Setting up a repro stand

[jng]

For that matter, the Zeiss 135 S-Planar Macro T* comes up a lot in connection with Hasselblad bellows, but I've not seen it discussed elsewhere. Is it still competitive to modern (non-Rodenstock) alternatives?

Thank you for your patience,

Matt

OK, since you brought it up...

At one point I owned the following Zeiss-for-Hasselblad macro lenses: 4/120 Makro-Planar, 5.6/135 Makro-Planar (w/bellows), and 5.6/120 S-Planar. Performance, at least at magnifications up to 1:2 or so was roughly equivalent, with perhaps a slight edge to the S-Planar followed by the 4/120 and 5.6/135. Note that the bellows unit for the 135 is a bit kludgy; fine adjustments take a little futzing, but optically it's a fine lens.

You raise a question that I've been pondering while reading through this thread: how good is good enough when it comes to these home-brew scanning solutions? I would say that if you can resolve the grain structure of the negative, anything beyond would be overkill. Around 5 years ago I digitized some 6x6 negatives using the 4/120 Makro-Planar on a 501CM body + IQ160 60 Mp back. It was quite the contraption with the tripod head at some ridiculous angle and the negative on a fluorescent light box held down with glass from an old Omega 4x5 negative carrier. Alignment was done with a bubble level, so accuracy was iffy at best. I probably stopped the lens down further than I should have, but if I recall correctly, I could resolve the grain structure of the Plus-X negative. So, for 6x6 negatives or larger, it seems to me that the old Zeiss macro lenses are more than up to the task (might be a different story with 35mm negatives). YMMV, of course.

I've also been using these lenses for my various macro projects, with the 120 S-Planar over the past ~2 years as this is the one I decided to keep. While mostly in the 1:2 to 1:4 range, shot wide open on the IQ4 150 I've never detected any chromatic aberration. Examples can be found here.

Question for @JeffK: when you stitch to digitize 4x5 negs, do you move the negative or flat-stitch by shifting the back on your Alpa? I no longer bother using the stitching function in Photoshop when I flat stitch landscapes using my Cambo. Instead I just load the images into a stack, align them manually, and then brush out the overlapping edge on the top layer using a large brush set to minimum hardness. It's a bit slow but not unreasonable as long as throughput isn't an issue.

John

 

[JeffK]

Question for @JeffK: when you stitch to digitize 4x5 negs, do you move the negative or flat-stitch by shifting the back on your Alpa? I no longer bother using the stitching function in Photoshop when I flat stitch landscapes using my Cambo. Instead I just load the images into a stack, align them manually, and then brush out the overlapping edge on the top layer using a large brush set to minimum hardness. It's a bit slow but not unreasonable as long as throughput isn't an issue.

So that stitching effort on the 4x5 was unnecessary since I was able to capture the whole 4x5 from with the P1 120mm Macro. Since I was capturing to a 100mp achromatic back I was fine. My single effort to stitch with multiple frames was just me moving the light and film tray together by hand. No guide rails or anything. Really low key basic crap quality. And as you saw, was distorted on one end. I had 9 frames and let C22 do the panorama automagically. It did a decent job. But to @Paul Spinnler 's point -more stable gear with precision would be needed to do it well.

As for being out shooting, then I'm stitching with the DB on an ALPA frame and then using the panorama feature in C22.

 

[MGrayson]

Thank you @rdeloe and @jng. Having opened a can or two of worms, I will now take a deep breath and go shoot some landscapes.
Best,
Matt

 

[MGrayson]

Yeah, me again. Sorry.

Experimented with my current gear. Stability is much harder to achieve than one might think (or at least me). At full screen magnification and 1:1, slight turning of the focus rail knobs or AF causes everything to shake like Homer Simpson's belly. The shots are sharp (2 second delay), but focusing is difficult. Live View AF is very handy. I got much better results with the Leica S 120/2.5 macro with or without the Elpro because of the AF. It also has a flat field and no CA by itself (1:2), slight CA with the Elpro (1:1). Slightly softer wide open (It's f/2.5, for cryin' out load) but razor sharp at f/5.6. I also have a Contax Zeiss 120/4 APO-Makro-Planar T* (1:1) and a bunch of extension tubes (1.7:1). CA visible at (1:1), worse at (1.7:1) and some corner blurring with the tubes. Of course, you get more detail with more magnification, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The advantages of AF will keep me on the Leica glass.

As others have mentioned, a cheap USAF1951 will die around group 6, so I run out of test with either lens at 1:1. This is why silicon wafers are such a good idea. And aligning with a mirror is a great idea and works superbly well.

But tripod and heavy support hardware? Not enough. If you wanna go vertical and >1:1, get something more solid. Which is what everyone has been saying.

