Lens suggestions for small view camera for digital

[Allthink_]

If you’re okay with a 930 gram lens, the RZ/RB 140mm macro has a lot to recommend it.

1.2X macro to infinity, with floating elements to optimize along the way.

$1,875 25 years ago, costlier than the 50mm ULD.

View attachment 215557

Thanks. Yes, i think the weight is ok, as I will only use it with view camera in studio. Currently using Pentax 67 135mm macro adapted to Nikon, to shoot closeups in architecture, and it's pretty lightweight.
Have to decide which lens plate to pick, the Pentax 645, that will allow 67 lenses with adapter, or the Mamiya one, each one 470$. I see that on both Pentax and Mamiya lines, there are good lenses. Not easy to decide.

 

[John Leathwick]

Thanks. Yes, i think the weight is ok, as I will only use it with view camera in studio. Currently using Pentax 67 135mm macro adapted to Nikon, to shoot closeups in architecture, and it's pretty lightweight.
Have to decide which lens plate to pick, the Pentax 645, that will allow 67 lenses with adapter, or the Mamiya one, each one 470$. I see that on both Pentax and Mamiya lines, there are good lenses. Not easy to decide.

I would endorse Doppler9000's recommendation of the RZ Macro 140, which in my experience is a very strong performer both for closeup and landscape. However, to give you an idea of the relative gains that you might make, this morning I shot two stacks of 8 images of a small flowering bulb in my garden - one with the RZ140 (left-hand) and one with a Fujinon EZ105mm (right-hand). Both were stacked in Zerene Stacker using the same settings, and then opened in Photoshop for sharpening and adjustment of tonal rendering using the same settings. Although I tried to get them to match scale-wise, I didn't get a perfect match, so there are some differences in the background blurring that are scale- rather than lens-related.

My interpretation of this pair of images is that if you have good technique, the practical photographic significance of any differences is relatively trivial. it's possible to find some features when zoomed in that are better rendered in one image than the other, or vice versa, reflecting differences in focus and the occasional effects of a light breeze which was threatening to move the flower heads. However, for me what this comparison shows is that it mostly comes down more to practicality, with both lens doing a great job.

In practical terms, however, the EX105 weighs just 180gm with its board, while the RZ weighs just over 1100 gm. In addition, when mounted the EX105 sits close to its exit pupil distance, so that movements don't require much recomposition. By contrast, the RZ140 mounts a long distance from its exit pupil, so movements almost always require recomposition. If I'm carrying my camera into the mountains, the EX105 will almost always be in the bag, but if I'm shooting at home, I'll often use the RZ140 because I really like its out of focus rendering. I suggest that both are great choices, along with the Schneiders that others have suggested.

Added later: its also worth noting that in these images, the EX is close to its designed optimum magnification of 7x, which is fixed. By contrast, the RZ is probably able to perform over a wider range of magnifications because of its floating element - I've used it at up to 1:1, where it is still very strong. To achieve that magnification, I use a 150mm extension rail and longer bellows.

-John

 

[Doppler9000]

Very nice, John.

Have you tried the EX 135mm?

 

[John Leathwick]

Very nice, John.

Have you tried the EX 135mm?

I've looked at it several times, but have been put off by its somewhat odd 53mm mount size. And besides, I have a Componon-S 150 which is a more practical combination with my EX 75 and 105 lenses. I'm still curious to know how it would perform as a taking lens, but have not seen any demonstrations.

-John

 

[Allthink_]

Anyone knows this lens? It's performance compared to pentax 645 120mm macro. Some said it's a reproduction and not enlarging lens. Have no idea what it means, but sells for same price as pentax one.

 

[Alan]

Anyone knows this lens? It's performance compared to pentax 645 120mm macro. Some said it's a reproduction and not enlarging lens. Have no idea what it means, but sells for same price as pentax one.
View attachment 215590

Yes, duplication lens - “D” in its same. That means it’s optimized for flat subjects at 1:1. Quality drops off quickly as you get away from 1:1 (sharpness, CA, distortion).

 

[Allthink_]

Yes, duplication lens - “D” in its same. That means it’s optimized for flat subjects at 1:1. Quality drops off quickly as you get away from 1:1 (sharpness, CA, distortion).

I see. So they are not good for general macro? small subjects like jewelry(as they are not flat) and bigger subjects like a vodka bottle?

 

[Doppler9000]

I see. So they are not good for general macro? small subjects like jewelry(as they are not flat) and bigger subjects like a vodka bottle?

That’s correct.

Most lens designs are compromises - they do okay close-up, and at infinity, but are not optimized for either.

The APO-Rodagon D lenses are optimized for one task and one magnification (there are 2X variants, as well).

If you want a more general purpose lens, look elsewhere.

 

[TimoK]

That’s correct.

Most lens designs are compromises - they do okay close-up, and at infinity, but are not optimized for either.

The APO-Rodagon D lenses are optimized for one task and one magnification (they have 2X lenses, as well).

If you want a more general purpose lens, look elsewhere.

That's not correct, if you are answering to Allthink's claim or question: " I see. So they are not good for general macro?" They are very good or excellent at their optimized magnification around 1:1 and good to very good for general macro. But their image quality peaks in magnification they were designed.
You really don't want field curvature to your jewellery shots. I think this lens was very goodd at jewellers at near to 1:1. The flat field is a sign of high quality.

And all lens designs are compromises-but between which things varies.

But there's another thing why you don't want this lens. Did you think how long flange distance you do need with 120mm lens like Makro-Symmar (with 124.5mm real focal lenght ) at 1:1 magnification? It is 249mm from lensplate to sensor.
I don't know about Apo-Rodagon 120mm, maybe 240mm is enough. You have to buy a long or longer bellows and rail to reach that.

If you buy RZ 140mm macro you can do 1:1 with Cambo's standard bellows and standard rail because you can focus with that lense's own helicoid.

 

[Doppler9000]

That's not correct, if you are answering to Allthink's claim or question: " I see. So they are not good for general macro?"

The complete compound question is “So they are not good for general macro? small subjects like jewelry(as they are not flat) and bigger subjects like a vodka bottle?”

Allthink is looking for a single-lens solution, is he not?

Why cut the question in half, ignoring a key part of the inquiry?

 

[Allthink_]

Yes, seems like the Pentax 645 120mm or RZ 140mm are safer bet, because my actus have regular lenses and I don't wont to buy additional rails and bellows, more $ and more complicated,
With Pentax i know there is a regular focus ring. With RZ 140 macro, i thought there is no such ring and the only option to focus is by moving the rail itself, is that right? I never had Mamiya RZ lens, hence asking. Does this lens also have a ring for focusing like a regular lens?

 

[rdeloe]

Yes, seems like the Pentax 645 120mm or RZ 140mm are safer bet, because my actus have regular lenses and I don't wont to buy additional rails and bellows, more $ and more complicated,
With Pentax i know there is a regular focus ring. With RZ 140 macro, i thought there is no such ring and the only option to focus is by moving the rail itself, is that right? I never had Mamiya RZ lens, hence asking. Does this lens also have a ring for focusing like a regular lens?

The RZ lenses focus using the RZ camera's focusing rail.

If the Pentax 645 120mm uses a straightforward unit focusing design, you can focus it using the Actus's rail. If it has a close focusing design, where the front and rear lens groups do not move in a linear way as you focus, then you'll want to set it at its flange distance for Pentax 645, and focus using the ring. I suspect it is unit focusing because it's designed to work with tubes and bellows. You may prefer to focus using the ring because it has a very long focus throw and may be easier to focus precisely than an Actus without the fine focusing knob.

 

[John Leathwick]

Yes, seems like the Pentax 645 120mm or RZ 140mm are safer bet, because my actus have regular lenses and I don't wont to buy additional rails and bellows, more $ and more complicated,
With Pentax i know there is a regular focus ring. With RZ 140 macro, i thought there is no such ring and the only option to focus is by moving the rail itself, is that right? I never had Mamiya RZ lens, hence asking. Does this lens also have a ring for focusing like a regular lens?

You are correct here about the RZ 140 - yes, it provides excellent performance over a wide range of scales because of its floating element, but it has no focusing helicoid. With mine, I either place an extension tube between my camera and the rear bellows standard, or switch to my longer bellows and extension rail. From what you have described of your purpose, you might want to reconsider the Fujinon EX 75 or 105, which require less extension, but which although optimised for a taking scale of around 7-8x, perform well outside that range. They are available very cheaply on EBay, and you wouldn't have made a big outlay if you wanted to buy something more expensive in time.

-John

 

[rdeloe]

@Allthink, I wonder if you've considered another option. Digital view cameras like the Actus are great tools, but they also create lots of additional problems such as lack of parallelism that causes one side of the image to be bad. It's extremely hard to get perfect alignment. Additional problems happen when you attach heavy lenses.

If you need macro (1:1) and you're not planning to use camera movements, it makes a lot more sense to use a "dumb" adapter with a Pentax-A 645 120mm lens. The combination is much sturdier. The Actus will work better with light lenses, like the enlarger and technical lenses we've been recommending.

 

[Allthink_]

Thanks Rob and John
I don't know if I made a mistake, yesterday I bought lens plate for P645 and for copal 1. There was no RZ lens plate in stock.
If i buy Pentax 120mm or RZ 140mm macro, the standard bellows will not be sufficient (on standard actus g bellows/rail)?

The Fujinon Ex is really cheap, but for that one I need different lens plate with v39 Leica thread, right?
(These lens plates are not cheap, it's just a metal, but the P645 plate was 470$, and copal 1 - 170$)

 

[Doppler9000]

The Fujinon Ex is really cheap, but for that one I need different lens plate with v39 Leica thread, right?
(These lens plates are not cheap, it's just a metal, but the P645 plate was 470$, and copal 1 - 170$)

Cambo can be a scamp when it comes to pricing. The thread is Leica Thread Mount (LTM) - LTM39, or sometimes M39, but check the pitch - it should be 1/26”.

The Cambo part number is ACB-39.

 

[TimoK]

Cambo can be a scamp when it comes to pricing. The thread is Leica Thread Mount (LTM) - LTM39, or sometimes M39, but check the pitch - it should be 1/26mm.

The Cambo part number is ACB-39.

In Leica Thread Mount (LTM) - LTM39 the pitch is 1/26" not 1/26mm. One inch is 25.4mm. 25.4mm/26 is 0.98mm. It is so near to 1mm that you can screw in a M39 (= 39x1mm ) screw to Leica thread.

ACB-39 has Leica thread look https://www.cambo.com/en/products/t...meras/lenses-and-lensplates/lensplates/acb-39 It is in Cambo's cheaper range of lensplates like #0 and #1 lensplates.

 

[Doppler9000]

In Leica Thread Mount (LTM) - LTM39 the pitch is 1/26" not 1/26mm. One inch is 25.4mm. 25.4mm/26 is 0.98mm. It is so near to 1mm that you can screw in a M39 (= 39x1mm ) screw to Leica thread.

Yes, inches not millimeters - thank you, I have corrected the post.

One should not blindly assume that every M39 thread has a 1mm pitch, however - M39 refers only to the diameter and has nothing to do with the thread pitch. RAF, for example, offers M39 adapters threaded at 0.5mm and 0.75mm pitches.

ACB-39 has Leica thread look https://www.cambo.com/en/products/t...meras/lenses-and-lensplates/lensplates/acb-39 It is in Cambo's cheaper range of lensplates like #0 and #1 lensplates.

“Cheaper” is a relative term. Yes, the plate is “cheaper” than the bayonet plates, but it is still $184!

 

[rdeloe]

Thanks Rob and John
I don't know if I made a mistake, yesterday I bought lens plate for P645 and for copal 1. There was no RZ lens plate in stock.
If i buy Pentax 120mm or RZ 140mm macro, the standard bellows will not be sufficient (on standard actus g bellows/rail)?

The Fujinon Ex is really cheap, but for that one I need different lens plate with v39 Leica thread, right?
(These lens plates are not cheap, it's just a metal, but the P645 plate was 470$, and copal 1 - 170$)

You did not make a mistake! The Pentax plate will allow you to use Pentax 645 lenses, and Pentax 67 lenses (with an adapter).

You do not need a longer rail and bellows. The flange focal length of Pentax 645 is 70.87mm. That is the distance on a Pentax 645 camera between the outer surface of the lens mount on the camera body and the film plane (or sensor plane). On your Actus, one way to use the lenses is to determine where the rear standard has to be for the outer surface of the Pentax 645 Cambo lens plate to be 70.87mm from the sensor plane. This is how you have to use lenses with close focusing systems, like the Pentax 645 35mm lenses (all three versions). Pentax 645 lenses that are what is called "unit focus" designs can be set to infinity and focused by moving the camera back and forth on the rail. The Pentax 645 75mm is a good example of a unit focusing lens. Turning the focus ring simply moves the front and rear lens groups back and forth at the same rate.

