Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,963   Posts: 1,523,171   Online: 794
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Stephanie Brim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,607
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    21
    The lenses I have now (J9 85/2, J-3 50/1.5, and J-12 35/2.8) were all either adjusted or will soon be adjusted. The 85 is focusing just a little off, methinks, and that is the one I need to send to someone.

  2. #12
    Mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    960
    If you really want to get into odd combinations and you don't mind leaving 35mm, an old Bronica S2a is a great camera to hack lenses onto. It's got a focal plane shutter so all you need to figure out is how to mount a lens to it. The camera has three (yes, three) separate mounts on it...a bayonet on the body itself, a bayonet on the focusing helicoil to which most lenses are mounted, and a set of 57x1mm threads on the helicoil. Of course, you can ignore all of those and just tape a lens to the body of the camera. Or make focusing tubes out of PVC pipe...two tubes, one inside the other with the lens mounted on the end. (You can do a lot of the same things with most 35mm SLRs, but the Bronica has the advantage of giving you much bigger negatives and a much larger body to loop rubber bands around and to stick tape onto.)

    If you search the web for "Plungercam" you'll see where I got some of my inspiration...a focal plane Hasselblad with a loupe for a lens. I've put large format lenses on my Bronica, loupes, 35mm lenses, single-element lenses...just about anything I can find that'll focus an image. Unfortunately none of this stuff is scanned, but once I get moved in with my fiance' this summer I plan to spend some time scanning my existing work. (I'll be without a darkroom for a few months...ACK!)

    One other note: There seem to be a lot of adapters for sale on eBay for mounting other lenses onto Canon EOS bodies. I know that there are adapters for Nikon, M42, Contax/Yashica, and Leica-R lenses, and there are probably more. If I was looking for a body on which to mount lots of different 35mm lenses, I'd think seriously about a Canon EF-mount body.

    Thanks for bringing up this subject...you really put a smile on my face just reminding me of all of the weird combinations of lenses and cameras that I've tried over the years.
    Film is cheap. Opportunities are priceless.

  3. #13
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Dave,

    I was hoping you would chime in here! If there is a lens hacking idea out there, you either tried it, heard of it, or can tell someone whyit won't work! I want to see some of those super fast apperture lenses hacked onto a camera!

    Peter.

    PS:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo
    ...One other note: There seem to be a lot of adapters for sale on eBay for mounting other lenses onto Canon EOS bodies. I know that there are adapters for Nikon, M42, Contax/Yashica, and Leica-R lenses, and there are probably more. If I was looking for a body on which to mount lots of different 35mm lenses, I'd think seriously about a Canon EF-mount body....
    You know, the funny thing is, the hardest to find, really, really scarce is a FD lens to EF body adapter... I have seen just about everything else, but those rarely if ever... Funny, huh? I would think Canon would think of thise when they changed mounts - but I guess that's why they made so many of their users so angry... and why I chose the FD mount and all that cheap, cheap glass!

  4. #14
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephanie Brim
    jlw on rangefinderforums.com gave me an idea because I am incredibly fond of the look I get from a very crappy $2 point and shoot camera: mount the lens on my Canon P. . . .
    You evil, evil girl! Plastic lenses on a Canon P? If you must commit such a sin, extension tubes for that Canon mount should be available on ebay. Plastic lenses can be retained by a couple of sleeves held by friction within the front extension tube. When the desired focus is determined, the sleeves can be glued in place. An SLR is much better for this work, especially if it has the M42 mount. Such cameras should be give-away items to a good home. Making an adaptor from lens mount to PVC pipe will make such experimenting easier.

    The easiest way to experiment with odd lenses will be with a 4x5 that takes a flat wood lensboard. The lensboards can be cut on a table saw and glued up from Masonite or plywood. 1/4 inch Baltic birch plywood from hobby shops is elegant for this. Of course there may be a few purists that will look askance at such evil.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones
    <snip> Of course there may be a few purists that will look askance at such evil.
    Jim, I don't look askance at the evils you and Stephanie advocate and perhaps even practice, but they puzzle me. I can't understand what's so appealing about setting up to make fuzzy images on film. Why not just get a $10 digicam and be done with it?

    Cheers,

    Dan

  6. #16
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,280
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones
    The easiest way to experiment with odd lenses will be with a 4x5 that takes a flat wood lensboard. The lensboards can be cut on a table saw and glued up from Masonite or plywood. ...
    No, the easiest way is to get one of these:

    It's an old plate camera, 13x18cm (takes 13x18cm or 5x7" film, and 4x5", 9x12cm and 6.5x9cm film with adapters), with a universal iris lens mount. Anything can be mounted on this camera, as long as the diameter is less than 8cm and greater than 8mm. If the back focus is less than 20mm or more than 600mm I'll have to use another camera, but I have that too. Only with less film size adaptability.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DSCN0423.JPG  
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,322
    Shutter, Ole?

  8. #18
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,280
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Shutter, Ole?
    Hat? Packard shutter? For small lenses (like the 180mm Dagor in the picture) I have a Thornton-Pickard rollerblind shutter I can put on the front of the lens.

    But most of the time I use slow film, small aperture and a hat.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  9. #19
    rml
    rml is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    18
    Try an Epson R-D1 with an M-LTM adapter, with an LTM-M42 adapter, with a Zenitar 16mm fish eye, or a Meyer Optik 30/3.5. Odd? Maybe but it works, and for me the 30/3.5 is a fine lens with a nice image result. The whole setuo, however, does get quite big. More in the size of an SLR than your average rangefinder.

  10. #20
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Jim, I don't look askance at the evils you and Stephanie advocate and perhaps even practice, but they puzzle me. I can't understand what's so appealing about setting up to make fuzzy images on film. Why not just get a $10 digicam and be done with it?

    Cheers,

    Dan
    Well, obviously because its a different, more soulful type of fuzzy
    The logical side of my brain agrees with your sentiment 100%, yet I have to say, in the end I like "beautiful flaws"... Something too clinical about technical perfection.
    Or, most likely, in my case the flawed lenses cover for my shortcomings as a photographer. Perhaps I'll grow out of it...

    Peter.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin