Any macro comparison of reversed enlarger lens?

[paul_ong1]

<p>Hi,<br>

I am experimenting with 1:1 and greater macro photography, and have tried both stacked lenses and bellows. (Can see at the web site listed below.) Based on an earlier thread, I am intrigued by using enlarger lenses. One suggestion is to reverse the lens. Does anyone have comparison macro shots using an enlarger lens reversed and not reversed? Any other advice would be appreciated. (I posted a similar question in an earlier thread, but I think that the thread is too buried in the listing of posts.) Thanks.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9476880@N02/</p>

 

[cc_chang2]

<p>The photos are very intriguing. I am interested in macro as well. I am just curious is there any advantage, beside the savings in lens purchase, in stacking or reversing lenses instead of just buy a dedicated macro lens?</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>Optically there is no advantage in reversing a lens until the reproduction ratio is significantly greater than 1:1 magnification. I used to use an enlarger lens (50mm f/4.5 Focotar) with my Leica system for copy work at about 1/5 X. (It was best at about 1/10 X but was fine for most applications.) Still, longer focal length lenses are much more practical in actual use. Today I use either the 105mm Micro Nikkor or the 85mm PC tilt-shift Micro Nikkor, depending on the situation. For greater than 1:1 photography I use a reversed Super Comat lens from a 16mm Bell and Howell movie camera that is optimum at about 3:1 RR. It has almost no working distance and needs a good setup location.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Heck Paul, from your link it looks like you're pretty well situated to teach <em>most of us</em> about how to do various approaches to macro.</p>

<p>I just bought a nice 150mm enlarger lens just to play around with in macro, but so far I've only used plus lenses, bellows, extension tubes, 1:1 Macro lenses, and short lenses for the bellows. I haven't yet gone to reversing lenses, and I haven't got the enlarger lens yet to play with either, so let us know how it turns out for you. Most it could cost would be a reversing ring for a few bucks. I guess?</p>

[steve_walker6]

<p> </p>

<p >Paul,</p>

<p >Regarding Tilt Shift in one of your different threads– Perhaps something from this outfit</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_pshift.htm" target="_blank">http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_pshift.htm</a></p>

<p >I have no experience with it.</p>

<p >I have been looking into Medium Format View Cameras that have the movements built in. Camera backs are available to mount the camera to the bellows. </p>

<p >I have read that reverse mounting is the way to go with lenses. I have some adapters on order and will be giving that a try next week. I will be trying it on an El Nikkor 80 mm enlarging lens (filter size for the El Nikkor 80 is 40.5) on the Pentax Auto Bellows. </p>

<p >What is the filter size for the Componon S 50mm? I also own that lens.</p>

<p >I have wondered about reverse mounting the Componon S 50 on the El Nikkor 80 or the Componon S 50 on an El Nikkor 105 enlarging lens and then working on the bellows with the setup. Perhaps some day…</p>

 

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>I am just curious is there any advantage, beside the savings in lens purchase, in stacking or reversing lenses instead of just buy a dedicated macro lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since you asked...</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>High magnifications.</strong> Reverse mounted lenses, coupled lenses, and enlarger lenses are capable of very high magnifications. A "real" macro lens typically only goes to 1x (1:1) while a 50mm enlarger lens on a bellows goes to around 4x, and a reversed 20mm on a bellows or coupled to a 200mm tele can hit 10x.</li>

<li><strong>Working distance.</strong> Working distance is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject. Reversed "retrofocus" wide angle lenses have pretty long working distances, relative to "real" macro lenses. I have a 25mm Leitz Photar, a rare and expensive macro lens that I can use on a bellows for magnifications from 4x to 10x. At 10x, the working distance is about 18mm. That's not much space to get lights onto the subject. At 10x, the reversed 20mm f2.8 Nikkor has a working distance of about 42mm, which is a luxury, indeed. The only other way I can get that kind of working distance is to switch to the 40mm Zeiss Luminar, couple a pair of PB-4 bellows together on a double-bellows bracket, and pray a lot.</li>

<li><strong>Telecentric stops.</strong> Perspective, at macro distances, is determined by the virtual aperture, the image of the aperture as seen from the subject. Some common photographic lenses (including most 50mm f1.4 designs from Nikon, Canon, and Pentax) are capable of using a "telecentric stop" when they're reversed on a bellows or reversed and coupled to a telephoto. That's an aperture infinitely far away from the subject. The telecentric stop permits "perspective free" photography, accurate photogrametry (measurements from photographs), and a "clinical" look that's great for minerals, plants, and insects. It also allows focus stacking totally free of "echo" or "fringing" artifacts.</li>

<li><strong>Very shallow DOF.</strong> Coupled lenses are capable of insanely high effective speeds and weird "artistic" shallow DOF effects. I've shot insect and flower macros with a pair of 50mm f1.4 lenses coupled face to face. That's an effective 25mm f0.7 (yes, really). </li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>Optically there is no advantage in reversing a lens until the reproduction ratio is significantly greater than 1:1 magnification.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is generally true. And many enlarger lenses are symmetrical, so optically, there's no advantage to reversing them, ever. However, there are three operational advantages to reversing enlarger lenses.</p>

