Related Links:
Macro Extension Calculator (Quick Disc) [9/2002]
Macrophotography Pages

The Bronica classic camera pages offer lots of photos and sections related to doing medium format macrophotography with the Bronica classic cameras, including the Bronica S, S2/A, EC and EC/TL.

Some Bronica classic camera models have features that make macrophotography easier. For example, the EC/TL models offer through the lens aperture priority automation, making some bellows exposure factor calculations extraneous. Similarly, the older Bronica S models and later Bronica EC and EC/TL offer mirror lockup, a useful feature in some macrophotography efforts.

Here is a short summary of macrophotography options:

• Accessory +-diopter lenses
  Many accessory plus diopter lenses are available that fit the 67mm (series VIII) filter threads of the Bronica normal lenses. The best closeup lenses have multiple elements cemented together, providing additional correction over aberrations usually present in single element lenses. Naturally, the cost is higher.
  

  These lenses typically come in +1, +2, +4 kits. Another option is a variable closeup lens that ranges from +1 to +10 diopter, variable by a focusing ring on the mount. The weakest magnification is from the +1 diopter lens, while +4 is much stronger. The effects are readily seen through the SLR viewfinder.
  

  This approach is very handy and relatively inexpensive, typically $20+ for a used 67mm three-lens kit. The kit is lightweight, small, and easily carried. Results are often quite good for the investment, especially with multi-element lenses. The cheaper single element lenses may exhibit more softness and other defects than other macro-methods.
  

  Re: Close up filters rec.photo.equipment.35mm From: Ross Frid [email protected] Date: Thu Jan 22 I guess I disagree with the other posts (so far). If you use the 2-element "filters" made by Canon or Nikon (called diopters), you should see very good results. In fact I use them regularly in my stock photo work, even tho I also own some very expensive micro lenses and gear. They are really very high quality. You don't have to be a Nikon or Canon user to use these, as they thread onto the front of your normal zoom or prime lens. Nikon only makes 52mm and 62mm versions. Canon makes more sizes but only in one magnification. The closeness depends on how close your lens focuses now. Have fun! -- Ross Frid Cadillac, Michigan, USA

  
  

• Reverse Lens Mounting Ring
  An accessory ring makes it possible to reverse mount the Bronica normal lens (67mm filter ring) onto the Bronica helical lens mount. Reverse mounted, the Bronica normal lens provides some excellent optical properties for macrophotography. Think of a reverse mounted lens as if the lens rear were pointing at film instead of the macro-object. The light path is the same, just reversed in direction through the lens. So the lens produces a large circa 1:1 style image in this position. Cost is low (circa $15-25 for adapter), but the range of object sizes is rather limited.
  

• Extension Tubes
  Bronica users can use one or more extension tubes in various combinations. Check the online S2a manuals for the range of magnification ratios provided by these extension tube sets with different lenses. There are typically 4 tubes in a set. One of the tubes, the CA tube, has an aperture lever for conveniently stopping down the lens. For the normal lens, the range is .36 to 1.08, or roughly one-third to just over full-size of the object on film. Cost is about $50 to $75 for a set of extension tubes. Extension tubes are often more convenient and sturdier than bellows in field use, albeit with much more limited range.
  

• Bellows
  Several Bronica bellows models are available. Different bellows fit different models, so be sure you get the right one! For example, the split mirror of the Bronica EC and EC/TL models required a different bellows than the S2/S2a.
  

  Bellows provide a continuous range of magnifications (Chart). You can use extension tubes to extend the bellows range. Lenses up to 200mm can be used, but the wide angle lenses give greater magnification ratios up to 3 1/2 life size onto film.
  

  Bronica offers a unique model 2 bellows with tilt and shift features. These view camera style movements makes it possible to place the plane of sharp focus where you want it on the object. Bronica's bellows is unique in allowing you to use the regular lenses not only for macrophotography, but also for infinity focusing. Many medium format lenses have minimum focusing distances that are very long compared to similar 35mm lenses with similar angles of coverage. Mounted on the bellows, the Bronica lenses permit you to get a huge range from infinity to macrophotography from your lenses. This singular advantage has convinced many pros to buy Bronicas for this feature!
  

