Macro setup with 55 mm Micro-Nikkor and a Bellows

[haziz]

I am planning to do some macro work using a Micro-Nikkor 55 f3.5 (I believe it is the aperture

compensating version, possibly later AI?ed, it is marked Nippon Kogaku, probably originally mid 60s

vintage). I will be using a Nikon bellows unit (not sure which? It is marked Nippon Kogaku, probably of

the same vintage). I have the 1:1 (M) ring for the macro lens but do not have the BR-2 reversal ring for

mounting the lens backwards. Camera will likely be an F3 or possibly N90 (is there any advantage to

using the N90 over the F3 for this? I don?t believe it will allow me to use anything other than center

weighted metering. I am planning to probably go beyond 1:1 (larger than life on the slide). I also have

Nikon extension tubes but can?t find them at present.

 

I don?t have any special viewfinder for the Nikon F3. I suspect the viewfinder will get awfully dim. Is the

metering by the camera reliable enough? I will be using slide film and bracketing. I will also try to take

reciprocity into consideration.

 

When mounting the lens should I just use it mounted normally? Or should I try to pick up a BR-2 ring

off of Ebay which would only delay things. I suspect that it should work either way but does reversing

the macro lens when used on a bellows produce sharper results? I have a PDF scan of the Micor-Nikkor

55 f3.5 instructions but it is fairly densely written and seems to ask for the lens reversed on the

bellows. Should I use the M ring or just rely on the bellows for extension?

 

The M ring has a 35 mm film shaped cutout or frame within it. Would that by any chance vignette the

image when using the bellows?

 

I have done macro work in the past either with a 4x5 camera or using the Canon 100 mm macro lens

on a Canon body, and a Pentax 120 macro on a Pentax 645 but this is the first time I am doing more

than 1:1. I guess I have enough bellows extension on one of my 4x5 cameras but then having to deal

with a 600 mm bellows on a 4x5 very close to a small object would get too interesting!

 

Thanks.

 

Sincerely,

 

Hany.

[radfordneal]

I've heard (no idea whether correctly) that this lens is

optimized for 1:10 magnification when used normally. If so,

it

makes sense to me that this would mean that it is also

optimized for 10:1 magnification when reversed. So maybe

10:1 is better done reversed than normally. And I'd guess

that anything beyond 1:1 is also better reversed.

 

Can anyone knowledgeable say whether my logic here is actually sound?

[dan_fromm2]

Radford, you're right. Lenses intended for use at magnifications below 1:1, like the 55 MicroNikkors (all versions), shoot better above 1:1 when reversed.

 

Hany, your 55/3.5 will go to 1:2 on its own mount. With an M2 ring it will go to 1:1. I don't think there's a bellows made that will let you shoot that lens at magnifications below 1:1, they're all too long even fully compressed.

 

To mount your lens reversed on a bellows you'll need a Nikon BR-2 or BR-2A or a generic reversing ring. B&H has them.

 

If you mount it on a bellows, you may want to maintain diaphragm automation (stops down when shutter release is pressed). To do this, use, (I think and you'd better check) a Nikon BR-4 with a dual cable release.

 

The M2 ring won't vignette on a bellows. The only reason to use it on a bellows is to get 27.5 mm more extension than the bellows can provide.

[cliff_k__cny_]

The manual for my PB-4 Bellows has a table titled "Reproduction Ration Range" and lists many lenses. For the 55mm f/3.5 micro the table suggests:

 

Normal from 1.8x to 7.2x

Reversed from 5.5x to 7.5x

And the note: "Image quality is best at f/8 and deteriorates smaller apertures."

 

I've used a 55mm f/2.8 AIS micro on the bellows with D200 a few times with good success. More often, I use a 127mm Rodenstock large format lens on the bellows. In either case, the 2x magnification of the DR-6 right angle viewfinder is a big help. Off hand, I don't know the right viewfinder for your film cameras.

[bjørn rørslett]

The Micro-Nikkors in general were computed for optimum around 1:10. Their performance will not necessarily drop much away from that optimum point. In general asymmetric lenses, like the Micro-Nikkors, perform better above 1:1 when they are reversed. However, being optimised for 1:10 does not entail being optimised for 10x when the lens is mounted in reverse.

