Reversing a lens for close-up

[david_gardner2]

The latest in a series of simple-minded questions.

 

I've read that people reverse lenses for macro photography using LF.

I can't figure out the logistics of this.

 

With all three of the lenses I own, the front and rear element

mounting threads are different diameters, i.e., I can't just swap the

front and rear elements.

 

This leaves the option of removing the lens/shutter assembly and

reverse-mounting the entire assembly. How, then, would you fire the

shutter, since it will be inside the camera?

 

Am I missing something really obvious?

 

As always, thanks in advance.

[craig_bridge]

It usually involves a male-to-male adapter for the thread size of your rear mounting thread and a step down (or up) ring from the larger (or smaller) front element thread size to the rear mounting thread size.

[anupam]

male-male adapters with different sized threads on either side are also available. Reversing a lens can be done with a wide angle or normal lens by itself - but yes, it's way easier with a focal plane shutter. You are probably better off using a reversed lens as a diopter with a male-male ring.

[dan_fromm1]

David, how close-up do you intend to shoot?

 

I ask because in general there's no benefit to reversing a lens made for shooting at distance at magnfications below 1:1.

 

Most of the people who carry on about using a reversed lens to get higher magnification shoot 35 mm, and for that format reversing rings (male camera mount at one end, male filter threads at the other) are fairly available.

 

If you want to work above 1:1, you might want to consider using a good grade of enlarging lens front-mounted on a shutter. I've shot a front mounted 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar facing normally on 2x3 as high as 4:1 with very, very good results, as in couldn't be told from shots taken with a 100/6.3 Luminar. It think the EPR is an extraordinary lens, but since its really just another late 1960s 6/4 Plasmat type enlarging lens a decent Componon or Rodagon or El-Nikkor should do too.

 

Note that any of these that has filter threads can be reverse mounted in front of a shutter using a custom threaded bushing. The bushing threaded like a filter at one end, to screw into a shutter at the other. And I believe that El-Nikkors are (were?) threaded externally at both ends to facilitate use reversed.

 

About bushings, I once had SKGrimes make one for reverse-mounting a 55/2.8 MicroNikkor on a #1 shutter. I'm sure that they'll make whatever you're willing to pay for.

 

Good luck,

[michael_briggs2]

<p>I've done this with enlarging lenses mounted in front of a shutter using off-the-shelf adapters from Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider. Many Nikon and Rodenstock enlarging lenses have front threads of 40.5 mm that can be used for reverse mounting.

The Nikon and Rodenstock adapters convert the 40.5 filter threads

to the 39 mm enlarging lens thread. Then the adapter from Schneider converts from the 39 mm enlarging lens thread to the thread of a #1 shutter.</p>

 

<p>While I have used a shutter, it isn't essential -- between the exposure increases for bellows extension and reciprocity correction, the exposures are so long that the exposures could be controlled with a lens cap, or by turning lights on and off.</p>

 

<p>Some of these adapters may no longer be available, in which case you may have to jury rig something, or have adapters custom made.

S. K. Grimes, Inc. is excellent for this kind of work.</p>

 

<p>I assume that you realize the technically correct meaning of "macro" is larger than lifesize imaging. If you really just mean closeups, with images on the film that are smaller than lifesize, you are probably better off not reversing the lens. The optical issue is that non-symmetrical lenses are designed to have the bigger thing, either image or object, one one side, and perform best in that orientation. A 50 mm enlarging lens is designed to enlarge a 24 x 36 mm negative to a 4x5 inch print (for example). Reversed, it will do an excellent job of imaging a 24 x 36 mm object to a 4x5 inch film. This is based on the optical principle that light paths are reversible. I have experimented with two enlarging lenses and found that using them in the theoretically correct orientation substantially improves performance. Of course, orientation will make no difference for a symmetrical lens, or if you stop way down.</p>

 

<p>Some previous threads: <i>Enlarging lens as macro lens, experimental result</i> at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00344S">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00344S</a>,

<i>Very macro LF photography</i> at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003848">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003848</a>

and <i>LF macro and micro</i> at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005sG6">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005sG6</a>.</p>

[mbrianmills]

In my use, I have seen very little difference between a reverse-mounted enlarger lens and my 65mm Schneider mounted the ?right way.? I have made images with 10:1 and greater with little visible difference in the result.

 

By the way, Schneider does have the mounting rings in stock for reverse mounting an enlarger lens to a shutter. Any camera shop can order from them even using a credit card if they don?t have an account.

[michael_briggs2]

The Schneider part number is on the adapter -- it is part 92-056002.

