Old Nikon lenses with new DSLR camera

I discover old lenses in my drawer regularly .. which is pretty close to the 'free' experience! :p

..Like I now in recent months have my 45/2.8 and 80/1.9 Mamiya lenses on my D800 .. they're excellent wide-open! really no complaints.

And the adapter to mount them adds that little extension to allow them to focus to infinity AND somewhat closer than their Nikon-peers would have (remember they were designed for the pretty large mirror box of the 645 camera's).

:)Enjoy! OP gone or not.

I discover old lenses in my drawer regularly ..

I wish I had a magic drawer like that!

remember they were designed for the pretty large mirror box of the 645 camera's

You can hardly forget it with a lens like the 50mm f/4 shift.

Best Mamiya performer tried so far has been the Sekor-C 300mm f/5.6. No CA or corner smearing whatsoever on a 24x36mm sensor.

Sekor-C 300mm f/5.6

Image circle for 6x6cm film?

Image circle for 6x6cm film?

6x4.5cm actually (9mm difference in the diagonal), but that's irrelevant.

 

If Mamiya could do it, in a relatively 'cheap', small and lightweight lens, then why couldn't all the designers of 300mm f/5.6 lenses made for the 35mm format?

Mamiya-shift Joe.. :p that's a lovely gem!

I wish I had a magic drawer like that!

You do ! :cool: (see above, haha!) Well, admittedly, my drawer has fixed dimensions after all, and so is the content of affordable Nikon (..and these two Mamiya) lenses and adapter/extension rings collected in my twenties and thirties. But they make for great puzzling .. also for stacking combinations trying to figure out the 'best' micro-photography set-up.

 

..And meanwhile Nikon is going broke, because I'm so content with all the backward-compatible gear that still works..

Spending my money on second-hand jazz records, instead of new-and-shiny Z-somethings or a D850 ;)

also for stacking combinations trying to figure out the 'best' micro-photography set-up.

Don't waste any more time on that quest. Get a bellows, an M39 adapter and almost any decent 6 element enlarging lens.

 

You might need an M39 reversing ring as well for really high magnifications. These are like Dodo eggs to find, so I used an M39 T-mount outer, with a filter step-down ring inside it. Most enlarging lenses have either a 40.5 or 43mm front filter thread.

Edited December 24, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

This is good advice Joe! Although I've heard about the merits of enlarging lenses for years, they never (nor appropriate adapter rings) found their way into my magic drawer.

Admittedly: above advice would make many an item in the drawing truly obsolete .. my flirting with the Laowa/Venus Optics offerings might do the same.

Although I've heard about the merits of enlarging lenses for years, they never (nor appropriate adapter rings) found their way into my magic drawer.

There was a time, about 6 or more years ago, when really decent enlarging lenses were being almost given away. I stocked up on Rodagons and Componons, plus a few others at that time - even though I already had a few good enlarging lenses from my wet-printing days.

 

Lately the price of 'famous name' enlarging lenses has rocketed back up again, but there are a few lesser-known gems that still go for comparative peanuts. Komuranon-S, Minolta CE-Rokkors, Hoya and some Durst Neonons spring to mind. Fujinon printing lenses too, if you can find 'em.

 

To be honest, most 6 element enlarging lenses follow much the same optical formula, and you'd be hard-pressed to tell prints from them apart. However, as macro lenses they vary more widely, with, IME Rodagons generally performing more consistently. Not in every case, but as a good bet for your money.

Since we're going all over the place with this thread, and the OP seems long-gone.. allow me to ask the subsequent question(s) to rodeo_joe|1 on-topic/off-topic (depending on your starting point):

1) ..I see Rodagon 50mm's on offer for € 60-80 here in the Netherlands (2.8, 4.0) .. is there a must-have/best-avoid advice there too?

2) ..and (lazy question): how do I connect an enlarger lens to a Nikon F-mount?

Get an apo-rodagon at least. It's important.

An apo-rodagon-n (n for new) is even better.

Older achromatic enlarging lenses are good for b&w enlarging (and then the better corrected lenses give better results still), but as a taking lens not so good.

apo-rodagon-n

I hope they're good, 'cos they are very far from inexpensive!

 

80mm f4's are ~ £4/500 used.

 

Are the 6 element Nikkor ELs any good?

Edited December 27, 2020 by mike_halliwell

I hope they're good, 'cos they are very far from inexpensive!

Indeed. You get what you pay for. Cheap enlarging lenses are not great, neither as enlarging lens nor as taking lens.

Very true, but the price to IQ graph is never straight. To get a 5% increase in quality often takes 50% more cash, especially at the high end.

 

But yes, cheap is very, very rarely a good place to start.... just like tripods!

2) ..and (lazy question): how do I connect an enlarger lens to a Nikon F-mount?

By using a simple M39 flange adapter, but connecting the lens direct to the camera body is pretty useless. You need a bellows with a Nikon fitting at the camera end. This needn't be a Nikon bellows. For years I used a set of Pentax bellows with an M42-to-F adapter fitted. Plus an M42-to-M39 reducer at the lens end.

Get an apo-rodagon at least. It's important.

No, it's not.

In most circumstances you'll see absolutely no difference between an Apo-Rodagon (N) and a standard Rodagon or Componon-S when used as macro taking lenses. Although the newer versions of enlarging lenses generally have better multi-coatings.

