
From: "H. Scott McCann" [email protected]>
Subject: 35mm Nikon lens on Bronica
To: "[email protected]" [email protected]>
Dear Colleagues:
I took a short Bronica S2a Extension tube and mounted a Nikon 35mm
lens mount from an old junker 35mm body on it. (Takes a little metal
smithing but nothing too difficult). Now attach a "trash" 35mm lens like an
old 135mm and you will have a first rate macro setup. Show the results to
your "Hasselbad" friends (aren't they fun to annoy?) and ask them to
duplicate for under $100. Lenses under 100mm make you work too close to
the camera. Lenses like the 135mm are very cheap and work just fine, longer
ones for shooting Cobras and thing like that. This trick works with 4X5
cameras also. Don't forget to allow for the extension tubes when
calculating the exposure.
Scott McCann
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ON-TOPIC adapting lenses on a SL66
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
> Computar used to make just such a ring to allow use of their
> enlarging lenses in shutters.
Thanks Bob ; it means that my idea to get such an adaptor is not
strange at all. In fact I did not try to check whether this was or not
a standard item somewhere. I noticed that (at least referring to the
Heliopan catalogue which looks fairly comprehensive) a M40x0.75 thread
is never used for filter mounts. It is M40.5
> BTW, that 150 without shutter might be ideal for adapting to an
> SL66, which brings this back on topic.
Yes ! focal plane MF cameras are nice to adapt non-original
shutter-less lenses (and Bob Monaghan will not contradict me ;-).
I've seen listed on German dealer web sites some long telephoto
modified by Zoerk to adapt on a SL66.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]>
From: [email protected] (Anton Elron)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Box camera front on LF/MF camera
Date: 15 Aug 2001
I don't know but I am currently putting a Polaroid front std on the
end of a modified extension tube for a 35mm Pentax. This is using a
front from a Polaroid highlander camera which has a rotating front
element for focus. If this works out I am going to do something with
the larger Polaroid front such as on the 800.
I think these lenses are just cheesy enough to be great portrait
optics. We will find out...
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Box camera front on LF/MF camera
From: "John Stewart see REAL email address in message." [email protected]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:21:43 GMT
He's something to try if you are bored with your current lens and have a
removable lens camera with bellows.
Bought a 116 film box camera with the intent of loading up some 70mm in it.
Then I found that the entire back of the Kodak was nailed to the
lens/shutter assembly with four small nails. A quick tug separated them.
This gave be a thin wooden box (leather covered) that contained a simple
lens, simple shutter and three f/stops.
Placed it on the front of my 4x5 and found it was roughly like a 90mm lens
and appears to cover the full 4x5 frame.
Should also work on an RB67 or whatever.
With a Speed Graphic, you can use the back shutter or the one from the box
camera. View cameras will of course have to use the box shutter.
Don't know if ALL 116 box cameras come apart this easy.
John
From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Image circles and convertible lenses
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001
Silver Image [email protected]> wrote:
>Does anyone in this august group know the relative image circle sizes
>of single components of convertible lenses?-Eg. - Does the 19" cell on
>my Cooke have a smaller IC than the 26" cell? And how are they related
>to the IC of the combined lens?
As a general rule the individual cells cover an image circle at
infinity focus about equal to their focal lengths, or about equal to
the image circle of the combined lens. The symmetrical types used for
comventibles are essentially wide angle lenses when used in
combination but the individual cells have rather narrow coverage.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
[email protected]
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]>
Subject: plungercam hassy
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]>
Mark Tucker, a professional photographer in Nashville I believe has done some
fabulous shots with his homemade "plungercam" (he calls it) where he adapted a
loupe as a lens to his Hasselblad. Also a section describing his modifications.
Website is www.marktucker.com I think
Love his work, very natural and alive.
I just got an old Polaroid cheapy with a plastic lens I'm going to try and
adapt to my Speed Graphic with a 120 back.
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002
From: kelvin [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Lens adapter
And in most cases, you will have severe light fall-off towards the edges
as the M42 lenses were mostly designed for a 24x36mm format.
Exceptions include some Zeiss Jena lenses made in the 30s with the flektostop
(did I spell that right) rear mount or some later lenses from other
manufactueres which had a screw off M42rear adaptor which could be
replaced by a P6 variant.
you wrote:
> jawewers at [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of an adapter to allow use of 42mm thread lenses on
>> the Kiev 60 or Salyut-C body?