<ul>

<li>Most enlarger lenses made in the last 1/4 century have a window on the lens mount side that illuminates that aperture scale. If you forward mount the lens, you have to block this off. You don't have to block it when reverse mounting.</li>

<li>To forward mount an enlarger lens requires an adapter from your bellows mount to M39, which can be tricky to find. Reverse mounting an enlarger lens is done with an easy-to-find step-up ring and a common reverse mount for the bellows.</li>

<li>The rear of an enlarger lens is typically smaller than the front, so a reverse mounted lens gives you more working room around the subject.</li>

</ul>

<p>However, there are disadvantages, too.</p>

<ul>

<li>It is more difficult to work the aperture control on a reverse mounted enlarger lens.</li>

<li>A forward mounted lens can take filters or lens hoods. Either sized directly for the lens, or mounted via common step-up rings.</li>

<li>A reverse mounted lens has a vulnerable rear element. That's not as much of a problem as it used to be, with enlarger lenses selling for $20 these days.</li>

</ul>

 

[cc_chang2]

<p>Joe; thank you for the detail answer.</p>

[steve_walker6]

<p>CC Chang,<br>

<br /> Cost savings allows a photographer to have a range of focal lengths. If you consider enlarging lenses mounted on a bellows or tubes. Manual focus prime lenses are relatively inexpensive, even manual focus 1:1 macro lenses can be attractive.<br>

<br /> I own a 50mm Schneider Componon S, 80 El Nikkor, 105 El Nikkor and 135 Fujinon EP. The sum total for all four lenses was about $150.</p>

<p>I have an article on using manual focus lenses (prime 1:1 and enlarging lenses) located <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/inexpensivemacrophotography/">here</a>.</p>

<p>This is an example taken this morning with the 135 Fujinon and an old bellows on an old tripod.</p>

<p><img src="http://stover98074.smugmug.com/Flowers/Macro-Flowers/IMG1017/898286413_hgEJT-M-1.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>First, a big thank you for all the feedback and valuable information.</p>

<p>CC Chang, good question about a dedicated macro lens versus stacked (coupled) lenses, macro bellows, enlarger lenses, etc. Not the experts, but for high magnification, but it seems like these alternatives are desirable, even when using a dedicated macro lens. I have an micro AIS 105mm, and at one time had the micro AIS 55mm, which I gave as a present to my nephew.</p>

<p>I should note that I am experimenting with alternative approaches because one of my goal is to fully understand different photographic techniques because I work with students who want to integrate photography into their work. The more I know, the better I am able to give guidance.</p>

<p>Alex Lofguist, I am interested in tilt/swing also. Did not think about the PC-E lenses, but the problem is the very high cost. I will see if I can get access to one just to experiment. I thought about getting a used Lens Baby and modify it to use as a flexible bellows.</p>

<p>Working distance is becoming an issue, and this is leading me to come up with more precise positioning equipments (focus railing system). Am trying to customize old parts to keep cost down.</p>

<p>JDM von Weinberg, thanks for the very nice comment. This is my first concerted attempt at larger than life size macro. I owe a lot to the information I get from web forums and web resources. I guess I take the approach of measuring twice and cutting once, so I spend as much time as possible gathering and learning before implementing.</p>

<p>Steve Walker, want to let you know that I consulted your extremely informative web site before this post. Thanks for sharing you experience with everyone.</p>

<p>The Componon S 50mm f/2.8 has a 43mm filter ring, the same size as that for the Componon 80mm f/4. I just order from ebay a 43mm-52mm step-up ring and a 52mm-Nikon reverse mount ring, and I am hoping to use them when they get here.</p>

<p>As for movements, I need to find a less expensive alternative than the Zoerk, unless there is a cheap one on ebay. But even then, I would have to get the appropriate MF lenses or make an adapter. As I mentioned, I am intrigued with experimenting with a used Lens Baby if I can get one at a reasonable price.</p>

<p>Love the photo taken with the 135mm Fujinon. Not much EXIF information. Can you provide some?</p>

<p>Joseph Wisniewski, wow, thanks for all the great information. I will cut-and-paste it into a document for future reference.<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=587835"><br /></a></p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>CC, you're quite welcome.</p>

<p>Steve, nice article.</p>

[steve_walker6]

<p>Thanks Paul and Joseph for the comments on the article.<br /> <br /> Joseph,<br /> <br /> I have also had success with some inexpensive M39 to M42 rings found on eBay. This allows me to mount on M42.<br>

<br /> Regarding modern enlarging lenses, that is a good tip to reverse mount for the aperture light leak. I have been putting a piece of dark tape over the aperture markings - which works for light leaks but obviously covers up the aperture marking.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Steve, you're welcome...</p>

