kds315
www.macrolenses.de
I'd like to experiment a little with my R-D1 and would like some hints how to focus with an old enlarger lens (I would use it with a helicoid).
I only found the trial-and-error method, but this is nothing I would like to do forever.
Any better ideas?
I only found the trial-and-error method, but this is nothing I would like to do forever.
Any better ideas?
Bryce
Well-known
I think you're on your own. If it's a 50mm lens, you could maybe attach something to the moving part of the lens assembly to control the focus mechanism in the body.
Also, you could place distance markers on the focus mount and scale focus. Establishing their locations would be trial by error.
Also, you could place distance markers on the focus mount and scale focus. Establishing their locations would be trial by error.
Ash
Selflessly Self-involved
Bellows.
Look on the bay for a bellows attachment
Look on the bay for a bellows attachment
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
And take care that it's a M39 bellows, so that it will fit your lens (and the RD1 with an adapter), and that it has a scale for the amount of extension. Then you have to do a lot of trial and error to correlate those to distances.
The only meaningful application for this would IMHO be reproduction work, using the RD1 as some kind of expensive scanner. I would probably use a cheap 6MP DSLR instead.
Philipp
The only meaningful application for this would IMHO be reproduction work, using the RD1 as some kind of expensive scanner. I would probably use a cheap 6MP DSLR instead.
Philipp
Ash
Selflessly Self-involved
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Klaus, you can't really use a 50mm enlarging lens like a regular focusing 50mm lens on the RD-1. They will not focus to infinity. You can experiment, but enlarging lenses can be used on a bellows for close-up or macro work.
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
I do essentially the same thing, using my R-D1 on various Leitz reproduction devices. The Reprovit IIa uses a Leitz Focotar enlarging lens, and the Leitz BOOWU, BEHOO, and BEOON use genrally a 50/3.5 Elmar, but could equally use an enlarging lens. If you don't know these devices, look them up on the Web. These are all used at close distances for copying and the like. One needs to take into consideration the field cut of the R-D1 and somehow make a mask or estimate the loss. These devices, which range from the very simple to the complex, work extremely well with the R-D1, and my wife and I use them in our business, especially when an image or text page needs to be scanned, but is too larbe for the scanner, or when a small detail needs to be rendered accurately.
kds315
www.macrolenses.de
...the real reason
...the real reason
Thanks to all for the very valuable comments. I guess I have to be a bit more precise what I would like to accomplish here.
What would I like to do:
1) NOT macro work, I use a (several) DSLR(s) for that (cf. my site http://www.macrolenses.de)
2) NOT reproduction; #1 applies
3) BUT reflected UV (ultraviolet) photography; some may know that I am active in that field using a Nikon D70 (quite useful UV response) - since the R-D1 uses the same chip, the results should be quite good.
So why a rangefinder you might ask?
It is because there are no (or nearly no) useful wide angle DSLR lenses below 50mm focal length capable of transmitting in that interesting UV range 300...400nm. This due to the fact that a) lenses are coated to stop UV (to achieve higher contrast), b) lenses use cemented elements (cement stops UV), c) lenses are made of glass which doesn't allow UV to transmit.
Since a rangefinder needs only some 28mm back focal length to focus at infinity there is a much higher chance to find UV capable lens, whereas a DSLR needs some 46mm, DSLR wide angle lenses < some 50mm focal length are retrofocus designs using lots of lens elements, which seriously degrades UV transmission.
So, I hope now it got clearer why I asked....
Questions about UV photography most welcome btw. should I have "infected" someone here (can turn into serious addiction...be warned!)
And if someone should be interested "how that looks like...", here an example
(btw. my avatar is an UV differential flower shot):
...the real reason
Thanks to all for the very valuable comments. I guess I have to be a bit more precise what I would like to accomplish here.
What would I like to do:
1) NOT macro work, I use a (several) DSLR(s) for that (cf. my site http://www.macrolenses.de)
2) NOT reproduction; #1 applies
3) BUT reflected UV (ultraviolet) photography; some may know that I am active in that field using a Nikon D70 (quite useful UV response) - since the R-D1 uses the same chip, the results should be quite good.
So why a rangefinder you might ask?
It is because there are no (or nearly no) useful wide angle DSLR lenses below 50mm focal length capable of transmitting in that interesting UV range 300...400nm. This due to the fact that a) lenses are coated to stop UV (to achieve higher contrast), b) lenses use cemented elements (cement stops UV), c) lenses are made of glass which doesn't allow UV to transmit.
Since a rangefinder needs only some 28mm back focal length to focus at infinity there is a much higher chance to find UV capable lens, whereas a DSLR needs some 46mm, DSLR wide angle lenses < some 50mm focal length are retrofocus designs using lots of lens elements, which seriously degrades UV transmission.
So, I hope now it got clearer why I asked....
Questions about UV photography most welcome btw. should I have "infected" someone here (can turn into serious addiction...be warned!)
And if someone should be interested "how that looks like...", here an example
(btw. my avatar is an UV differential flower shot):
Attachments
Last edited:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
The basic formula for focal length calculations is:
1/a + 1/b = 1/F
where a is the subject-to-lens distance, b is the lens-to-imager distance, and F is the focal length of the lens.
So if you know the lens' focal length and the lens-to-imager distance, you should be able to figure out at what distance to position your subject -- at least close enough for a starting point. (I'd suggest positioning a ruler at the calculated distance, so you can measure how far off you are, and then use that info as a guide for the actual photos.)
When figuring the lens-to-imager distance, remember you have to measure from the lens' rear principal plane. This can be hard to find on tele and retrofocus lenses, but for conventional lenses the position of the diaphragm blades is a pretty good starting point.
Good luck...
1/a + 1/b = 1/F
where a is the subject-to-lens distance, b is the lens-to-imager distance, and F is the focal length of the lens.
So if you know the lens' focal length and the lens-to-imager distance, you should be able to figure out at what distance to position your subject -- at least close enough for a starting point. (I'd suggest positioning a ruler at the calculated distance, so you can measure how far off you are, and then use that info as a guide for the actual photos.)
When figuring the lens-to-imager distance, remember you have to measure from the lens' rear principal plane. This can be hard to find on tele and retrofocus lenses, but for conventional lenses the position of the diaphragm blades is a pretty good starting point.
Good luck...
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
There once was an UV enlarger made by an East German company, I think it was Pentacon; maybe you could get a lens for one of those?
kds315
www.macrolenses.de
Thanks! Do you happen to know which lens was used there?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Klaus,
no, I don't, unfortunately. The device was called Pentacon Multifoc UV; I guess you could write to Pentacon Dresden and find out.
Philipp
no, I don't, unfortunately. The device was called Pentacon Multifoc UV; I guess you could write to Pentacon Dresden and find out.
Philipp
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Klaus,
reviving an old thread about UV photography and the R-D1: I recently stumbled across Bjørn Rørslett's site where he talks about UV photography and the problem of getting lenses (http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev05.html). Apart from unorthodox suggestions (such as taking the cheapest and simplest stock lenses and rubbing off the coating), he recommends the old uncoated EL Nikkor 63/f3.5 enlarger lens, which, according to him, has a flat response down to 350 nm wavelength. There is one currently on the auction site (150063244052). If you've got some sort of focusing device for macro lenses on the R/D1, it seems like it could be cheap and good 90mm-equivalent UV macro lens.
Since you didn't have that lens in your database yet, I thought you might be interested.
For focusing, have you experimented with some of the old Focoslide sliding copying attachments (such as in this photo.net thread)?