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002
From: "uen1y" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Lens adapter
...
> (did I spell that right)
Flektoskop
> rear mount or some later lenses from other
> manufactueres which had a screw off M42rear adaptor which could be replaced
> by a P6 variant.
Only 300 and 500 mm Tele.
mfg u.e.
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" [email protected]>
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Finding a bad lens for a good camera
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001
Mark Anderson wrote:
>
> Suppose I'm intrigued by the fun some people have with toy cameras such
> as the Holga, w/ plastic lens. (I might buy one, but that's beside the
> point.)
>
> Suppose I occasionally want to take such a distorted, poor resolution
> photo with my Baby Linhof or 4x5 field camera (or even 35 mm SLR).
There's lots of bad lenses around: a magnifying glass, reading
glasses, cheap close-up lenses ....
Unscrew your good lens from it's shutter, mount the Apo-Krapagon
lens of your choice to the shutter with electrical tape and have fun.
Use a paper towel tube as a barrel and play around with pairs of
close up lenses - if the lens is symmetrical it will fix 1/2 of
the distortions.
Take the front cell from one lens and combine with the back cell
of another.
Use 1/2 of a tessar or cooke triplet.
You can also do the same with 35mm and MF using a bellows, works
great for 100mm & up.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio [email protected]
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Buying from Russia or Czech Republic
[email protected] wrote:
>This is not the answer that you want but the Jupiter 6 was never made for
the P6 -the drop off would be terrible.
Nathan
Why do you say this? The 2.8/18cm Olympia Sonnar certainly does
wonderfully in medium format work and with no discernible fall-off. It is
pretty much a given that any 35mm lens longer than 90mm focal length will
cover MF.
Marc
From chinese camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001
From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected]
Subject: A Chinese 120 SLR with Russian 5.6/300 lens
Today I tried to mount the Russian 5.6/300 mirror lens on the Great
Wall 120 SLR with a m42-39 adaptor ring and adjusted the forcusing
distance in two minutes. The adjusted lens still focuses to about
1.7M and give you a full frame image.
The lens can be found sometimes for about 50 USD in Beijing with 5
67x0.75 filters included.The camera I think I paid 15USD a few years
ago. What an amazing value for a 120 format outfit!
Zhang
From chinese camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001
From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected]
Subject: Re: A Chinese 120 SLR with Russian 5.6/300 lens
--- In chinesecameras@y..., "Per Backman" pbackman@a... wrote:
> tigerarm2000 wrote:
>
> >
> >Today I tried to mount the Russian 5.6/300 mirror lens on the Great
> >Wall 120 SLR with a m42-39 adaptor ring and adjusted the forcusing
> >distance in two minutes. The adjusted lens still focuses to about
> >1.7M and give you a full frame image.
> The 300mm is a lens for 35mm cameras? Focuses from infinity to
1,7m? Or the other way around?
The 5.6/300 is a lens for 35mm format and it is a multi coated Mirror
lens called MC3M-7 that was discussed some days ago on Russian
Cameras forum.The modified lens does not change focusing distance
very much still from about 1.7M-infinity.
> The Great Wall costed 995 Crowns here some ten years ago, I do not
know how many dollars that could have been then, some 150-160
perhaps.
Today a used DF-2 can be found for 30USD in Beijing.
Zhang
From: "John Nobiletti" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: FS: Diana to Mamiya lens Mods to fit MAMIYA 645
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002
Diana Lens Conversions:
I've been making lens conversions of Diana/Banner cameras to work on a REAL
camera body: The Mamiya 645 series for over 5 years. It works on ALL models
from the J body on up to the current PRO TL.
You get:
TL metering!
Polaroid back use- (so your client won't think you're nuts)
Full range of shutter speeds
A wider range of apertures (with the ability to customize your own!)
And of course, a true SLR viewfinder so you can really focus!
plus a 645 frame as opposed to 4x4cm (this allows you
to crop and place your center focus off center for
more creative composing)
Macro focusing with extension rings or bellows!
There was a write up in PhotoDistrict news a few years ago, and I've
produced over a hundred for Professional Photographers through out the
country.
Banners work really well - and Dianas wide open take on a whole new look.
I can custom set focusing ranges for individual preferences...
Email me if interested,
Doug Nobiletti
[email protected]
Soon to be working web site: http://home.hvc.rr.com/toylens/