<p>I've been known to go after that window from the lens mount side, sometimes with a bit of gaffer's tape, sometimes with black paint. I looked at it when I used the enlarger lenses on an enlarger, and had a mix of lenses that had the window and lenses that didn't, as to whether the "light up" aperture numbers were actually useful to me.</p>

[yuri_sopko]

<p>Reverse mounting an enlarger lens won't do too much aside from introducing some form of optical aberrations. But, as I have a few, I will try it out tomorrow if time permits. I actually have had relative ease in finding M39 to M42 adapters quite easily on eBay. I have M39 to specific lens mounts, to T-mount, M42, etc. I actually have a lot of fun with these lenses. Also, you can also look for some large format lenses as well. Don't just stop at enlarger lenses!</p>

<p>I have a SK G-Claron 150/9, it stops down to f/64! The DOF at 1:1 is vast, very very vast. Probably won't produce the detail as I have seen in your flickr album but that's not why I bought it. I actually have not had the chance to field test it just yet, though. I recently bought a M42 to M42 helical focus adapter so now I can attach it to that and get more precise focus when I need it.</p>

<p>Here is my flickr, if you look you will find Crazy Lens Concoction No. 1 and some test shots at f/9 and at f/64:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/70078248@N00/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/70078248@N00/</a></p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Paul --</p>

<p>Here's how I think about lenses: Lenses are engineered systems, each is designed for certain conjugate ratios, and each lens performs far better there than it does way outside that range. Conjugate ratio? That's the ratio of sizes of image:subject. A macro lens is designed for something like 1:5 or 1:3; it focuses to and works OK at 1:1, but that's not it's sweet spot. Similarly, you can use it at infinity, but this is not its sweet spot.</p>

<p>When you want 3x or 5x, then you reverse a suitable lens to maintain the designed-for ratios. In this range, an enlarger lens reversed, or a macro lens reversed, would be a great performer. Very high quality enlarging lenses are cheap today. </p>

<p>Looking at your flickr site, I would use the 105mm Micro-Nikkor right on the camera for close-ups, say 1:2, and reverse a shorter focal length lens on the bellows for greater than 1:1. (By the way, I have the same 105mm AIS Micro myself and like it.)</p>

<p>But then, what lenses are optimized for 1:1? Olympus 80mm f/4 bellows lens. 80mm APO-Rodagon-D 1:1 f/4. Maybe a few others.</p>

<p>Bjorn Rorslett has a lot of good notes about close-up, macro, and stacked lenses for Nikon. Google "Rorslett lens". </p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Reverse mounting an enlarger lens won't do too much aside from introducing some form of optical aberrations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Reverse mounting an enlarger lens reduces aberrations. Read what Richard said about conjugate ratios.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a SK G-Claron 150/9, it stops down to f/64! The DOF at 1:1 is vast, very very vast. Probably won't produce the detail as I have seen in your flickr album</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's one way of putting it. Extended far enough to get to 1:1, you're at effective f128. The diffraction limited aperture for critical sharpness on a decent size print is anywhere from f8 to f16, depending on the camera. Even web size, effective f64 is past the limit. So, you may have crazy DOF, but you're also operating in a range where your lens has all the resolution of a pinhole camera.</p>

<p>You'd probably also have a lot better luck with a focusing rail (Manfrotto, about $90; Velbon magnesium, about $100) instead of dinking with that M42 helicoid.</p>

 

[tommyinca]

<p>Yuri: Those M42 to M42 helicoid extender won't do much good on your 150mm process lens, unless you want to take infinity picture with them (for which they are not designed for). They are good for copying map size flat surfaces on to super sized sheet film. On a DSLR, with a focus helicoid, like Joseph said, makes a good pinhole camera emulator.</p>

<p>The M42 to M42 helicoid extender are perfect for Pentax's 50mm macro lens. With it, it gives continuous magnification range from infinity to about 1.5X (inf to 1:1 normal, reverse after 1:1). Also typically beyond 1:2 or so, using a focus rail or moving the camera back and fore are better in achieving macro focus. This is because as you turn the helicoid, the lens extends out. At macro distant, it also changes the focus distant significantly at the same time, a catch 22 scenario.</p>

 

[paul_ong1]

<p>Joseph, Steve, Yuri, Richard, and Tommy<br>

Thanks for the additional insights.</p>

<p>Pick the right lens and mounting for the right magnification. Given that I am "learning by doing" for 1:1 and higher magnification, my next effort will be a reversed mounted the Schneider Componon S 80mm f/4. Only so-so condition (cleaning scratches and a white dot), but probably good enough. Yesterday, got in the mail two ring adapters, 43mm to 52mm filter step up and a 52mm-Nikon reverse mount adapter. Will use the modified Pentax bellows. Check to make sure there is no leak from the aperture light port.Will try to keep the f-stop at a reasonable setting to avoid diffraction.</p>

<p>Am excited by this setup, and hope to have some time this week to go out and shoot.</p>

<p> </p>