Good prime lens for 2:1 to 1:4 that is easily disassembled?

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Blcak
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 6:19 am
Location: Switzerland (originally)

Good prime lens for 2:1 to 1:4 that is easily disassembled?

Post by Blcak »

Hi,

I'm currently working on a complex project that requires me to take apart a lens (like an enlarger lens), and reassemble it in a selfmade housing.
I don't need the aperture assembly of the lens, I will make my own (which is one of the main points why I'm doing this, easy access to the aperture area is what is actually needed).


The lens should have between 50 and 80mm and be of good optical quality, but not on the expensive/rare side of things (30-80$ used is fine), so a screwup won't get me nightmares and replacement is easy. Doesn't have to be APO, but shouldn't be total trash.
I need to work in the ranges between 2:1 and 1:4, mostly between 1:1 and 1:3.


I consider taking apart a Componon-S 50, I've also just bought a Trinar 50/4, maybe three elements are easier to work with.

I was unable to get proper schematics (cutaways etc) of any lens that so far has caught my interest (Rodagon, Componon-S, EL-Nikkor) that would make my life easier. I'm not sure if I can accurately measure the distances between the lens groups when taking apart such a lens, but I also don't want to just take apart a lens blindly.

I am happy about any help or ideas I can get.

Edit: Oh and, yes, of course, it needs to work for APS-C, nothing large.

johan
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:39 am
Contact:

Post by johan »

My extreme-macro.co.uk site, a learning site. Your comments and input there would be gratefully appreciated.

g4lab
Posts: 1434
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 11:07 am

Post by g4lab »

This should be an easy thing to accomplish.
Get on ebay and search for view camera and graflex lenses.
Buy one that is already mounted in a shutter. Then all you have to do is unscrew the elements which almost always will unscrew easily both from the front and rear of the shutter. This will also make the spacing measurements
almost trivial.

You also could probably disassemble the shutter body and salvage the piece that the front and rear lens barrels thread into.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rapax-Wollensak ... 500wt_1361
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Wolensa ... 566wt_1344
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Wollens ... 691wt_1110

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Schneider-80mm- ... 832wt_1344
Last edited by g4lab on Wed May 09, 2012 12:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Blcak
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 6:19 am
Location: Switzerland (originally)

Post by Blcak »

Oh yes, this is splendid. The one on the right looks like an EL-Nikkor.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 5370
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

The Rodenstock Roganar-S, Rodagon and Apo Rodagon with the "new" style plastic barrel like this one:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RODENSTOCK-ROGO ... 4845004bfc
can be easily dissambled just unscrewing in three parts: Front optical group, diaphragm body without lenses and rear optical group.

Note: PM sent
Pau

Tucson Tom
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:31 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona USA
Contact:

Post by Tucson Tom »

This is great information, but what lenses are these ?

Craig Gerard
Posts: 2877
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 1:51 am
Location: Australia

Post by Craig Gerard »

Tucson Tom wrote:
This is great information, but what lenses are these ?
The 50/2.8 Zenji Wakimoto EL-Nikkor and the later release Mr Mori 'N' EL-Nikkor.

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/9/


Craig
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"

Tucson Tom
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:31 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona USA
Contact:

Post by Tucson Tom »

Craig Gerard wrote:
The 50/2.8 Zenji Wakimoto EL-Nikkor and the later release Mr Mori 'N' EL-Nikkor.

Craig
Thanks very much! I have the 50/4 and the 50/2.8, but not the 50/2.8N (which I only just learned about). I respected these lenses back when I used them on enlargers, and am pleased now to pick them up for a song and use them for macro work. I don't know if the f/4 or the f/2.8 is the better lens for macro (and plan to do some tests). Certainly on an enlarger the 2.8 was prefered for the brighter image and better ability to get a critical focus. Any ideas about which is better for macro work?