• Commercial Macro Lens
  Unfortunately, only the 90mm f2.8 Zoomar Macro Kilar in a Bronica mount provides direct 1:1 macrolens operation.

• Homebrew Macro Lens
  Lens coverage is minimal at infinity, but becomes much larger at higher magnification ratios.

  ---

  From: [email protected] (Neuman-Ruether)
  Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
  Subject: Re: Macro options
  Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998
  

  >Of lens reversing, extension tubes, and the very high quality (two lens)
  >diopters, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
  

  
  

  Oh, where to start....? ;-) (BTW, add teleconverters to the mix...). What is preferable depends very much on the particulars. Starting with wide-angles, there is little option but teleconverters, which, when added to close-focusing wides, can give passable low-magnification macro results. Reversing wides on SLR's gives very high magnification, but the auto-diaphragm is lost. Quality can be reasonably good. Fast (faster than about f1.7) normal lenses don't generally work well for close-up use, but slower normals can be excellent with tubes, achromats (2-element diopters...), and telecoverters (or combinations) - or reversed. Short teles can also work well with these (but not reversed), though asymmetrical designs may not be very good on tubes. With longer tele lenses, tubes become less effective and achromats and teleconverters more effective and practical for increasing magnification. With zooms, the best solution is generally an achromat (zooms often become unsharp on tubes, are often impractical to reverse, and aren't any too sharp on teleconverters...). With any of these solutions (except reversal of wides, since you will hit diffraction limits too soon...), sharpest results may occur at f11-16 marked stop (the effective stop may be far smaller...). Using a TTL flash (mounted with the head at the lens end and aimed at the subject) can provide nice light and greatly simplify macro shooting. BTW, you can find some high-magnification "hand-held" macro work on my web page, under "photographs", "Bugs".
  

  David Ruether
  [email protected]
  [email protected]
  http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
  

  ---

  rec.photo.technique.nature
  From: [email protected] (Oleg "click!" Volk)
  [1] Re: Macro lenses vs Extension Tubes
  Date: Sun Nov 15 17:59:02 CST 1998
  

  My preference for field use was to put a reversed 50mm in front of a 90mm macro - get about 5cm focusing distance (acts as a high-quality +20 diopter) and can use the macro lens for fine-tuning focus.
  

  Get very sharp results that way. See lizard photos on my site.
  

  Added bonus: can use my EF lenses in front of Nikon lenses! Or my Nikon 50 in front of a 210mm view camera lens [get a postage stamp on a 4x5 sheet film]
  

  --
  --
  Oleg "will beg for links" Volk
  

  http://dd-b.net/olegv
  

  ---

  From: "Michael DeKelver" [email protected]
  Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
  Subject: Re: Ext Tube & Teleconverter Combo
  Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999
  

  I did tests with a Tamron 2x, Kenko AF tubes, and a micor Nikkor 105 AF-D
  

  Microscopically, the teleconverter begins to show its limitations at this magnification.
  

  Hint: Mount the tubes on the camera first, then the teleconverter, then the lens. This gives you more magnification from the teleconverter as it is further from the film plane. Quality is the same as lens/tube/converter/body. Expect zero DOF, I use at F64 with alot of flash.
  

  Michael DeKelver
  michaeldATnewforceDOTca
  

  Ron Ginsberg wrote
  

  >I have a Close-Up technique book and also a mag article about using a
  >teleconverter and extension tube in combo. One author states the
  >converter gets mounted on the camera body first and the other states the
  >tube goes on the body mount first.
  

  
  

  ---

  Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999
  From: Todd Martin [email protected]
  To: [email protected]
  Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Any Macro Lens for the Bronica S2A
  

  > Anyone had any luck with closeup lens?  I can't use the Nikkons like  the 6t
  > since both of these lens are 67mm and I think the 6T is 62mm....
  

  
  

  Hi Don,
  

  I've used my Nikon 6T on both the Zenzanon 100/2.8 and Zenzanon 200/3.5 with a stepping ring. When I used it last with the 100/2.8 it was for quasi-product photo on a white background. I looked for and didn't see any vignetting. I don't have the Nikkor 75/2.8 (yet) so I can't tell you if vignetting is a problem.
  

