I dont know about the greater than 150mm lenses, but the shorter lenses have
common flange sizes
so it is not a big chore to adapt using an enlarger lens board say and the
normal enlarger lens
retainging ring. An/Or make one from a T mount.
The easiest is just to make sure to buy the enlarger lens already with a
standard 39mm enlarger
screw mount (same as leica screw), which you can easily get adapters for. I
have a couple of
novoflex (with OM mount) bellows, but with 39mm screw flanges mounted on the
front.
You can buy a 39mm enlarger flange mount for $5 or so from a darkroom supply
and mount it on any
Tmount (or bellows) by drilling 3 screw holes or even glue it on, if totally
averse to using
tools.
Novoflex sells all sorts of flanges and adapters for their bellows but
unfortunately at a price!
SG Grimes used to also.
I believe somebody mentioned you can get Tmounts for E-series but I don't have
experience.
Obviously Emount-OM-OM-Tmount-39mm would be very clunky!
Tim Hughes
>
> 1. Bellows. These lenses don't have any focusing mechanism, so they need
> to be bellows mounted. A normal 35mm style bellows won't work with the
> long ones. The rear portion of a Schneider Componon 150/5.6 fits into an
> OM mount on the bellows with about enough room to spare to allow an
> adapter. A 240/5.6 and a Rodenstock Omegaron 210/4.5 are both WAY too
> big to fit. At least a MF bellows would be required.
>
> 2. Mounting. No problem for someone with access to a machine shop. :-)
> I don't know if the mounting threads for these lenses have some sort
> of standards, but if so, they are not related to anything to do with
> 35mm format equipment. All that I've seen come with a mounting ring to
> attach them to a lens board using a simple hole of the appropriate size.
> > But then I wondered if any of these long lenses are really up to the
> > task.
> Yes, I believe they are. The long fl enlarging lenses I have are left
> over from production of a series of rather large rear projection units
> for viewing maps and aerial photos that I conceived of, helped design
> and had built. They projected 4x5" transparencies onto 6x7 foot screens.
> Using a rotating turret, and film holder that moved up and down in the
> optical plane, ala the Beseler "Cone of Light", and orthogonally to the
> optical axis to allow viewing any part at higher magnifications, all
> automated, they projected at three different magnifications.
>
> We used a custom built camera with another 240 mm Componon with shutter
> to make the slides and used a special order Kodak film originally
> created for high altitude photography, It was rumored it was developed
> for the U2s. Whatever its provenance, it was astonishingly sharp and
> grainless. Just a little tricky to process, which we also did ourselves.
> A group from the Lawrence Livermore Lab came to visit once to find out
> from my cartographer/photographer how to process it without the emulsion
> sloughing off and going down the drain. :-)
>
> Anyway, I don't remember now the maximum magnification, but it was
> around 40x with a 105 mm lens. I could stand right up at the screen and
> see no grain and lots of detail. The lowest magnification was still
> about 17x, and very high quality.
> > It has been rumored that some 35mm Canyon lenses are not up to
> > the resolution demands required by the pixel density of the 5D and other
> > full frame digitals.
> AF general purpose taking lenses and top quality enlarging lenses are
> almost unrelated. The optical requirements and resulting designs are
> sooo different.
> > Furthermore, MF lenses don't need to be designed with resolving power
> > equivalent to 35mm
> lenses
> We've been around this one before, with all sorts of theories propounded
> and positions taken. The generally likely truth is that the optical
> tradeoffs to maintain reasonably flat field and minimal aberrations over
> the bigger image circle do almost certainly mean lower lppmm resolutions
> in MF lenses, although probably not in proportion to the increased
> negative size. Still, you are again talking about taking lenses, not
> enlarging lenses
> > so what's the chance that an MF enlarging lens will resolve 13MP on a 35mm
> > size frame
> I think it's pretty good, based on my experience..
> > let alone the higher pixel density of smaller sensor cameras?
> >
> Who cares? ;-)
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|