Best,

Matt

 

[anwarp]

Why would a flash help sharpness? Do longer exposures suffer from vibration? I can't see a *sharpness* advantage to flash otherwise.

Thanks,

Matt

I remember reading something a while ago, about the difference in sharpness on film scans using diffused vs collimated or very directional light sources.
With large sheets of film, I expect the flash would be a smaller light source compared to an LED panel.

 

[anwarp]

On a related subject, I have a large collection of 35mm slides that I would like to digitise. These are mostly family snaps and have sentimental value, but very little artistic merit.

My plan was to automate the process by photographing the slide within the projector using a macro lens. A simple timer could automate the process of advancing the projector and then firing the camera after a short delay, once the slide had “popped”.

Preliminary experiments suggest that this will work. However, the projector lamp is too bright, even in economy mode. So I will need to replace it with an LED light source.

Just an idea…

 

[anwarp]

I heard that too ... that it is still difficult to beat good flash systems. In that regard I was surprised to see that the Einstein flashes which are not that expensive have excellent CRI. Only thing speaking against doing a neg scanning station with flashes is that it makes the whole assembly bigger. You need to put the repro stand on a custom table and build film carrier system in the middle with a flash beneath it. This is bulkier than just a mid-sized Kaiser on the floor / on a table.

One possible solution to using the flash as a light source would be to place the flash unit perpendicular to the negative and use a mirror to reflect the light.

The modelling lamp would facilitate focusing.

Shoe box experiment?

 

[TechTalk]

OK, since you brought it up...

At one point I owned the following Zeiss-for-Hasselblad macro lenses: 4/120 Makro-Planar, 5.6/135 Makro-Planar (w/bellows), and 5.6/120 S-Planar. Performance, at least at magnifications up to 1:2 or so was roughly equivalent, with perhaps a slight edge to the S-Planar followed by the 4/120 and 5.6/135. Note that the bellows unit for the 135 is a bit kludgy; fine adjustments take a little futzing, but optically it's a fine lens.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I also enjoyed your floral portraits!

I would add just a couple of things from my own experience. There are two options for focusing the 135 mm Makro-Planar, one of the various models of bellows or the Variable Extension Tube 64-85. With the variable extension tube, the 135 mm functions like a conventional lens for focusing from infinity down to about 1:8 magnification. Additional extension tubes can be added for more magnification.

There are at least three different bellows units that I've seen and two of those I've used. There are two bellows which have 4 rods along which the bellows and tripod mount adjust. The oldest version is square and the later one is round. These older bellows use a double cable release. They were made by Novoflex and sold by Hasselblad. I've used the later version and did find it usable, but not as convenient or robust as the replacement made by Hasselblad.

The bellows that I spent the most time using was the last version made by Hasselblad. This is the Hasselblad Automatic Bellows (40517) which is a sturdier monorail bellows. It's also considerably more convenient as everything functions as it would with a lens mounted directly to the camera. There's no separate shutter cocking or double cable release and there's full auto diaphragm operation. It was easier and more precise to work with in all respects.

 

[TechTalk]

Good lord! Novoflex Leica S bellows system...

Bellows have been an integral part of Novoflex history. I stumbled on a Novoflex history article recently on a Swiss photo site.

This links to a Google Translate version of the article. The original version is linked here.

They've made bellows for quite a variety of cameras over the years.

 

[MGrayson]

Bellows have been an integral part of Novoflex history. I stumbled on a Novoflex history article recently on a Swiss photo site.

This links to a Google Translate version of the article. The original version is linked here.

They've made bellows for quite a variety of cameras over the years.

I quite like the idea of their Balpro 1 - a generic bellows for medium format. The only thing I can't figure out is how to attach some random enlarger lens bought on eBay to the front end.

 

[rdeloe]

I quite like the idea of their Balpro 1 - a generic bellows for medium format. The only thing I can't figure out is how to attach some random enlarger lens bought on eBay to the front end.

This? Looks like they have many kinds of lens adapters, including for enlargers.

Lens Side

www.novoflex.de

One thing to watch out for is that many enlarger lenses have the 39mm x 1/26th inch thread, sometimes referred to as "Leica Thread Mount", "L39", or "LTM", and sometimes incorrectly referred to as "M39" (which it isn't). These are usually the shorter focal lengths. As the focal length increases, the lens thread mount may get larger. And, to really make it confusing, Schneider (for example) sold the same basic lens with many different thread sizes.

This is why I really like Schneider's V-Mount system. It gives you a generic mount (the V-Mount), to which you can attach all kinds of other adapters. For example, Makro-Iris mount lenses come with the V-Mount. You can then attach a V-Mount to LTM, or V-Mount to M42x1 adapter. All the V-mount bits and pieces connect together nicely too (extension tubes, helicals, etc.)

 

[MGrayson]

This? Looks like they have many kinds of lens adapters, including for enlargers.

Lens Side

www.novoflex.de

One thing to watch out for is that many enlarger lenses have the 39mm x 1/26th inch thread, sometimes referred to as "Leica Thread Mount", "L39", or "LTM", and sometimes incorrectly referred to as "M39" (which it isn't). These are usually the shorter focal lengths. As the focal length increases, the lens thread mount may get larger. And, to really make it confusing, Schneider (for example) sold the same basic lens with many different thread sizes.

This is why I really like Schneider's V-Mount system. It gives you a generic mount (the V-Mount), to which you can attach all kinds of other adapters. For example, Makro-Iris mount lenses come with the V-Mount. You can then attach a V-Mount to LTM, or V-Mount to M42x1 adapter. All the V-mount bits and pieces connect together nicely too (extension tubes, helicals, etc.)

Indeed, I have seen the Novoflex adapter offerings. What I didn't know is which non-brand name lenses would go with which adapter plate. You have cleared a lot of that up. Thank you!

 

[rdeloe]

Indeed, I have seen the Novoflex adapter offerings. What I didn't know is which non-brand name lenses would go with which adapter plate. You have cleared a lot of that up. Thank you!

That makes sense. I have the data sheets and brochures for most if you can't dig them out. Many are only available via the Internet Archive.

Also, another excellent resource is this wonderful list of enlarger lenses and their lens data. http://www.photocornucopia.com/1061.html

If I may offer a suggestion, Fujinon EX (not EP or ES) enlarger lenses are really good. They fly under the radar so they can be had for relative peanuts. I have the 75mm and 105mm EX and they're really good taking lenses. Sadly they don't get much use because the APO Componon 90/4.5 is even better.

 

[TechTalk]

I quite like the idea of their Balpro 1 - a generic bellows for medium format. The only thing I can't figure out is how to attach some random enlarger lens bought on eBay to the front end.

For a 39mm Leica thread enlarger lens, like the Schneider 90mm f/4.5 APO-Componon HM, you'd just need the Novoflex PROLEI adapter ring. Just ignore the "Requires Lens Ring" warning because it isn't required, but you have to read the fine print to find that out.

They seem to go to some effort to make it as confusing as possible and I couldn't find the PROLEI adapter as a standalone item on the Novoflex USA or German website. But... it does exist on retailer's websites.

Here's a link to the "manual" that lists lens and camera adapters. I'm sure that Novoflex understands the interconnections, but they need some help in the customer communications department.

* Still can't find it on the Novoflex U.S. site, but did find it on their German site. They list it as LTM (Leica Thread Mount) and as PROLEI en if you search in English. It's listed as Adapter Leica-M39 if you search in German and has the PROLEI catalog designation.

 

[rdeloe]

Conversion among threads is easy-peasy too. I've standardized on M42x1 thread mounts for some lenses. Conversion rings to get from 39mm x 1/26th inch thread to M42x1 are cheap and easy to find on eBay. M42x1 is a good one to standardize on because there are loads of adapters to get from larger and smaller threads to that. In a few cases I've had to have some made. RAF Camera is good (but they're in Belarus which is a problem these days). Jose at Custom Photo Tools also does good work; he's in Portugal. He sells all kinds of adapters for enlarger lenses.

So don't waste a lot of money buying Novoflex lens side adapters for all kinds of different threads! It's much cheaper to standardize on one and use adapters.

 

[MGrayson]

So don't waste a lot of money buying Novoflex lens side adapters for all kinds of different threads! It's much cheaper to standardize on one and use adapters.

I would never do that. I waste my money on single large unnecessary purchases.
But thank you, that is seriously good advice.

 

[rdeloe]

I would never do that. I waste my money on single large unnecessary purchases.
But thank you, that is seriously good advice.

It's not wasted if you can fabricate a reason for why it's essential!

 

[TechTalk]

If you're looking for information on a huge variety of enlarging lenses try Photo Cornucopia - The Big List of Enlarging Lenses. There are lots of links to additional information there as well.

Here's a link they provide to a Schneider enlarging lens catalog with loads of information. I also found a link to a data sheet for the Schneider Apo-Componon 4.5/90 (Version -0026). It corresponds with other data on this fine lens.

You may find other things of interest to explore on the Photo Cornucopia website.

 

[JeffK]

@Paul Spinnler these are some of the enlarger lenses I got from another member. To use with the Actus. (for my Sony A7R2)

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Ok! I can only say: Rodenstock 105 with Novoflex bellows and you are good!