On a past thread where I recommended this part someone stated that it was discontinued, but hopefully they were misinformed. It converts from the 40.0 x 0.75 mm front threads of a #1 shutter to the 39 mm x 26 threads per inch of shorter focal length enlarging lens. To keep the bellows extension reasonable for macro work, you will want a focal length shorter than normal for the format. To reverse the lens, an additional adapter is needed. The adapters made by Nikon and Rodenstock for their enlarging lenses (filter threads to 39 mm x 29 tpi) are easier to find then the Schneider part

[digidurst]

Just curious... would a 135mm Nikon enlarging lens work well for the purpose of macro

photography? Thanks!!

[dan_fromm1]

Ellen, read the third response in this thread.

[tedharris]

And not to forget macro lenses which are available from Schneider, Rodenstock and (I think)

Nikon. If you want maximum resolution at real macro ranges, that is 1:1 or greater these are

your best bet for maximum image clarity.

[digidurst]

Dan - sorry, I was asking if that particular focal length (135) was a reasonable one for such

purposes.

 

Ted - aren't dedicated LF macro lenses kind of expensive?

[michael_briggs2]

To try to answer some of the more recent questions on this thread...

 

Ellen, reversed, the 135 mm El-Nikkor should work well for macro photography (few:1 reproduction ratios, image:object). Dan mentioned

using a 4 inch (100 mm) Pro Raptar and said that he thought that an El-Nikkor would would as well. What he didn't talk about on this thread is the limitation of the "long" focal length -- it will limit

the maximum magnification possible, depending on the maximum extension of your camera. The Lens Tutorial

(http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial)

gives equations relating image and object distance and magnification -- for a magnification M, the bellows extension is (M+1) f. So with a 135 mm lens, if you want 4x magnificaiton of the subject, you will a camera that can do an extension of 675 mm.

 

If you are interested in higher magnifications, shorter focal length

enlarging lenses can be obtained cheaply these days on the darkroom section of ebay.

 

Since the 135 mm El-Nikkor covers 4x5, you can also try it non-reversed for closeups (1:few).

 

The current dedicated LF "macro" lenses are optimized for 1:1 (Makro-Symmar and AM-ED Nikkor) or 1:few (Apo-Macro-Sironar) so they are really closeup lenses rather than macro lenses.

If this is your intended reproduction ratio range and the price is acceptable, one of these is the lens to buy. For true macro photography, many:1, there is no advantage to reversing a symmetrical lens.

 

AFAIK, there are no dedicated true macro, as oposed to closeup, LF lenses in current production. There are superb enlarging lenses in current production which can be used as macro lenses. Enlarging lenses are designed for reproduction ratios 1:few. Reversed, they become optimized for few:1 reproduction ratios.

If you want to argue that these lenses aren't capable of making fine images for macro photography, then you will also have to argue that there are no fine enlarging lenses in current production. It is a basic optical principle that optical light paths are reversible. If you can see someone's eye, then they can see yours.

 

 

In practice, unless the subject is flat and everything (film, lens, and subject) is perfectly aligned, depth-of-field is the issue and it will be necesssary to stop down. With enough depth to the subject, it will be necessary to stop down so far that all of the lenses will be equalized.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I use a 135mm F5.6 Schneider Componon with a 4x5 35Mp scan back; for shooting artwork; and closeup work; non reversed.

[dan_fromm1]

Michael, in my limited experience, from around 5:1 up its best to shoot wide open. Stopping down loses sharpness in the plane of best focus and everywhere else, so reduces DOF. I've found a few lenses that are best at all magnifications stopped down a stop or stop and a half, but the Luminars, Mikrotars, and Neupolars I've used all loose sharpness perceptibly in the plane of best focus when stopped down. This doesn't prevent me from using my 100/6.3 Neupolar at f/20, its smallest aperture, from 1:8 to 2:1.

 

This is in conflict with Bracegirdle, who shows an "optimum stop" (that gives best DOF consistent with no loss of general sharpness to diffraction) nomogram. According to him, the best stop at 5:1 with 35 mm format is f/4.5 or so, with 6x7 is f/11, and with 4x5 is f/16. At 8:1, the optimal stop, per that nomogram, falls to f/3.5, f/6.3, and f/11.

 

H. L. Gibson, whose book Photomacrography (Kodak Publication N-12B) I didn't reference, gives a set of nomograms that indicate that the aperture that gives the best compromise between depth of field and sharpness in the plane of best focus becomes larger (f/number becomes smaller) as magnfication increases. He also makes it very clear, mathematically and with example shots, that stopping down too far costs more sharpness than it gains. Eventually diffraction overwhelms everything else. Gibson's calculations call for larger apertures than Bracegirdle recommends.