  I'm guessing I got near 1:1 with the 6T on the 200/3.5. I was shooting a very small mountain orchid -- and pleasantly supprised at the flower's size in the viewfinder. The working distance was great at about 18"-20" (if I remember right).
  

  I'm still on the steep part of the learning curve with macro work, but so far I've enjoyed it. In fact, I've thought about adding the Nikon 5T to my tool arsenal.
  

  Nothing like a high-magnification macro shot with a shallow-ish depth of field to show focusing errors. This is one of the reasons my EC-TL is in the shop right now...
  

  HTH,
  

  ~Todd
  

  ---

  From Nikon Manual Focus Mailing List:
  Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999
  From: "Andrea Denotti" [email protected]
  Subject: Stacked lenses/magnification rates
  

  Have any of you tried out the "stacked lenses" technique mentioned in John Shaw's "close ups in nature" book? And if yes, with which lenses?
  

  For those who don't know and for those who haven't read this fantastic book, it's a photomicrography technique that allows strong magnification rates by putting an inverted short focal length lens on the front of a longer focal length lens: practically using a standard lens just in the same way you would use a close up diopter.
  

  I've been using this technique since I started photographing, and I'm always amazed at the fact that nobody ( at least over here) uses it, and very few kno about it at all. I achieved very good results by combining a Canon 100-300mm f5.6 lens with a 50mm f1.8 some time ago. When I tried out the technique with my 100-300 Nikkor + a 35mm f 2.8 I had a lot of some problems with vignetting: even when using extra tubes I still couldn't stop down the lens further than f11 without darkening visibly the corners. I thought that the main reason was the insufficient maximum aperture, so I went out to look for a cheap 1.8 or 1.4 lens. I found a third party 50mm f1.8 and tried out the combi again: No vignetting at 300mm f32! But if I use the zoom at less than 300mm I start getting vignetting problems again. By adding 60mm of tubes I can zoom in and out from 100 to 300 with no problems at all.
  

  It's really great to be able to zoom at these huge magnifications! Now here comes the question: I know that a 50mm stacked on a 100mm gives me 2X magnification while stacked on 300 it gives me 6X ( "prime lens" focal length devided stacked lens focal length ). But what happens when you add 68mm of tubes? My vague impression is that the whole system magnifies much more, something like from 3X to 12X, but how to calculate the exact magnification rate in a stacked lens combination taking also into account the tubes? Anyway, if you haven't tried this technique yet, and if you're interested in photomicrography, I strongly suggest you do!
  

  Cheers
  

  Andrea
  

  ---

  From Nikon MF Digest:
  Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999
  From: "Andrea Denotti" [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Stacked lenses/magnification rates
  

  Gary,
  

  In order to mount the two lenses "face to face" you need a coupling ring. This is similar to a filter adapter or step-up ring, just that instead of having a male thread on one side and a female thread on the other, it has a male thread on both sides so that you can screw it into the filter thread of both the lenses. These things are difficult to find, so there are some DIY alternatives. The easiest solution I've found is to glue two cokin (P) filter adaptors (the ones that screw onto the lens) to eachother with a STRONG glue for metal.I find this to be enough but if you're afraid this is insufficient you can also add a few small bolts.There are also other ways of acheiving the same result, as long as you end up with with two male threads on either side of your contraption.Of course the thread sizes must match the size of the lenses filter threads, so in my case I bought a 52mm and a 56mm filter adapter.
  

  Hope this is clear enough otherwise let me know.
  

  Andrea
  

  >How do you connect the short lens to the long lens?
  >
  >Gary
  

  
  

  ---

  From Nikon MF Digest:
  Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999
  From: Mark Peterson [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Stacked lenses/magnification rates
  

  ...
  

  Mike Kirk makes such rings in a variety of sizes. I have his 52mm-52mm ring, which was reasonably priced, IMO, at $13.00 -- probably less than one would pay to piece together a DIY rig. His rings are available in a variety of different sizes to match various lens' filter ring sizes.
  

  You'll find them available on the Kirk website at
  

  http://www.kirkphoto.com/polarizers.html
  

  BTW, I'm not affiliated with Kirk Photo; just a happy customer.
  

  Mark
  

  ---

  From Nikon MF Digest:
  Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999
  From: Mark Walberg [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Stacked lenses/macro coupling rings
  

  B&H sells these, too. They call them macro coupling rings. They've got lots of sizes, costing between 7.95 and 9.95. I've got some and they work fine.
  