 

If you scroll to the last page of this thread you can see comparison macro copies of film I made with a 50mm Componon-S, a 50mm f/2.8 Durst Neonon, and a 50mm Apo-Rodagon N. I'd defy anyone to pick the Apo-Rodagon copies out of the bunch.

Yes, it is. Unless, maybe, all your macro work is copying, from flat to flat.

Yes, it is.

OK then q.g.

Post your examples showing exactly why using an Apo-Rodagon for macro work is 'important'.

 

I won't be holding my breath.

 

Whereas if you visit this link and this link you can see examples of macro shots taken with 'cheap' Komuranon and Yashica enlarging lenses. Together with pictures of the rig used to get those pictures.

 

I have no connection with that website whatsoever. It's just a convenient resource for showing examples of macro work done with various enlarging lenses.

 

The Yashica 40mm f/3.5 examples look excellent IMO, and that lens makes no claim to an 'apo' epithet. It also looks physically identical to the Hoya branded 40mm f/3.5 enlarging lens that I own.

If you scroll to the last page of this thread

if you visit this link and this link

Yup, went to all the links and it's as i thought.

 

Nnnn... Not worth it...:D

 

Middle of the range has good enough IQ. Things like build quality and 'drop resistance' may be better on a more expensive lens, but...

 

It would be interesting if an inexpensive enlarger lens for 6 x 6cm has OK corners/edges when used on/with/for 35mm uses?

(snip)

It would be interesting if an inexpensive enlarger lens for 6 x 6cm has OK corners/edges when used on/with/for 35mm uses?

 

It always seemed to me that 35mm photography started when small, high quality lenses became available.

 

Smaller lenses are easier to make, high quality harder, but then they balance out.

 

Then, with film speed, resolution(grain), camera motion limiting shutter speed, and depth of field limiting apertures, the advantage moves to smaller formats.

 

Not quite as obvious for enlarging lenses, but 6x6 film usually uses 75mm lenses, and 35mm film usually 50mm lenses. You could increase the enlarger height to get a big enough enlargement from 35mm film. But for a given print resolution, you don't need as good a lens for larger format. However, for enlarging camera motion isn't a problem, and mostly not depth of field, either.

 

All of which means that I don't know how to compare enlarging lenses of different focal lengths.

I guess the longer focal length El lenses give you more working distance at the expense of more extension required when used for bellows macro work.

Here's a non-flat but quite boring subject, picked to reveal the supposed superiority of an Apo lens. Shiny metal surfaces tend to show up LoCa quite well, or rather, quite badly.

One of the above was taken with the 50mm f/2.8 Apo-Rodagon N. The other lenses were a Schneider Componon-S, a Durst Neonon and a Komuranon-S. The only clue I'll give is that the Komuranon had the least good IQ, IMO.

 

All lenses were used reversed and set to f/5.6. The subject was a Leica-type cable-release 'nipple' 9.5mm in diameter. So the magnification was about 3.5x at the sensor.

 

Bonus lens; a Hoya 40mm f/3.5 Super EL.

The magnification here was well in excess of 4x.

 

I see very little sign of LoCa in any of the above images. Sharpness, however, was diffraction limited due to the bellows extension making the effective aperture smaller than f/22.

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

Of the fist three, the second one, the one you labeled apo-rodagon-n, indeed shows less colour fault than the other two (who look remarkably identical, because they indeed are). Less purple and green on the collar.

The image labeled Neonon is also remarkably similar. Same lens again? Different aperture, and a slight nudge when changing aperture? Or rather only a slight nudge.

Edited December 29, 2020 by q.g._de_bakker

(who look remarkably identical, because they indeed are)

Indeed they are not.

The lenses used were as labelled, and at 100% viewing of the originals the Apo-Rodagon N still showed a small amount of colour fringing in OOF areas.

The Komuranon showed strong blue fringing, which only amounted to 2 or 3 pixels in an image height of over 7000.

 

So, yes, the Apo-Rodagon showed a very marginal improvement in one particular area of a very revealing (and very boring) subject. On a flower, insect or more colourful subject, that slight advantage would have been completely masked.

 

Is that worth 10 times the price of an 'ordinary' enlarging lens? Not in my book.

 

And if you're accusing me of lying about which lenses I used q.g., then we're still waiting for your own sample pictures - and you need your colour vision checking!

The lack of colour fringing on any of them is very welcome. Subjects like this tend to get purple bits very readily.

In the past with my now sold Nikon 105mm VR Micro, I've had to convert to CMYK and surpress the M. Oddly it didn't have much matching Green mess to remove. I suspect the lens was out of spec, but it was an oft reported flaw.

I might possibly have clicked on the wrong 'insert image' button above.

This is definitely the Componon-S.

So who was lying, Rodeo Joe? It's not as if it is difficult to see that two images are identical, pixel for pixel.

 

The improvement the Apo-Rodagon-N brings is quite apparent. You don't have to look hard.

Is it worth the money? Why would people spend more money on good glass than they would have to spend on Revuenon and such, which also produce images? And given the right subject, you might not even notice a difference between a Revuenon and a Summicron.

 

And if you don't see the purple and green bands, and the difference (and similarity) between the images, i suggest it is not me who needs to see an ophthalmologist.