 

The first issue is that image circles will be non-optimal. At 10X magnfication you only need a very small circle in the subject plane that should end up as a sufficiently large image circle projected onto the film/sensor plane. Remember that the 35mm format lens reversed still *will* image and record light from a circle more than 43mm in diameter, which can be many times bigger than the subject itself. All that light coming from outside the subject area *will* be transmitted through the lens onto the imager. Some non-image-forming rays are lost by the baffling of the bellows and some from the baffles in the mirror box, but much wind up as flare with a great potential of totally destroying the photomacrograph. You may lose contrast or fine detail, or both. So for any work doing high-magnification photography, you either use lenses with better matched image circles (e.g. cine lenses, or dedicated macro lenses), or at least you take measures to shield the rear of the lens so it won't receive all that flare-forming light. You can achieve this by making a small hole in a rear lens cap, for example.

 

The second issue is that 10x is a frightening great magnification entailing all kinds of practical and technical problems. The finder of the camera will be *very* dim, after all at 10X you have "lost" 11 stops worth of light, and unless you insert a dedicated macro screen, you will have severe problems doing any focusing at all. Cameras without exchangable screens have a disadvantage here. They also may show very severe moiré due to the secondary mirror (for the light meter). You also need a magnifying finder (there is a nice 6X finder for the F3), plus very strong light sources to illuminate your subject. Then, heat can be an annoying consequence of all that light unless you have access to specialised "cold-light" gear. Eventually, when you have managed to set up the gear and are able to observe the subject in the finder, it will do a wild tap-dance inside the framed field. If you can locate it at all :) Vibrations will be a nightmare to handle and you might find that some [studio] flashes can't freeze the movements completely. The focal-plane shutter will introduce disasterous vibrations so should not be used. The passage of a car outside can ruin your photomacrograph and so can footfalls of any residents nearby. You will learn that "rock-steady" support mainly is an advertising phrase without real existence.

 

Well, don't tell you haven't been warned. Best of luck.

[User_502260]

If you are only looking to shoot in the 1:1 to 2:1 range it will not make a huge amount of difference whether the lens is reversed. The problen you will have is working distance. The 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor you are showing has a deeply recessed front element. Reversing the lens will at least give you a little more room to arrange and light things. Bjorn has stated on his website that the older compensating lens is better when you get very close. I have one of these (and 9 other 55 Micro Nikkors) but I haven't tested this yet myself. The micro lenses which are for higher magnification work require a cone adapter for lighting purposes and are also faster to account for the light loss of the extension. I have the full Minolta Auto Bellows III outfit. It includes two micro lenses, a 25mm f/2.5 and a 12.5mm f/2. The 12.5 can give you 20X with the right extension. Both are very sharp so this is where technique comes into play. If I need more working distance and not as much magnification I have a 120mm f/6.3 Macro Nikkor from the Multiphot system. I would recommend that you go to a used book website and buy The Manual Of Close-up Photography by Lester Lefkowitz. It dates back to 1979 but is still an excellent reference. If you don't have micro lenses you can also get very good results with reversed and unreversed enlarging lenses on your bellows. Your F3 has TTL flash capability but with high magnification work reciprocity effects still need to be worked around. Bracketing your exposures and keeping careful notes will help with this.

[dan_fromm2]

Bjorn, getting 10x with a 55 mm lens and a single Nikon bellows is impossible. Doing it requires the bellows' maximum flange-to-flange distance to be on the order of 635 mm. I don't believe Nikon sold an F-mount bellows that long.

 

I wonder if that's what the original poster intended to do.

[alex_lofquist]

A few years ago Nikon published a brochure on macrophotography, and the equipment available to accomplish it. Perhaps writing to NikonUSA will gain you a copy. The did show a photo close-up of a model train at 14X reproduction ratio. It was done with a 20mm f/2.8 reversed onto the PB-6 bellows. No indication of aperture settings or exposure times, though I expect that the lens was well stopped down and exposures into the seconds! As mentioned, there is no optical advantage in lens reversal until magnifications are significantly better than 1:1! The largest R.R. I have ever used was about 3.5:1 with a Bell & Howell 20mm f/1.9 Super Comat cine lens reversed onto my F4S. I used BR2 and BR3 rings with a plastic camera body cap carved out to accomodate the reversed lens. Even with bright subject illumination, the image is still dim making it difficult to align and focus.

 

I would certainly recommend using the F3 rather than the N90. This will show you a bright full frame and allow you to use the 6X high magnification viewfinder, if you can find one. Perhaps even more important is its ability to accept a range of focussing screens more useful for macrophotography.

