Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,886   Posts: 1,520,614   Online: 1039
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730

    Nikon F mount (35mm) 50mm vs 55mm Macro for belows work?

    Hey all,

    For a number of reasons, I am going outside my normal system (Minolta) to purchase a Nikon system bellows and prime lens for macro work (1:1 or larger).

    Is there any advantage to buying the 55mm macro over a standard 50mm prime when being used on the bellows?

    I will be shooting frames from Super 8mm, Regular 8mm and 16mm film prints, color and b&w.

    Any opinions, or rather, what's your opinion?

    Camera body will be whatever cheap, manual Nikon body I can find to dedicate to the copy stand...

    (opinions, on APUG?)



    Frank

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    346
    In your shoes and assuming that you will be enlarging your copy negs I would go for the 55 as its supposed to be better for shooting flat stuff - better sharpness at the edges and corners. If you were shooting bugs and flowers and other 3D subjects you probably wouldn't know the difference.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Interesting. For flat stuff and greater than 1:1 reproduction, why not an enlarging lens mounted to the bellows? That would seem to be perfect for the job, and you can certainly hunt up a 39mm to Nikon F mount adapter somewhere.

  4. #4
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,239
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    Interesting. For flat stuff and greater than 1:1 reproduction, why not an enlarging lens mounted to the bellows? That would seem to be perfect for the job, and you can certainly hunt up a 39mm to Nikon F mount adapter somewhere.
    I have an old reflex focusing bellows (marked "Made in West-Berlin USA-Sektor Germany") that mounts to Leica thread mount bodies and takes Leica thread mount lenses, AKA the standard 39mm enlarger thread mount. I have a number of 39mm mount enlarging lenses from 40mm up to 150mm that I've used on it with very good results, plus a couple of older 39mm mount "heads" of 135mm rangefinder lenses unscrewed from focusing barrels. The enlarging lenses do a fine job... you're working within their design parameters.

    Lee

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,318
    Hmm. So you're going to be shooting above 1:1. Hmm.

    Do you know that the 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AI/AIS is diffraction limited at and near the center of the frame at f/4? Well, it is. For what you want to do, if you can manage to get the extension needed there's nothing better than a reversed 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AI/AIS.

    Don't screw around with enlarging lenses, they're not as good. At the magnifications you need image quality at the edge of the frame is irrelevant.

    And don't bother shopping for a female M39-to-male Nikon F adapter, odds are it will cost more than a used 55/2.8 in good order.

  6. #6
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,239
    I misread the "1:1 or larger", thinking you meant larger field rather than greater magnification. Dan is correct about reversed lenses in that case.

    You might also want to try stacking lenses, reversing one in front of the other with a double-threaded filter ring, although this is obviously an unmatched system and results are luck of the draw, and you have to watch for vignetting.

    There are also true macro lenses made for higher magnification and bellows mounting, but these aren't common and I have no clue about used prices. For a quick reference on how these appear look at http://www.macrolenses.de/objektive....af26e989bd66b9

    Some people recommend using reversed C and D mount cine lenses for 8 and 16 mm movie cameras, but I don't have any experience with the results from that. I think you'd probably have a couple of those around to try given what I recall of your profession.

    Lee

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    I would definitely go with the Micro-Nikkor over the standard prime lens. Dan's right about the 55mm f/2.8. You can also get the older 55mm f/3.5 for even less money. There's an older Non-AI version of the 55mm - the 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor Auto - this lens is optimized for close-up work but doesn't perform as well at infinity. I picked mine up for $65.00. If you're interested, Here's some more info:

    http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

    Good luck with your project.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,318
    Within the constraints the OP has imposed on himself, nothing beats the 55/2.8. In fact at f/4 my 55/2.8 is very competitive with my 63/4.5 Luminar at f/4.5. That said, I'm surprised that he saddled himself with another system.

    Stacking lenses gives fixed magnification. IIRC, focal length of rear lens/focal length of front lens. The OP needs variable magnification to deal with all of the formats he wants to copy from.

    I don't think the OP needs enough magnification to justify using a reversed cine lens.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    Thank you all; you have given me a lot of great information.

    I have used a Rodenstock Enlarging lens with a bellows unit in the past on a 1:1 project and it worked out fine, but it tended to fall apart when I pushed in for higher magnifications.

    I REALLY would like a 105mm Printing Nikkor like we used to use on our motion picture optical printers, but the closest I can find at the moment is 1 150mm Printing Nikkor on FeeBay and starts at $1K bid with a buy it now $4K; my project can't justify that!

    Again, thanks to all.

    Frank

  10. #10
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,775
    If I already had a body and bellows, this old cheapskate might epoxy the rear mount from a junk-box extender to a 52mm filter (less glass) so that a reverse mounted Micro-Nikkor could be used on an existing system. Off-the-shelf Nikon components let you do the same without such effort. The Nikon Bellows PB-4, PB-5, or PB-6 let you focus by moving lens, body, or both together.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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