  See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/photo/acc/stepping/macrocoupling.html
  

  Mark Walberg
  

  ---

  From Nikon MF Mailing List:
  Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999
  From: "Andrea Denotti" [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Stacked lenses/magnification rates
  

  [email protected] wrote:
  

  >Thanks Andrea.
  >
  >Does it make much difference how much space is taken up by the adapter?
  >
  >Gary
  

  
  

  Yes it does. The further away the front element of the inverted lens is respect to the front element of the lens mounted on the camera, the more pronounced vignetting may occur. But this is a concern only in certain cases. With some lens combinations such as when using a zoom or when the inverted lens has a small maximum aperture, heavy vignetting may occur. In other cases there's no problem at all.If you do have a problem with vignetting then you must add tubes, and as I said, the further away the two front elements of the lenses are from eachother, the more tubes will have to be added in order to get rid of the darkened corners in the picture. So, can't anyone help me out with the calculation of the magnification rates in "stacked lenses" combinations?
  

  Andrea
  

  ---

  From: [email protected] (C Lanier Benkard)
  Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
  Subject: Not all 100mm Macros are alike!
  Date: 20 Aug 1999
  

  I have used the Zeiss 100/2.8 macro extensively and was recently using a Canon 100/2.8 macro expecting to be able to do the same sorts of things, but found to my surprise that I had to get so close to the critters I was photographing that they would run away. The lesson of the day was that just because it says it is "100mm" does not mean that that focal length is maintained at short focus, and the differences are significant (12-17" for 100mm macro lenses). It turns out that the Pentax, Zeiss, and Minolta lenses are "truer" to their stated focal length throughout the focus range than the Nikon or Canon lenses. For example, a Pentax 100/3.5 Macro gives you nearly the same lens to subject distance as a Canon 180 macro. I have compiled a list of working distances below. What's really annoying about the Canon and Nikon systems is that to get a decent working distance (>12") you have to spend big bucks for a slow lens: (Canon 180/3.5 is $1300 and Nikon 200/4 is $1100).
  

  Lens                   Lens to Subject Distance at 1:1
  -------------------    ------------------------------- 
  Zeiss 60/2.8 Macro     10"
  Tamron 90/2.8 Macro    11.4"
  Canon 100/2.8 Macro    12"
  Nikon 105/2.8 Macro    12"
  Pentax 100/2.8 Macro   12"
  Sigma 105/2.8 Macro    12.3"
  Minolta 100/2.8 Macro  14.4"
  Zeiss 100/2.8 Macro    16"
  Pentax 100/3.5 Macro   16.9"
  Canon 180/3.5 Macro    18.8"
  Nikon 200/4 Macro      19.4" 
  

  
  

  ---

  From: Anders Svensson [email protected]
  Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
  Subject: Re: 55mm MACRO LENSES ARE IMPRACTICAL, OVERPRICED AND USUALLY UNNECESSARY
  Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999
  

  Artur Swietanowski skrev:
  

  > SpooRL wrote:
  > >
  > > From: edromney 
  > >
  > > > Method 1-- Simply buy a good enlarging lens of 80 to 135mm such as
  > > >Componon, Comparon or Omegaron at low cost in a trade fair. They are
  > > >quite equal to macro lenses and the simple diaphragm is much more
  > > >accurate at the small apertures used in  this work. Mount your enlarging
  > > >lens  on a body cap
  > >
  > > I'm interested in trying this,
  >
  > Actually, there's a company that makes exactly this kind of thing
  > (and then a few more interesting items) using a enlarger lenses.
  > I have a feeling it may not exactly be cheap, though...
  >
  > See  
  >   http://www.zoerk.com/
  > and esp.
  >   http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_mima.htm
  >
  > > but how to cut the cap and mount the
  > > lens so that everything is flush and square?
  > > it seems that even a minor aberration
  > > would be "magnified" in actual use...
  >
  > Actually, the Zoerk company makes use of this by making tilt & shift
  > adapters as well. As long as the lens is one unit, it'll produce
  > perfect pictures, but the inaccurate mounting in a self-made macro
  > may cause a (constant) tilt & shift. In either case, it would be
  > unnoticable, as long as the imperfect fitting is not plain 5 mm and
  > 15 deg off.
  >
  > Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Zoerk. But if they wanted 
  > (by any chance) to send me the T&S, Micro and pinhole adapters for
  > my Canon EOS, I'd be delighted.
  >
  > Regards,
  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  > Artur Swietanowski               http://www.bigfoot.com/~swietanowski 
  >....
  

  
  

  As for adapting strange optics to cameras, there are several possibilities that might work:
  

  One is to use a (plastic) body cap, Romney style.
  

  Then, it might be possible to find a M42 adapter that fits the body in question. Many enlarger lenses are M39, like old Leica lenses, and I believe that there are adaptors available between M42 and M39.
  

  A reversing ring, the cheap third party variety can also be used as a mounting adapter.
  

  A cheap extension ring can be used by cutting it off and glueing/soldering a suitable plate on it. I used a Nikkor extension ring to make a Nikon adapter for a Minolta bellows - works pretty well.
  

  Really, the problem is all about centering any hole and right angle cutting.
  

  --
  Anders Svensson
  [email protected]
  

  ---

  From: edromney [email protected]
  Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
  Subject: Re: 55mm MACRO LENSES ARE IMPRACTICAL, OVERPRICED AND USUALLY UNNECESSARY
  

  Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999
  

  > Boon-Li, why not tell us about your idea about not not actually needing a
  > ring light ? I am interested.
  

  
  

  Yes that is quite possible..simply put the shutter on time , darken the room, stop way down and take a 60w bulb in a car trouble light and move it in a circle around the lens. I also edge- lit many of my leaf shutter mechanisms in the repair text with only one strobe , a $6 used pocket one, which I snapped 4 or 5 times in a circle around the subject while the lens was open. . These pix look OK--- even if printed on a Multilith 1250 offset or a laser printer. An upcoming article in Camera Shopper will also have pix made this way. Photography is 2/3 technique, 1/3 equipment. And if it will do the job of a new camera who cares how your camera is!
  

  Ed Romney http://www.edromney.com
  

  ---

  From Bronica Mailing List:
  Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000
  from: [email protected]
  Subject: Old Bronicas in the New Millenium
  

  ..
  

  Looking through my old stuff I found an old Bronica bellows, which I will start to use for adapting barrel tele lenses.
  

  This is a rather unknown one - made by Novoflex (the same basic bellows as was made for Primarflex , 1954 Exakta 66 and perhaps other medium format cameras).
  

  On the front is a standard Bronica focal plane camera lens mount for normal 75MM lens etc. and internally threaded for 57MM. The back or camera mount is the early type for Bronica Deluxe or "S" - so I would date this as pre-1965. I can adapt it with the Bronica Bellows adapter which converts the old camera mount to S2-A type mount.
  

  It has no rises or falls or turns like the Bronica bellows - but is a simple straightforward unit.
  

  Just thought I would tell the Bronica users of Deluxe through ECTL2 that this exists - as you may find one inexpensively.
  

  Best of everything in 2000!
  

  - Sam Sherman
  

  ---

  From Hasselblad mailing list:
  Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000
  From: Jim Stewart [email protected]
  To: [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Macro photography and DOF
  

  olenberger wrote:
  

  >     I have a Leica M4 with a Visoflex and bellows, and I use a 90mm Elmar
  > lens head with the bellows for macro photography.  I also have a Hasselblad
  > 500CM with an 80mm CFT*.  I am considering renting a bellows for the Blad,
  > and either renting a 135mm Makro Planar or using my own 80mm with the
  > bellows.  (In addition to being optomized for macro work, the Makro Planar
  > has the advantage over the 80mm Planar of going to smaller f-stops for more
  > depth of field.)
  >     For non-macro work, I believe that using a "normal" 50mm lens with the
  > 35mm Leica, I get more DOF than using the "normal" 80mm lens with the MF
  > 'Blad (assumming the same subject distance and f-stop).  To get equivalent
  > DOF in medium format, I would have to stop down the lens about  a stop and a
  > half.  (Does someone know the exact value?)
  >     Now my question, which pertains to macro work:  If I shoot 1:1 in 35mm
  > format at, say, f22, will I get greater DOF than shooting 1:1 in medium
  > format using the same f-stop?  Or would it be the same?  Would this depend
  > on the focal length (i.e., 80mm vs. 135mm)?  My theory is that in the medium
  > format case, the subject distance would be greater for 1:1 magnification,
  > and this would provide more DOF -- maybe compensating (exactly?) for the
  > loss of DOF inherent in normal MF photography.  If the DOF is the same for
  > both formats, I might rent the bellows; if it is less for MF, I will stick
  > to my old Leica.
  > -Fritz Olenberger
  

