Best lens option for use on bellows

[wmervine]

<p>I find myself a happy man, having just bought an Ashashi bellows and slide duplicator system on a local auction site. An interesting alternative to digitising my negatives. Now, I believe of the M42 lenses I have, a 50mm prime is probably the best bet. I have 2: a Mamiya Sekor SX f/2, and a Zeiss Jena f/2.8. </p>

<p>Assuming I am correct that the 50mm is the right option to use on the bellows, which would you guys recommend? This will be mounted with an adaptor on my Nikon D300.<br>

Any thoughts?</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>Traditionally the lens is a 135mm short barrel.<br>

so when taking general closeup the re will be more space for lighting.</p>

<p>But you are using it for a specific purpose. - negative copying- and possibly an enlarging lens would be better.<br>

the f/2 normal lens works well for general photography.<br>

even for a crop sensor DSLR where it becomes a short telephoto.<br>

but a 50mm enlarging lens with a flatter field would be better.<br>

Top quality Enlarging lenses are not expensive today.<br>

You may also consider a spiratone varo-duplivar<br>

a T mount device that will "zoom" so a 35mm frame<br>

should cover and fill the crop sensor. <br>

Spiratone sold both a slide holder and a film strip holder for the device.<br>

They also sold a set of CC color correction filters in 2 x 2 slide mounts.</p>

<p>You can do it with the bellows., but the slide copier method might be easier to deal with.,.</p>

 

[Matthew Currie]

<p>If it's similar to the Nikon and a couple of other systems of long ago, the bellows will be calibrated for both 50 and 135 mm, with 50 the chosen length for full size slide copying. In the case of the Nikon, the 50 mm F2 was the preferred copy lens for its flat field, and with the slide attachment that came with it, it worked very well, though a bit tedious to get the exposure just right.</p>

<p>If you're experimenting, I'd try to set up some kind of grid through which you can determine which lens has the least distortion near the edges, and go with that. Otherwise there's little difference. </p>

[SCL]

<p>It depends on what you're shooting and the magnification you want. I use an old Leica 90mm f2.8 Elmarit on my bellows...it focuses from infinity down to less than 1:1 and gives me good working distance.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Basically you can use any lens on the bellows but there was a 100mm bellows takumar (I have one) made especially for it. The main advantage of this lens is the ability to focus all the way to infinity.<br>

If you just want it for close ups then the 50mm will be fine. This lens (the 50mm 1.8 is a better bet) also works best when reversed and you can get an adapter to do this. The excellent 50mm macro-takumar is also a great bet if you can find one cheap enough.<br>

It's worth noting that the wider angles will let you go closer, although the lens to subject distance may be to short to work easily.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In the day when these were fashionable, it was also common to use a short barrel lens made especially for the bellows mount and enlarger lenses were also often used - often LTM (Leica Thread Mount ~39mm).</p>

<p>You can find lots of these options on eBay. </p>

<p>Also a reversing ring will let you mount standard 'normal' lenses backwards for improved macro capability, as noted.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Since the D300 is an APS-C sized sensor, then a 50mm may not be able to achieve 1:1 magnification within the bellows + slide holder's distance."</i><br><br>The sensor size plays no role at all in whther you can achieve 1:1 using this set up.<br>What you probably meant was not 1:1, but the lesser magnification (about 1:0.7) needed to project the entire 35 mm format onto the smaller sensor. It will require slightly less extension (about 85 mm vs 100 mm using a 50 mm lens), a slightly longer lens to slide distance (about 123 mm vs 100 mm using a 50 mm lens).<br>The first limit set by the hardware you will run into is the minimum extension the combination of adapter + bellows allows. If that's short enough to allow about 80 mm, you're fine using a 50 mm lens.

[wmervine]

<p>Thx for the feedback guys. Seems I may have to do some experimentation once I recieve the unit.<br>

Here's the link, so hope you can see the unti at least.</p>

<p>http://www.bidorbuy.co.za/item/67550049/M42_Asahi_Pentax_Bellows_ll_with_Asahi_Slide_Copier_Macro_Bellows.html</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Wayne, read <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/scan-film-with-camera-1.html">this article by Ctein</a>.</p>

<p>He discusses the exact problem you are faced with (in part 2 of the article). You need a lens which is optimized for ratios around 1:1 (actually about 1:1.5), and there aren't many that do that job very well. If I were doing this, without a doubt I would use a macro lens or an enlarging lens. </p>

<p>Ordinary lenses are corrected for distant objects, so they don't work as well at close distances. You can improve their performance by stopping down, but beyond a certain point that degrades the image due to diffraction. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I'm sorry, but no, Les. Because, as you perhaps do not know, whether you can achieve a given magnification using a certain 'rig' does not depend on what size sensor or film you put behind that rig.<br>1:1 with 70 mm bellows extension (if that's what you are talking about) means you are using a lens of (or if zoom: set to) 35 mm focal length. No matter what format.<br>1:1 with a 70 mm lens (if that's what you meant) means you need 140 mm bellows extension, no matter what format.<br>the size of the sensor or film is not a parameter in the thingy that determines magnification. Only focal length and distance make a difference.<br><br>Could it be (i believe it very well could be) that you are talking about filling a frame with the contents of another frame, mistake that for that "1:1" thingy?

[will_frost]

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I am attempting something similar, albeit with a twist: I'm copying the slides as they are held in the projector, so I need more working distance, (at least 140mm) and I'm using a micro four thirds sensor, so I need somewhat less magnification (about .46x).<br>

I initially tried a reversed 50mm*, but without extension tubes, I couldn't get the magnification I wanted, but more importantly, the image showed obvious pin-cushioning! (The working distance was terrible, too.) I immediately abandoned that, did a whole bunch of searches here, read a lot of advice, and found Tony Jeffree's spreadsheet http://www.jeffree.co.uk/pages/macro-lens-calcs.html<br>

I ordered a Pentax screwmount (M42) bellows, some M39 (Leica threadmount) to M42 adapters (cheap, 6$ including shipping), and a trio of cheap M39 enlarging lenses. (50, 75, 135mm) I hope that they will provide an undistorted flat field, and I hope my calculations are correct and the 135mm lens will provide the necessary working distance and magnification.<br>

Will</p>

<p>*Nikon Series E 50mm 1.8, a nice small, light, little thing.</p>