I also have a Schneider Componon 50/28 lens that I want to test when I do my 50mm enlarger lens macro shootout.

johan
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:39 am
Contact:

Post by johan »

2.8 is considered better
My extreme-macro.co.uk site, a learning site. Your comments and input there would be gratefully appreciated.

Craig Gerard
Posts: 2877
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 1:51 am
Location: Australia

Post by Craig Gerard »

The EL-Nikkor 50/2.8 is a 6 element, 4 group design. The 50/4 is a 4 element, 3 group design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkor#EL-Nikkor

Craig
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"

Photo-DIY
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:56 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Photo-DIY »

What kind of access to the iris do you need?
I found out for my smooth bokeh / apodization filtering work, that for example it is very easy to get to the aperture of a Helios 44 58mm/2.0. This is a very cheap lens for experiments.
Furthermore this lens is good enough for some macro work - but not sure if it works well till 2:1.

But when you want to replace the whole iris assembly of a lens enlarge lenses are much better, as others said before.
I replaced the iris on a old manual Vivitar lens with a Canon EF iris, to get a automatic aperture with manual lenses. This is much work, because the lenses in front and behind the iris assembly are mechanical only connected with this iris assembly, and the lens parts should be in correct distance and not be shifted or tilted.
I have a Componon S 150mm where I made tests for this project too, there the iris is very easy accessible / exchangeable. At least when one has the tools to make the right thread for the front and back lens in the new part.
Photo Tinkerers Heaven and Hell:
http://www.4photos.de/index-en.html
Some own work - and a bigger list of DIY links

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 3624
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

Photo-DIY wrote:I found out for my smooth bokeh / apodization filtering work. . . .
Markus, I clicked on your link with interest, as I have been thinking (based on an idea of Rik's) about trying apodizing stops with some of my optics, in hope of get softer out of focus elements that might be easier for stacking software to handle. Photoshop files outputted to film printer, as you've done, is precisely the approach I've been considering. My thought has been to output to a larger format than 35mm--an 8.5 x 12 film print costs around $10, and should provide room for a lot of filters in different sizes and densities. But it's very useful to know that reversal film has worked better for you than print film. When I get around to doing this, I'll have to ask the printers what film stocks they use.

This--quoting from your page--seems brilliant: "For people who can not imagine that the photo industry could make any reasonable upgrade to their cameras, I have an proposal: It should be no bigger deal to alter the iris diameter during exposure - this would get an apodisation effect with every lens!" (To be clear--Markus' idea, not mine.)

Great idea! This could get me to replace a few lenses, if Nikon were to successfully implement it.

Best,

--Chris

Photo-DIY
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:56 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Photo-DIY »

I have tested several film types. But the slide film seems to be best. Thought classic black and white slides / clear negatives should be optimum, but up to now they are more "foggy" - more minimum density than the slide films.
Here in Germany slide recording for 135mm film is relativly cheap, but medium format is very expensive. I made some tests with photographing the monitor with fimage on it, but seems like difference between white and black is not high enough. Now I want to try a setup with a lightbox with circular mask on it and deep black surrondings. And all this defocussed to get the gradient exposure of the film.

I haven´t tested at the moment, but it seems logical that the sharp bokeh circels would confuse stacking algorithms more than ~ gaussian diffused bokeh circles.

During my tests I have learned that different lenses accept more or less good this modification. The Helios 44 I use is still very sharp (see the linked full resolution test images).

Regarding the idea for new generations of cameras: I think it´s the camera that could make this "effect" to smoothen the bokeh. It would not be ideal with normal lenses, because the iris did not close like a shutter. But I suppose with a nonlinear iris movement it could still help much.
With central shutter lenses this apodization effect is known, but most at the very short exposure times. Have not tested it yet. I think about slowing down this shutter movement, to boost the apodization effect.
Problem there: The few shutter blades form a very irregular shape.
Photo Tinkerers Heaven and Hell:
http://www.4photos.de/index-en.html
Some own work - and a bigger list of DIY links

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic