Nikon PB-4 Bellows (exploring tilt/shift options)
Paul Furman
some discussion below.
1. Do I need an extension ring to mount on a D200?
2. Does at least one of the end caps on the 4 rails come off? I saw one
modified to shorten it and am also curious if two female PB-4 mounts
could be attached, switching out the actual mounts for more flexibility
in tilting & shifting. Shortened modification:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1139/1396372967_f682af0555.jpg?v=0
3. When rotating from landscape to portrait, can you stop anywhere
between? I'm guessing it's just a matter of possibly being too loose so
that things wouldn't stay put but if there's enough tension this might
be workable.
4 the adjustments for tilt & shift are levers on the front, how do these
work? Does the lever just loosen it and you push it with your hand or
something else? Are these pretty secure for a heavy lens if the unit is
set at 90 degrees to get vertical movement?
5. What does the small 'thing' on the front lens mount do? It looks like
maybe a place to attach an aperture diaphragm... if there was more
mechanisms inside..
Here's an interesting modification allowing a lens to get closer to the
sensor for infinity focus by mounting it on the inside of the mount.
http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/collection/blue.html
An off-the-shelf setup for this kind of work is a Novoflex Balpro TS but
that costs $1,300. One neat feature is it mounts on the lens, not on the
body which should make movements more intuitive (and more precise for
panorama shifting though that's not much of an issue with today's
stitching software). Another nice thing is it looks quite a bit more
compact than a PB-4 although I wonder how sturdy it is. The Balpro has
movements in front & back too. A sawed down PB-4 would be a much more
manageable size. In fact if it could be mounted on a simpler old 2-rail
bellows that would be even smaller and the focusing rack isn't needed
for infinity work:
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/images/103798.jpg
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/nikon/bellows.htm
The other option is a Zork setup but that gets real expensive when you
put all the parts together:
http://www.zoerk.com/Zoerk%20info/product_guide_current.pdf
$550 MFS tilt
(includes:
$330 Tilt tube for
$229 Mini Makro Mount adjustable 'extension tube' for focusing)
$139 additional set of tubes
$50 35mm adapter
$600 shift adapter
$95 Tripod socket for mounting lens instead of body
$89 L-bracket for maintaining nodal point
$1,300 total.
This has a nice 30 degree tilt and parallax free shift for pano's and
it's super compact but I think only really works at infinity with large
format, or medium format without the shift adapter and I assume a heavy
lens would just flop over by it's own weight on the tilt mechanism.
Here's a detailed summary of pretty much all the options:
http://www.stitchpix.com/options.html
This quote from there is funny:
"Once upon a time in the far, far away land of Finland there was
developéd a system quite similar to the Cambo Ultima 35 but a lot
cheaper and more innovative and yea! it was slain by mysterious and
arcane forces of darkness and thus it was smote and lain low these many
years hence."
..perhaps refers to this: http://www.naturfotograf.com/28pc.html
btw that looks a lot like the Novoflex but a bit smaller... it's not
something that can be found any more and if you did find it the price
would be silly.
Max Perl
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:CZY4j.5304$C24....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>I have a few questions for anyone who has a PB-4 or is familiar. And some
>discussion below.
>
> 1. Do I need an extension ring to mount on a D200?
>
can be mounted without en extension ring.
> 2. Does at least one of the end caps on the 4 rails come off? I saw one
> modified to shorten it and am also curious if two female PB-4 mounts could
> be attached, switching out the actual mounts for more flexibility in
> tilting & shifting. Shortened modification:
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1139/1396372967_f682af0555.jpg?v=0
You can remove both end caps by unscrewing 4 "end screws". There are
two tiny holes in each.
>
> 3. When rotating from landscape to portrait, can you stop anywhere
> between? I'm guessing it's just a matter of possibly being too loose so
> that things wouldn't stay put but if there's enough tension this might be
> workable.
>
My PB-4 has tension enough to hold a Nikkormat FTn in between........
> 4 the adjustments for tilt & shift are levers on the front, how do these
> work? Does the lever just loosen it and you push it with your hand or
> something else? Are these pretty secure for a heavy lens if the unit is
> set at 90 degrees to get vertical movement?
>
Yes......you push the levers......and then you push by hand the tilt and
shift.....one lever for each.....and when you lock.....it is very locked :-)
> 5. What does the small 'thing' on the front lens mount do? It looks like
> maybe a place to attach an aperture diaphragm... if there was more
> mechanisms inside..
>
Small thing? .....it is the push buttom.....to unlock the lens like you
have
on the camera body. There is not buttom to close down the diagram.
The PB-4 is a fantastic piece of machinery..... much nicer than e.g. a
Hasselblad bellows.....and much cheaper.....
Frank Arthur
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:CZY4j.5304$C24....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
If you can find one HAMA made a bellows to fit the Nikon. I am
currently using mine on my D80. It is similar to the Hasselblad
Flexbody and has all the swings, tilts and shifts of many
Sinar type view cameras.
Paul Furman
> <answers>
Thanks!
Matt Clara
> I have a few questions for anyone who has a PB-4 or is familiar. And
> some discussion below.
>
> 1. Do I need an extension ring to mount on a D200?
>
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote
>> I have a few questions for anyone who has a PB-4 or is familiar. And
>> some discussion below.
>>
>> "Once upon a time in the far, far away land of Finland there was
>> developéd a system quite similar to the Cambo Ultima 35 but a lot
>> cheaper and more innovative and yea! it was slain by mysterious and
>> arcane forces of darkness and thus it was smote and lain low these
>> many years hence."
>> ..perhaps refers to this: http://www.naturfotograf.com/28pc.html
>> btw that looks a lot like the Novoflex but a bit smaller... it's not
>> something that can be found any more and if you did find it the
>> price would be silly.
>
> If you can find one HAMA made a bellows to fit the Nikon. I am
> currently using mine on my D80. It is similar to the Hasselblad
> Flexbody and has all the swings, tilts and shifts of many
> Sinar type view cameras.
Hmm, pretty compact for medium format:
http://www.owenphotographicrepairs.com/bendybladg.htm
The one in the naturfotograf.com link above is the Hama... it's so tiny,
that would be nice but it does not exist. The Novoflex seems comparable:
<http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/novoflex_announces_balpro_t_s_tilt_shift_bellows/?
I even looked at a DIY solution:
http://www.velmex.com/manual_combining_unislides.html
http://www.deltron.com/catalog/specifications/?cat_id=194
http://www.velmex.com/in_stock_a15.asp
but those aren't cheap either & probably more precise than is needed
(slow). Add a turntable in the xy & another in the z direction & it
would probably be $2,000 before connecting to a camera & lens.
Max Perl
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:QH%4j.75625$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Paul Furman
> You can also make a lot of "fun" with these adapters......I think :-)
>
> http://www.zoerk.com/
Yes, I snipped that out of my long OP (see below reinstated). It's
probably the most practical solution, my main concern is that it doesn't
seem to have more locking ability than a lensbaby so is not really
useful on a tripod, particularly with heavier lenses. I'm playing with a
few lenses with homemade bag bellows & such including a huge medium
format 30mm fisheye I got a good price on. It's fun but hard on the
wrist, takes two hands & hard to really get it where you want:
http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-Area/Oakland/11-30-07-berkeley
and this little $40 experiment shot the sushi following:
http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/11-25-07/pg1pc2
Paul Furman
Ah, thanks I forgot about that page. Great explanation of the issues of
mounting non-Ai lenses also!
Toby
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:CZY4j.5304$C24....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>I have a few questions for anyone who has a PB-4 or is familiar. And some
>discussion below.
>
> 1. Do I need an extension ring to mount on a D200?
I've never used one and it hasn't hurt anything as far as I can tell.
>
> 2. Does at least one of the end caps on the 4 rails come off? I saw one
> modified to shorten it and am also curious if two female PB-4 mounts could
> be attached, switching out the actual mounts for more flexibility in
> tilting & shifting. Shortened modification:
>
All the end stops come off. You'll need an optical wrench with points to do
it right, but small needlenose pliers might work.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1139/1396372967_f682af0555.jpg?v=0
That looks totally stupid. Why not just not extend the bellows as far?
>
> 3. When rotating from landscape to portrait, can you stop anywhere
> between? I'm guessing it's just a matter of possibly being too loose so
> that things wouldn't stay put but if there's enough tension this might be
> workable.
There are no stops, but there is a fair amount of drag so it could be held
in place manually.
>
> 4 the adjustments for tilt & shift are levers on the front, how do these
> work? Does the lever just loosen it and you push it with your hand or
> something else? Are these pretty secure for a heavy lens if the unit is
> set at 90 degrees to get vertical movement?
They are friction locks, and yes, they are quite secure if you tighten them
enough. Mostly you just use your thumb and push them one way or the other.
>
> 5. What does the small 'thing' on the front lens mount do? It looks like
> maybe a place to attach an aperture diaphragm... if there was more
> mechanisms inside..
I don't remember and I am not near my unit. If you are really interested
remind me to look when I get back to Tokyo mid-December.
>
> Here's an interesting modification allowing a lens to get closer to the
> sensor for infinity focus by mounting it on the inside of the mount.
> http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/collection/blue.html
I have an old brass barrel 135mm lens that works fine on the front. If you
go with a 150 (or probably 105) enlarging lens you wouldn't need to go
through such contortions, plus you would have wider coverage for extreme
swings.
Personally I have been quite underwhelmed by the capabilities of the PB-4.
You don't have anywhere near the kind of movements that a view camera has:
the back rail is fixed and the front simply slides from side to side and
does horizontal swings. Mounting vertically you do have the option of
dropping the front but that is of limited use in controlling plane of focus
because the back is fixed. Obviously Nikon knew this as well, since the PB-6
went back to fixed rails. I suppose that with the lensbaby craze it is of
some limited usefulness, but in that case you are better off with a
lensbaby.
Be aware that the D200 body can only be mounted and dismounted with the
bellows in portrait orientation. No big deal really, but a bit of a pain...
Toby
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman schrieb:
>> I have a few questions for anyone who has a PB-4 or is familiar. And some
>> discussion below.
Thanks for the detailed answers! :-)
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1139/1396372967_f682af0555.jpg?v=0
>
> That looks totally stupid. Why not just not extend the bellows as far?
The reason is for discrete shooting in public and convenience: for
infinity focusing, there is no need for a long rail, that's only for
macro. I figure around 1-1/2 inches of movement is enough for general
photography. Extension tubes could be added for macro work or an
unaltered PB-4.
> I have an old brass barrel 135mm lens that works fine on the front. If you
> go with a 150 (or probably 105) enlarging lens you wouldn't need to go
> through such contortions, plus you would have wider coverage for extreme
> swings.
Zoerk sells their system with these medium format enlarging lenses:
$850 80mm f/4 APO Rodagon (modified) ($655 at B&H)
$650 90mm f/4.5 Schneider APO Componon ($630 at Adorama)
$350 80mm f/4.5 Schneider Componon S (modified)
$350 90mm f/4.5 APO Rogonar S
With some modifications on a PB-4 to mount closer, a 35mm shift lens can
be used to get wide angle although the lens needs to have the mount
removed. On an APS DSLR those lenses will tilt & shift more than full
frame 35mm. With the finest setup, a DSLR can be shifted behind a tilted
large format lens and stitched into the same image that a view camera
would capture, although with more DOF. This requires full independent
front & back tilts & shifts, I think only the huge $4,000 Cambo will do
that:
http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/set01/english/internet/Item85.html
> Personally I have been quite underwhelmed by the capabilities of the PB-4.
> You don't have anywhere near the kind of movements that a view camera has:
> the back rail is fixed and the front simply slides from side to side and
> does horizontal swings.
Yes those are some of the things I'd like to change. The Hassleblad
flexbody link I posted was modified for these reasons. It's also
possible to simply mount a DSLR on the back of a cheap old LF view
camera but you are again stuck with only telephoto large format lenses:
http://www.camerafusion.com/?page_id=58
> Mounting vertically you do have the option of
> dropping the front but that is of limited use in controlling plane of focus
> because the back is fixed. Obviously Nikon knew this as well, since the PB-6
> went back to fixed rails. I suppose that with the lensbaby craze it is of
> some limited usefulness, but in that case you are better off with a
> lensbaby.
I tried a lensbaby, they are fun but they suck. I'm exploring better
optics but the movements suck with a handheld lensbaby approach and
that's why I'm looking at this idea. The PB-4 is good but yes it's
limited and that's why I'm interested in maybe putting the front tilt
mechanism on the back also. Vertical tilt would be nice, and vertical
adjustment. Even better if the lens remained fixed and the body did most
of the movements like the Novoflex.
Richard Karash
Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> I have a few questions for anyone who has a PB-4 or is familiar. And
> some discussion below.
Paul, I've used a PB-4 quite a bit with a D-70. Based on that
experience...
> 1. Do I need an extension ring to mount on a D200?
As others have commented, you have to mount and unmount the bellows to
the camera in portrait orientation, which is a minor annoyance. Then
rotate the camera body into shooting position.
> 2. Does at least one of the end caps on the 4 rails come off? I saw one
> modified to shorten it and am also curious if two female PB-4 mounts
> could be attached, switching out the actual mounts for more flexibility
> in tilting & shifting. Shortened modification:
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1139/1396372967_f682af0555.jpg?v=0
John Shaw also mentions using a shortened PB-4 in his great book,
Closeups in Nature. I'm not convinced.
> 3. When rotating from landscape to portrait, can you stop anywhere
> between? I'm guessing it's just a matter of possibly being too loose so
> that things wouldn't stay put but if there's enough tension this might
> be workable.
The rotation of the camera back vs. the bellows has solid click-stops
only at landscape and portrait. In between, mine is stiff enough to
hold the camera. Another PB-4 might be looser.
> 4 the adjustments for tilt & shift are levers on the front, how do these
> work? Does the lever just loosen it and you push it with your hand or
> something else? Are these pretty secure for a heavy lens if the unit is
> set at 90 degrees to get vertical movement?
Shift... You move the lever to loosen, slide the lens with your hand,
then tighten. While loose, it slides pretty easily. Hard to make
precise small adjustments; sort of a hit-or-miss thing. You'll want to
have a hold on the shift mechanism when you loosen it. Swing is about
the same.
The PB-4 is elegantly designed and well-made.
You can use your tripod head to flop the bellows on it's side so that
the left-right shift becomes a vertical shift and the swing becomes an
up-down tilt, but beware of one thing: You'll want your tripod to flop
90 degrees in the correct direction; otherwise your camera body will be
upside down. On my Tiltall tripod, the tilt is in the wrong direction.
Flopped over, the whole rig is pretty heavy. Watch tripod rigidity.
Could even be tipped over depending on the geometry.
> 5. What does the small 'thing' on the front lens mount do? It looks like
> maybe a place to attach an aperture diaphragm... if there was more
> mechanisms inside..
Lens release button.
> Here's an interesting modification allowing a lens to get closer to the
> sensor for infinity focus by mounting it on the inside of the mount.
> http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/collection/blue.html
Doesn't sound practical to me.
With camera directly on bellows, it focuses to infinity with Nikkor
short-mount 105/4 bellows lens. Ditto with several enlarging lenses.
I think the PB-4 is terrific for close-up/macro work. I like the
Micro-Nikkors (55/3.5, 105/4 bellows), Olympus 80/4, APO Rodagon-D 1x.
The shift-swing are helpful in controlling the plane of focus in macro.
You can add extension tubes (M, PN-11, etc.) to get more extension, but
the practical limitation is when the flex of the whole rig combined
with magnification starts to have the image jittering. In my
experience, you won't want to add much more extension.
With the 105/4 bellows, you have a small, limited movement, view
camera. But, it's a tele rig, not a wide angle. I used it with a
vertical tilt/shift for a scene 20 feet deep and it was fine. I cannot
imagine using it to shoot a building.
I have a couple of other comments:
1. Tilt/shift controls the plane of focus. But bracket-focusing and
then compositing with Helicon-Focus gives much, much more depth of
field than you'll ever get with tilt/shift. George Lepp wrote up
Helicon Focus in a recent magazine article. I think it's a
breakthrough. (Depth of field is a huge problem in macro; of course the
subject has to be static; as with a bellows, you'll be using a tripod.)
2. Tilt/shift controls perspective distortions. But, these are now
very managable with Photoshop.
My NET-NET after a lot of experimenting: I'd rather shoot with a
simpler camera rig (body + macro lens), bracket focus and composite
with Helicon Focus to get depth of field, then do my perspective
control in Photoshop.
One more for D-70 users: The D-70 won't meter at all without a modern
lens attached directly to the camera. I use a modified M tube to fool
the camera into doing matrix metering and TTL flash with the PB-4 or
with old macro lenses. See Bjorn Rorslett's excellent article at
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
(The D-200 and D-300 WILL meter with old lenses and the PB-4.)
Good luck and have fun. Let us know how it turns out.
-=- Rick
--
Richard Karash <Ric...@Karash.com>
Richard "at" Karash "dot" com
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> I have a few questions for anyone who has a PB-4 or is familiar. And
>> some discussion below.
>
> Paul, I've used a PB-4 quite a bit with a D-70. Based on that
> experience...
Thanks for the detailed reply.
> With the 105/4 bellows, you have a small, limited movement, view
> camera. But, it's a tele rig, not a wide angle. I used it with a
> vertical tilt/shift for a scene 20 feet deep and it was fine. I cannot
> imagine using it to shoot a building.
Those are rather expensive & hard to find lenses these days.
> I have a couple of other comments:
>
> 1. Tilt/shift controls the plane of focus. But bracket-focusing and
> then compositing with Helicon-Focus gives much, much more depth of
> field than you'll ever get with tilt/shift. George Lepp wrote up
> Helicon Focus in a recent magazine article. I think it's a
> breakthrough. (Depth of field is a huge problem in macro; of course the
> subject has to be static; as with a bellows, you'll be using a tripod.)
>
> 2. Tilt/shift controls perspective distortions. But, these are now
> very managable with Photoshop.
>
> My NET-NET after a lot of experimenting: I'd rather shoot with a
> simpler camera rig (body + macro lens), bracket focus and composite
> with Helicon Focus to get depth of field, then do my perspective
> control in Photoshop.
Hmm, it occurs to me that the PB4 does not include a focusing rail so is
a completely different rig than would be used for focus stacking.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> > With the 105/4 bellows, you have a small, limited movement, view
> > camera.
> Those are rather expensive & hard to find lenses these days.
Members of the proletariat use an enlarging lens.
Cut a hole in a body cap and mount the lens to it.
You can use all sorts of lenses ... from old Kodak folders,
back-to-back close-up lenses ... magnifying glasses ...
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote
>
>> > With the 105/4 bellows, you have a small, limited movement, view
>> > camera.
>> Those are rather expensive & hard to find lenses these days.
>
>Members of the proletariat use an enlarging lens.
>
>Cut a hole in a body cap and mount the lens to it.
Or do it right and get an adapter. They're easy enough
to find. A bit more difficult is finding the right
adapters to reverse the lense, which is also a good
idea.
>You can use all sorts of lenses ... from old Kodak folders,
>back-to-back close-up lenses ... magnifying glasses ...
But in fact there are several really good enlarging
lenses in the 50-200mm range which will provide very top
notch results, and at least for the shorter focal
lengths they are dirt cheap.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Paul Furman
> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote:
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote
>>
>>>> With the 105/4 bellows, you have a small, limited movement, view
>>>> camera.
>>> Those are rather expensive & hard to find lenses these days.
>> Members of the proletariat use an enlarging lens.
>>
>> Cut a hole in a body cap and mount the lens to it.
>
> Or do it right and get an adapter. They're easy enough
> to find. A bit more difficult is finding the right
> adapters to reverse the lense, which is also a good
> idea.
>
>> You can use all sorts of lenses ... from old Kodak folders,
>> back-to-back close-up lenses ... magnifying glasses ...
>
> But in fact there are several really good enlarging
> lenses in the 50-200mm range which will provide very top
> notch results, and at least for the shorter focal
> lengths they are dirt cheap.
Zoerk sells their system with these medium format enlarging lenses for
the widest practical high quality lens:
$850 80mm f/4 APO Rodagon (modified) ($655 at B&H)
$650 90mm f/4.5 Schneider APO Componon ($630 at Adorama)
$350 80mm f/4.5 Schneider Componon S (modified)
$350 90mm f/4.5 APO Rogonar S
The EL-Nikkor 135mm F5.6 goes for as little as $50 on ebay but that's
pretty long:
http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/apo/el135.html
PS I recieved my PB-4 today in the mail, I see that it does include an
integral focusing rail. The tilt & shift are more awkward than I'd hoped
but it seems pretty nice in general. I shall report back when I've had a
chance to play with it.
Richard Karash
<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> Richard Karash wrote:
> > Paul Furman wrote:
> >
> >> I have a few questions for anyone who has a PB-4 or is familiar. And
> >> some discussion below.
> > With the 105/4 bellows, you have a small, limited movement, view
> > camera. But, it's a tele rig, not a wide angle. I used it with a
> > vertical tilt/shift for a scene 20 feet deep and it was fine. I cannot
> > imagine using it to shoot a building.
>
> Those are rather expensive & hard to find lenses these days.
True... But, if you are gonna use the bellows, then there is not much
benefit to staying in the manufacturer's own lens line, you can shop.
Any of the 100mm bellows lenses can be put on the PB-4 quite easily.
Bellows Takumar is nice and not too expensive. May focus at infinity,
maybe not, depending on the mount. The optimal magnification for these
lenses is probably in the close-up range (0.1x to 0.5x). A 100mm lens
will get to 1:1 or more on the PB-4.
At 1:1, a 75mm f/4 APO Rodagon-D 1:1 is hard to beat for any price and
is for sale today on eBay at $99 buy-it-now. It's mag range on the PB-4
is roughly 0.8x to 2.7x.
An enlarging lens in normal orientation on the bellows is optimal at
1:4 or 1:6x (that is, 0.25x to 0.16x or roughly a 4-inch field imaged
on your sensor). A 135mm Schneider Componon will focus at infinity to
about 1.0x on the PB-4.
For macro at 2x, 3x, 4x up to 6x, a 50mm f/2.8 high quality enlarging
lens reversed is hard to beat. In this range, the 55mm f/2.8
Micro-Nikkor reversed is also terrific.
Lots has been written on mounting lenses for macro. Getting the lens
mounted is easy. Shooting macro is harder.
All this assumes you are interested in macro. None of the above will
help if you want a view camera to shoot larger things, like buildings.
> > My NET-NET after a lot of experimenting: I'd rather shoot with a
> > simpler camera rig (body + macro lens), bracket focus and composite
> > with Helicon Focus to get depth of field, then do my perspective
> > control in Photoshop.
>
> Hmm, it occurs to me that the PB4 does not include a focusing rail so is
> a completely different rig than would be used for focus stacking.
You probably know this, but for anyone reading along... The PB-4 DOES
have a focusing rail. But, it's integral to the bellows unit and can't
be removed to use with a camera and directly-mounted lens. For
lens-on-camera work, I like the Olympus focusing rail. On eBay from
time to time.
Richard Karash
<fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote:
> >"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote
> >
> >> > With the 105/4 bellows, you have a small, limited movement, view
> >> > camera.
> >> Those are rather expensive & hard to find lenses these days.
> >
> >Members of the proletariat use an enlarging lens.
> >
> >Cut a hole in a body cap and mount the lens to it.
>
> Or do it right and get an adapter. They're easy enough
> to find. A bit more difficult is finding the right
> adapters to reverse the lense, which is also a good
> idea.
Reverse the lens for macro, i.e. magnification greater than 1x. A BR-2
and step-up or step-down rings does the job nicely.
> >You can use all sorts of lenses ... from old Kodak folders,
> >back-to-back close-up lenses ... magnifying glasses ...
>
> But in fact there are several really good enlarging
> lenses in the 50-200mm range which will provide very top
> notch results, and at least for the shorter focal
> lengths they are dirt cheap.
A lens around 100mm or 135mm is a nice place to start for working with
a bellows.
Floyd L. Davidson
Those are pretty steep. The El Nikkor 50mm f/2.8, 75mm
f/4.0 and 80mm f/5.6 are commonly available under $100.
If I remember right the all come in two models, the older
ones are of course lower cost than the newer ones.
Rodagon's are also generally under $100, and the 105mm
f/5.6 is a good lense.
Wollensak lenses are probably pretty good too (I can't
positively verify that however), and they are also
extremely inexpensive.
>The EL-Nikkor 135mm F5.6 goes for as little as $50 on
>ebay but that's pretty long:
>http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/apo/el135.html
>
>PS I recieved my PB-4 today in the mail, I see that it
>does include an integral focusing rail. The tilt & shift
>are more awkward than I'd hoped but it seems pretty nice
>in general. I shall report back when I've had a chance
>to play with it.
It has the smoothest movement of any bellows I've used
(I haven't used the newer Nikon models or any of the
$1800+ varieties though. :-)
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <87ve761...@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote:
>> >"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote
>> >
>> >> > With the 105/4 bellows, you have a small, limited movement, view
>> >> > camera.
>> >> Those are rather expensive & hard to find lenses these days.
>> >
>> >Members of the proletariat use an enlarging lens.
>> >
>> >Cut a hole in a body cap and mount the lens to it.
>>
>> Or do it right and get an adapter. They're easy enough
>> to find. A bit more difficult is finding the right
>> adapters to reverse the lense, which is also a good
>> idea.
>
>Reverse the lens for macro, i.e. magnification greater than 1x. A BR-2
>and step-up or step-down rings does the job nicely.
True. But it is the small sized step rings that are the
hard parts to find.
I use a reversing ring for 39mm, just because I use a
number of 39mm lenses and that way the all work the
same. I more or less have the step rings permanently
attached to an El Nikkor 50mm f/2.8, so that it can be
mount forward or reverse as needed.
>> >You can use all sorts of lenses ... from old Kodak folders,
>> >back-to-back close-up lenses ... magnifying glasses ...
>>
>> But in fact there are several really good enlarging
>> lenses in the 50-200mm range which will provide very top
>> notch results, and at least for the shorter focal
>> lengths they are dirt cheap.
>
>A lens around 100mm or 135mm is a nice place to start for working with
>a bellows.
Rodagon 105mm f/5.6 enlarging lenses are common and
inexpensive!