  
  

  First of all, nothing starts a flame war faster in a photo group than a discussion of depth of field, particularly a discussion comparing 35mm and MF. That said, I'll give my opinion and it's just that.
  

  Only 2 things determine depth of field, aperture and image magnification. For example, if your subject is producing a 1/2" high image on your film and your aperature is the same, your depth of field will be the same whether you are shooting 35mm or 8x10. The reason that MF is said to have less depth of field is that you would normally fill the frame with the image resulting in greater magnification and less depth of field. Now there are arguments that with smaller format, the film resolution limits the overall resolution before depth of field does, hence larger format is better, etc, etc.
  

  As for how to do macro work with a Hasselblad, I've tried the 80 with proxars, a 135 with bellows,a 120 with bellows and extension tubes. I've settled on using the 120 and tubes. The 80 with proxars works surprisingly well. It's a cheap (by Hasselblad standards) approach and if I'm traveling with one lens, I'll take a couple along with me. The 135 with bellow is legended to be technically the best approach. I've rented the 135 and used it with manual bellows and I really can't see the difference between it and the 120. I can't afford the auto bellows and I've found the manual bellows to be a total pain in the butt to use. Besides, even if you go with the auto bellows and the 120, you'll still probably need at least one short tube because the minimum length of the bellows isn't always short enough. So I've ended up with a 120 and a set of 3 tubes. I get the auto operation with the tubes and a nice medium-short tele for general work. Used tubes come up on ebay all the time and there is generally little that can go wrong with them.
  

  There are two main problems with using the 80 for macro work. The first is the f22 limit on stopping down. I routinely use f32 with small product shots and am very pleased with the results. The second problem is that the short working distance between the subject and the object can make lighting and composition difficult and also causes a keystone effect if the object has significant depth.
  

  Finally, Wildi's book has an excellent chapter on closeup photography with many helpful charts on depth of field.
  

  ---

  From Hasselblad Mailing List:
  Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000
  From: ULF SJOGREN [email protected]
  Subject: SV: Close up with little money
  

  Here is a little advice that will give you approx 1,8 :1 magnifaction with the equipment you have, but you have to invest $2 or so in a roll of tape.
  

  This is NO joke. Attach the 150 mm lens to the camera. Turn the 80 mm lens front to front with the Sonnar and tape them together that way. Two turns of nontransparent tape is enough. Now you have a very good macro lens, constructed as those lenses generally are. The Planar shutter/diafragm shall not be touched, that is leave the f at 2.8, all exposure corrections are made on the Sonnar lens. The planar "steals" approx. 2 steps but so does the ext. tube.....
  

  Use this 2 step reduction as a "rule of thumb. If you have a finder with built-in metering it is of course no problems.
  

  Of course this can be made with all kind of combination but older Distagon lenses must be avoided as the front lens can get scratched.
  

  Good luck
  Ulf Sj�gren
  Sweden
  

  ---

  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 bronica mailing list:
  Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 
  From: "dgoldfar" [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Closing aperture whild reversing lens
  
  You could tape or otherwise fix the lever, or if you have a Bronica
  extension tube C-A, you could use that on the mount end of the lens
  (so it's camera-helical-reversing ring-lens-extension tube), since it
  stops down the lens by default and has a lever to open the aperture
  for focusing.
  
  David G.
  
  --- In [email protected], "qkarndt" qkarndt@y... wrote:
  > When I use a reversing ring to reverse my 75 mm lens on my Bronica S
  > for some closeup and macro work, how does one close the aperture down?
  > I do not want to have to hold the little lever to close the lens to
  > the selected aperture. Wedging a matchstick in the slot to hold it
  > closed doesn't seem right either. Thanks, Quinten
  
  
  
  End of Page