[bjørn rørslett]

Well, there was the 60 cm bellows that Nikon delivered with their Multiphot photomacrographic camera (I've got two of them). And you could use extension bellows (Arca F-line or similar) to get even more (I've an 80 cm bellows plus several shorter). However, this is a futile exercise since you'll get much better quality with a lot less of bellows draw using for example a 25mm cine lens (for 16mm cine). A 55 Micro is only suitable for let's say up to 3x or with a wide stretch of bellows draw, 4-5x. Anything higher and you'll need a shorter focal length.

[User_502260]

I shot a section of a postage stamp with the 25/2.5 Minolta micro lens. The magnification on film would have been close to 10X. Everything was done on a copy stand and with Ilford Pan F+ film. The negative was then enlarged to 11X14. The print was so detailed that you could see all of the fibers which made up the paper in the stamp. I went past Minolta's recommendation in magnification with the 25 but it worked nicely. When I wanted to shoot small moving subjects I used a different set-up. I used a reversed 28mm f/3.5 Konica Hexanon on a short extension tube with the Auto Ring II and Double Cable switch on a Konica FT-1 Motor in which I had a Nikon E screen permanently installed. Lighting was with two small flash units on a home-made T shaped bracket. The subjects were ants. The reason for the set-up was that I needed semi-automatic diaphragm control to shoot moving subjects. Nikon used to advertise its early 24/2.8 wide angle by showing that it could be reversed and used for macro work. Some of my early bellows macro work was done with cine lenses or enlarging lenses. These aren't quite as good as "true macro" lenses [aka micro lenses because of their RMS screw mounts] but can be very useful. The ultimate in short focal length macro lenses with fully automatic diaphgragms must still be the later 20mm Zuiko macro lenses. The OM system had a variety of macro lens and accessory solutions for almost any situation but if your subject isn't moving then many other combinations will also work well.

 

The Nikon Multiphot system did indeed have a very long bellows unit as an accessory but this was primarily for transmitted light use because the working distance for any reflected light use would have been unacceptably short. The best macro lens for very long working distance may have been the Questar 700 mirror lens. Over the years I may have had more fun improvising macro set-ups than with any other aspect of shooting.

[bjørn rørslett]

Well, there were several options allowing you to use reflected light with the Nikon Multiphot. The Macro-Nikkor kit comprised 4 Macro-Nikkors plus two different beamsplitters dedicated for reflective-light photography. You could also of course use fibre optics either as halogen cold light, or microflashes, or a combination (I'm using both). With the 65mm and 120mm Macro-Nikkors, working distance is quite long and in case of the 65mm, much longer (5-10 cm) than you get with a reversed Micro-Nikkor :) The 35mm and 19mm have short working distance commensurate with their higher magnifications, yet I've had no problem using reflected light sources with both of them. The 35mm (and 65mm) could also be used with a specialised disc (Lieberkühn mirror) to give a very nice diffused light source. Several of these Lieberkühn mirrors were included with the Multiphot.

[dan_fromm2]

Um, Jeff, the Q700's maximum magnification on its own mount is 1:4. I don't think it would do well above 1:1, and getting the > 1400 mm extension needed to used it above 1:1 isn't easy. At 1:4 and f/8, my Q700 shoots about as well as my 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS, and it does have lots more working distance. But out-and-about a 555 or 105 MicroNikkor is a lot easier to use close up.

 

Questar made, may still make, what they call long distance microscopes that were designed for higher magnifications. I have no idea whether Makowski is still in business, but ages ago Klaus Schmitt sent me some propaganda from Makowski in which they asserted strongly that their long distance microscopes were superior to Questars.

 

Interesting ideas, but I think we're addressing each other, not the original poster's original question.

[haziz]

BTW. Does anybody know which bellows unit is this. It is labeled Nippon Kogako F with a

serial number as the only markings.

 

Thanks.

 

Sincerely,

 

Hany.

[haziz]

A bigger jpeg.

 

Thanks.

 

Sincerely,

 

Hany.

[arlon]

I've used a very similar set up and had decent results with it. I even started my stack with a 2x teleconverter (used because the bellows won't clear to mount drectly on the D50/200), added the bellows, used a cheap reverse adapter, added the 55mm micro. Not near 10x but I got pollen grains to look like rice and was able to do it handheld. Film would have been much harder because of the difficulty in guessing an exposure and taking a dozen shots before hitting the focus right. My whole "super macro" setup cost less than $100..

 

picture on this thread: http://www.macrophotography.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1004<div></div>