It is highly unlikely that you will ever use a lens in a Copal 1 shutter on your Actus. That shutter tends to be for longer focal lengths. However, this is the lens plate I would have recommended that you buy because it is the ideal platform for adapting other lenses. Cambo would prefer that you buy one lens plate for every lens you use, but that's not necessary.

The hole in the Copal 1 lens plate is almost exactly the diameter of M42x1 components. I have had some Copal 1 boards that were a bit on the tight side. A very light sanding of the sides of the hole fixed that; sometimes it's just too much paint.

For "Leica Thread Mount" lenses (39mm x 1/26th inch), buy an inexpensive LTM to M42x1 adapter from China. They come in many different styles. The one I prefer has a thin rim. Here's an example on eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/284472008266

For Copal 0 lenses, buy an inexpensive Copal 0 to M42x1 adapter from China. This is the one I use: https://www.ebay.com/itm/395040005807

Once you have an adapter from LTM to M42x1 or from Copal 0 to M42x1 on your lenses, mounting them to your lens plate is simple, and you have a couple options.

(1) You can drop the threaded M42x1 end of the lens through the hole and lock it to the plate with a suitable M42x1 ring. There are many options. If you have room on the back of the plate for this part to be flush, you can use a Canon EF to M42x1 adapter like this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/395035671243 When there isn't room for the adapter to be flush to the rear of the plate, I use a smaller ring. I have a set of vintage Yashica M42x1 extension tubes that I like because they include a 5mm one (see pictures below).

(2) Another option is to use an M42x1 extension tube on the front side of the plate, and lock it on with an M42x1 ring of some kind on the rear. That way you can use the plate just like you would use a Cambo M42x1 lens plate.

With both of these options, the only danger is that the plate is so thick that you don't get enough thread sticking out through the hole. See below.

In these pictures, I have a lens with an M42x1 adapter poking through the Copal 1 hole on an Arca-Swiss lens plate. Two threads are sticking through the plate, which is more than enough to securely hold the lens. You can see my Yashica 5mm M42x1 extension ring laying on the plate in the first picture, and locked on in the second. This is very secure.



In this second example, I've attached a 10mm M42x1 extension tube to a Copal 1 board. At top left is the rear; I used that 5mm tube again as the locking ring. At top-right is the 10mm extension tube locked on to the front side. This is not a very secure arrangement because I only have just over 1 thread sticking through the hole (see bottom-left picture). It does lock on, but I wouldn't trust it. If I wanted to use this approach, I would shop for an M42x1 extension tube that has a longer threaded male side. These Yashica extension tubes only have 3.5mm of threaded male side. The adapter on the lens (above) has 4.75mm. A tube with 5mm of thread should be fine unless your plate is very thick.



Of course this is only one approach! If you know that you are going to use only LTM lenses, you could buy an adapter that is LTM on one side and M42x1 on the rear. This one from RAF Camera is ideal because it has 5mm of threaded male on the M42x1 side, which will allow for secure attachment. https://rafcamera.com/adapter-m39x1f-to-m42x1m With one of these, you can just thread your LTM lenses on, with no adapter needed on them.

One final point on this is that you have to watch the flange distances. Lenses with too short flange distances may not work even when attached directly to the Copal 1 board. It all depends on how close you can get the standards on your Actus. I think you'll be fine with all enlarger lenses that are 75mm or longer.

 

[rdeloe]

One should not blindly assume that every M39 thread has a 1mm pitch, however - M39 refers only to the diameter and has nothing to do with the thread pitch. RAF, for example, offers M39 adapters threaded at 0.5mm and 0.75mm pitches.

I agree. I have M39x1 parts that do not fit on 39mm x 1/26th inch thread parts.

It's confusing because many sellers describe 39mm x 1/26th inch as M39x1. RAF does both, which is weird: https://rafcamera.com/adapter-m39x1f-to-m42x1m

Some sellers don't even bother telling you the thread pitch, which is extra annoying. For example, Many of the Chinese eBay sellers will describe something as "M42" but M42 is common with 1mm and 0.75mm thread pitch, so the difference really matters!