Philipp
reviving an old thread about UV photography and the R-D1: I recently stumbled across Bjørn Rørslett's site where he talks about UV photography and the problem of getting lenses (http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev05.html). Apart from unorthodox suggestions (such as taking the cheapest and simplest stock lenses and rubbing off the coating), he recommends the old uncoated EL Nikkor 63/f3.5 enlarger lens, which, according to him, has a flat response down to 350 nm wavelength. There is one currently on the auction site (150063244052). If you've got some sort of focusing device for macro lenses on the R/D1, it seems like it could be cheap and good 90mm-equivalent UV macro lens.
Since you didn't have that lens in your database yet, I thought you might be interested.
For focusing, have you experimented with some of the old Focoslide sliding copying attachments (such as in this photo.net thread)?
Philipp
kds315
www.macrolenses.de
Thanks Phillip for the tip.
the 3.5/63mm (coated btw.) is well known to me and I have at least one if not two of them (there are about 300 lenses sitting around here waiting to be inserted into my DB). The coated, older 4/50mm has about the same spectral response and is also quite useable (but not mentioned by Bjoern, that is why you still get them for $10 or so...!!). Both need a special mount, which is much easier with a rangefinder than a DSLR.
Btw., here you find the transmission spectra of both (and other) mentioned lenses plus some examples of UV photography FYI:
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=74643&page=6&highlight=ug11x (I'm no longer active in that forum...)
the 3.5/63mm (coated btw.) is well known to me and I have at least one if not two of them (there are about 300 lenses sitting around here waiting to be inserted into my DB). The coated, older 4/50mm has about the same spectral response and is also quite useable (but not mentioned by Bjoern, that is why you still get them for $10 or so...!!). Both need a special mount, which is much easier with a rangefinder than a DSLR.
Btw., here you find the transmission spectra of both (and other) mentioned lenses plus some examples of UV photography FYI:
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=74643&page=6&highlight=ug11x (I'm no longer active in that forum...)
Last edited:
kds315
www.macrolenses.de
rxmd said:
Btw. Pentacon dumped all available info about 20 years ago, and they told me that there is also no-one available anymore whom I could ask. Too sad...
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
That's a pity.kds315 said:
How about wideangle options for UV? I could imagine that SLR wideangles are suboptimal for UV because they tend to contain lots of glass. I gather that you have access to a spectrometer. Have you tried measuring the spectral response from older compact RF wideangles, such as the uncoated Leitz 28/f6.3 Hector? Or an Orion-15 (28/f6, much better quality; coated - maybe one would have to rub the coating off gently)?
Philipp
kds315
www.macrolenses.de
rxmd said:That's a pity.
How about wideangle options for UV? I could imagine that SLR wideangles are suboptimal for UV because they tend to contain lots of glass. I gather that you have access to a spectrometer. Have you tried measuring the spectral response from older compact RF wideangles, such as the uncoated Leitz 28/f6.3 Hector? Or an Orion-15 (28/f6, much better quality; coated - maybe one would have to rub the coating off gently)?
Philipp
There are plenty of (coated) wide angles which are capable to do up to 315nm. I examined some 50 lenses, which was quite some financial burden and sold some to interesting parties - want some (24/28/35mm)??
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Klaus,
are you making your spectral response data available? Given the scale at which you apparently conducted your tests, I guess that could be quite useful (and save you from complete novices like me giving you unnecessary tips)
Philipp
are you making your spectral response data available? Given the scale at which you apparently conducted your tests, I guess that could be quite useful (and save you from complete novices like me giving you unnecessary tips
)Philipp
kds315
www.macrolenses.de
rxmd said:Hi Klaus,
are you making your spectral response data available? Given the scale at which you apparently conducted your tests, I guess that could be quite useful (and save you from complete novices like me giving you unnecessary tips
Philipp
This is the cutest way to get to somebodies secrets I have heard for years! Well done - I have the efforts and you the gain, what a nicely balanced proposal!
But fun aside, I will publish it when the time is right, so stay tuned! [one tip, try the Zeiss ZM lenses...]
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Ha, that's a specialty of mine.kds315 said:
OK. If you do publish it somewhere, make sure to announce it here as wellkds315 said:
Philipp