 

Ellen, whether you should use a 135 mm enlarging lens depends on the magnification you want to work at and how much extension you can afford. FWIW, I also have a 135/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar, another little wonder lens, that I don't use because it makes little sense given the magnifications I want to work at and the extension I can manage. My crappy little press cameras are fine tools within their limits, but boy! do they have limits.

 

Cheers,

[kelly_flanigan1]

Basically you dont reverse a lens unless the you go past 1:1 ; ie the image of the bug; stamp on the film or sensor is larger than the bug or stamp in real life. <BR><BR>The 135mm Schneider Componon fits a standard 4x5 metal lens flange for the speed graphic. Here the shutterless lens is used either with the focal plane shutter for film; or with a digital scan back. This lens has been used for over 8 years on this camera.<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/135%20Componon/tripods-389.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/135%20Componon/tripods-304.jpg">

[digidurst]

Okay, so if I understand this correctly... If I wanted to produce an image of an object with

6x magnification with my Shen-Hao that offers a max bellows extension of 360 than I

would need a 50mm enlarging lens. Is that right?

 

And what about mounting? Where, besides Schneider, does one get the adapter rings? Is

this something B&H would carry?

 

Sorry to be obtuse but this is brand new for me and I want to make sure I'm going down

the right path. Thanks for the very helpful information so far!

[michael_briggs2]

Ellen, you calculated right -- 6x with a 50 mm lens needs 350 mm of extension. You will get a little extra extension since the lens will be in front of the shutter.

With a field camera like the Shen-Hao, you may have to take extra care in aligning the standards.

 

On B&H's webpage, follow the Darkroom category to "Enlarging Lenses & Accessories", and then to "Lens Mounts & Adapter Rings".

The two parts that you will need are the "Schneider Leica 40mm to Copal 1 Adapter for Enlarging Lenses" and the "Rodenstock Reverse Ring 40.5-39mm". The Schneider part is misdescribed since the "Leica thread" is 39 mm -- but B&H lists the Mfr# number as the number on the part that I have, which definitely has the 39 mm Leica enlarging thread. The Rodenstock part has 40.5 male threads that fit the filter threads on many Nikon (40 to 105 mm El-Nikkor) and Rodenstock

(28 to 135 mm Rodagon, 50 to 150 mm Apo-Rodagon-N) enlarging lenses.

It's probably best to have the lens before ordering the adapter in case of an exception. Nikon made (or makes?) a similar part.

 

These parts are special order and are now rather pricy, so it might cost about the same and be simpler for some just to send your enlarger lens to S K. Grimes, Inc. and request a custom adapter from the filter threads to the threads of a #1 shutter. Then you will have a one piece adapter and it will be their responsbility that it will fit.

 

Dan, the lenses that I have tried are faster than your f6.3 Neupolar -- both are f2.8: a 63 mm El-Nikkor and 105 mm Apo-Rodagon-N. For making prints (non-reversed), neither are at their optimum aperture wide-open, so I don't expect their optimum aperture as macro lenses to be wide-open. I don't remember exactly which apertures I found to give the best results, but it probably wasn't far off from the f6.3 of your Neupolar. The difference was that the lens was starting from a faster aperture. Someday when I have time I'll have to look at those books again and think about the reasoning behind their recommendations.

[digidurst]

Michael, for one exploring this new territory, details are so helpful. Thank you very much :)

[kelly_flanigan1]

In shooting "greater than life size" the depth of field is not much; often way less than one would guess/think. Before investing time in adapters you might just want to experiment with focusing issues.

[dan_fromm1]

Michael, one of the big differences between lenses made for photomacrography -- Luminars, Macro-Nikkors, Micro Tessars, MP-4 Tominons, Neupolars, Photars, ... -- and lenses made for normal photographic use, including enlarging, is that the macro lenses are designed to be shot wide open. I've tried out a small heap of the things, and almost without exception resolution in the plane of best focus is best wide open and vanishes rapidly on stopping down. The biggest exceptions are the 75 and 135 Tominons, which benefit from stopping down; I've never had a 105, can't report on it.

 

I have two lenses not made for photomacrography in my kit. 25/1.9 Cine Ektar II and 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS, both shot reversed. The CE II is much better at f/2.8 than wide open, worse at f/4 than at f/2.8; at f/2.8 it shoots slightly better than my 25/3.5 Luminar wide open. I prefer the Luminar mainly because its easier to use, the adapters I use to reverse mount the CE II are somewhat problematic. The MicroNikkor is amazingly good at f/4, worse at f/2.8 and f/5.6.

 

The fastest "macro" lens I have is a fixed-aperture 25/2.8 Summar from a projection microscope attachment for a Leitz projector. Great lens from 15:1 up, really too long for me to use much.

 

In my limited experience, it pays to test lenses to be used at high magnification. This to eliminate clinkers, to find best apertures, and to find best range of magnifications.

 

Cheers,

[digidurst]

Kelly, do you mean to practice focusing with an UNreversed enlarging lens?

 

And Dan - I've seen you mention the Tominons in other threads too. Can you expain how

those might be mounted?

 

Thanks :)

[vivek iyer]

The Tominons come with different threads. The 17mm Tomion I have has an adaptor fixed to it and the rear end of the adaptor is 35.5mm, the 35mm Tominon has RMS mount threads, longer focal length (50mm and 75) have 40mm threads, don't know about the 135mm, 180mm or the 10mm Tominons. Most common enlarging lenses such as the 50mm f/2.8 El Nikkor or the 60, 80mm Componons have 39mm thread mounts (some were also sold in different mount, these componons!). For macro purposes, Schneider sold a set of M-Componons. These were already reversed for their purpose. The APO Componon HM 40mm f/2.8 lens is an enlarging lens while the APO Componon Makro iris 40mm f/2.8 is a macro lens. Same lens with the same splendid performance. When it comes to lenses made for 1:1 reproduction, there are no worries about reverse mounting anything. The APO-Rodagon-D 75mm f/4, for example, is for 1:1 copying or reproduction.

 

As Dan suggests, get a lens and test it for yourself to start with.

[dan_fromm1]

Fair question, Ellen. Tominon is a brand of Tomioka, a Japanese lens maker. As I understand it, Tomioka was initially a merchant lens maker, selling to all comers. It was bought by Yashica, made lenses for Yashica and also for some, if not all, comers. It ended up part of the Kyocera empire, still selling Tominon lenses to outside customers.

 

The Tominon lenses I've mentioned were made under contract to Polaroid for use in Polaroid's MP-4 system. 17/4, 35/4.5, 50/4.5, 75/4.5, 105/4.5, and 135/4.5. All of the MP-4 Tominons are in barrels threaded M40x0.75 at the rear, i.e., all are made to screw into the front of a modern standard #1 shutter. To learn more about these lenses' recommended magnification ranges, see http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/microlen.htm .

 

I've shot all of them except the 105 over the last couple of years. IMO, they're not near best in class but, anomalous steals like my $55 25/3.5 Luminar aside, offer the best value for money of the serious lenses for photomacrography.

 

Ex-MP-4 Copal #1 press shutters are one of the greatest values going for those of us who want to mount lenses in front of a shutter. But before you buy one, be very aware that the MP-4 shutter has NO diaphragm.

 

Polaroid sold Tominons, usually in a Copal Press shutter, for other of their cameras. For example, 75/4.5, 105/4.5, 127/4.7, for the CU-5 (also called Gel Cam) and DS-34. I'm not sure that these are optically identical to the MP-4 lenses. This because I've tried an MP-4 75/4.5 out as a wide angle lense on 2x3. It was lousy. Bob Fowler, however, has insisted that the CU-5 75/4.5 is a good wide angle for 2x3. I have no experience with that lens, am inclined to think Bob has low standards, but in fairness I don't have the informtion needed to reach any conclusion about it or him.

 

I have a 127/4.5, bought "for the shutter" that turned out to be so good out-and-about that its part of my travelling 2x3 kit. If you want to know what a lens will do for you, ask it. I'm very glad I asked this one.

 

Interestingly, the CU-5 versions of the 17/4 and 35/4.5 (I've owned an ex-CU-5 17/4, held a CU-5 35/4.5 in my hand) are identical to the MP-4 versions EXCEPT that their barrels are shorter. Like the MP-4 lenses, they screw into the front of a #1 shutter.

 

Vivek mentioned an oddly-mounted 17/4 and a 10 mm. Nearly anything's possible, but AFAIK the 10 mm is very nearly an urban legend. If he has one, I'd love to hear about it.

 

Hope this helps, have fun,

[digidurst]

Thank you, Dan : You and everyone who has contributed to this most educational thread;

You've all been very helpful! And yes, fun is the plan!

[vivek iyer]

Dan, The 10mm is not a myth. I have actually seen a sample with a friend. Do not have any idea on its performance though.