Best Macro Lens for my Leicaflex

[silvergelatin]

I have an old Leicaflex SL with 50mm Summicron and extension tubes, and was planning to copy some prints on a copy stand. Is there a better lens option, without spending a lot? How about adapting an enlarging lens? This particular process is a little new for me, so I'd appreciate any guidance. I'm primarily a rangefinder shooter, so macro is not something I do often. Thanks.

Were I to go the enlarging lens route, can someone recommend a specific focusing adapter? I'm not seeing much for Leicaflex/R mounts.

 

[AgX]

The first better option would be to reverse your Summicron.

Enlarging lenses lack a helicoid and are slower than macro-lenses.

 

[silvergelatin]

The first better option would be to reverse your Summicron.

Enlarging lenses lack a helicoid and are slower than macro-lenses.

Unfortunately, the lens is a series vi, so that is probably a rare adapter!

Would a reversed Summicron have a flatter field? Distance isn't an issue, as the extension tubes work well.

 

[AgX]

In reversing a standard lens for macro work the relation between large and small and the two faces of the lens can be restored.

I do not know about that very lens. But if a single lens falls out of the common due to its filter mount, then there likely is a adapter to a standard filter-ring. And that ring again would fit a reverse-ring for that body mount.

To just check the effect of reversing for that lens, try to reverse without an adapter. Press the lens onto the body or extention tube by hand or find a make-shift solution.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Why reverse the lens? The OP will be shooting at magnifications below 1:1.

And why care about the lens' largest aperture? The OP won't be shooting with the lens wide open.

 

[AgX]

You are right about the image scale. I only read "extention tubes"...

The hint at the larger aperture was meant as general characterisation of macro-lenses.

 

[silvergelatin]

So in terms of sheer resolving power and lack of distortion, would an enlarging lens like a 50mm Componon or 80mm EL-Nikkor be better than the Summicron + extension tube?

 

[miha]

My advice would be to go for an Elpro or similar. Non-macro lenses tend to suffer from field curvature when used with extension tubes.

 

[RSalles]

Leitz made the Elpro auxiliary lens for macro work with the Summicron 50/2. I had a set of 3 and they were gone when I sold the lens. They're all series VI size, are adaptable inside the lens thread and permits you to use the filters with it.

 

[silvergelatin]

Thanks, both. Would these be optically better than adapting a Componon?

 

[silvergelatin]

I may want to try out my Pentax 6x7 as well, if the 35mm isn't good enough (sometimes I'll want to degrade the image a bit for effect, sometimes not). I have the 105mm and extension tube, so same question. Can I adapt my 80mm EL-Nikkor, or would I be better off buying the very cheap 135mm Macro?

 

[Dan Fromm]

OP, why don't you stop agonizing and start testing? You have the camera, the 'cron, extension tubes and a copy stand. Also the prints you want to copy. Go do it. Shoot at f/8 or f/11. If the results don't please, then think about other lenses.

 

[silvergelatin]

OP, why don't you stop agonizing and start testing? You have the camera, the 'cron, extension tubes and a copy stand. Also the prints you want to copy. Go do it. Shoot at f/8 or f/11. If the results don't please, then think about other lenses.

Not agonizing - doing my homework so I don't waste time when the copy stand parts show up later this week. Shooting, developing, and printing the results, and then wondering if it would have been better with something I don't own would be the real agony, no? This is specialized stuff, and re-inventing the wheel on known mundane processes is sooooo pre-internet.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Look, if you're a sensible person you understand what good enough means. You can ask your 'cron whether it is good enough. If it isn't, well, then you can start thinking about what might be better.

Oh, and by the way, the best way to know what is in a negative is to look at it at moderately high magnification. Printing to see what's in it loses some content and offers many opportunities for errors.

You can try the 'cron out pretty soon. As far as enlarging lenses go, most are relatively poor. If you don't believe me, see http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf

 

[silvergelatin]

I assure you I have plenty of experience in both being sensible and evaluating negatives. It would not be sensible to jump into something as specific as copying flat art without doing some background research to get started in the right direction. I'm far too busy for trial and error.

But thanks for the link. I was thinking about enlarging lenses on the assumption that they would have the best flatness, but I was not sure how significant it would be in practice.

 

[Dan Fromm]

No matter what optics you use, you're condemned to testing. There's no avoiding it. Reputation, internet scuttlebut and other peoples' tests have few implications for how well the lens you have in hand will perform.

Possibly irrelevant story. Years ago I thought I had a subject that should be photographed in the range of 2:1 - 5:1. I thought I owned no lenses that were particularly good above 1:1. I bought some books on photomacrography, did some web searching, and eventually ended up with several Zeiss lenses (BRD, Luminars; DDR, Mikrotars) and Polaroid Tominons and ... that might have done. Then I tested. When I was done testing, it occurred to me to try out the 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS I"d had for ages. Reversed at f/4 it was the best of the lot. My point isn't that other 55/2.8 MicroNikkors are world beaters, but that questions must be asked.

To get back on track, what magnification do you intend to shoot at? How large are the prints?

 

[silvergelatin]

Thanks. I'll know I'll have to play around a bit, but trying get the basics down ahead of time. The print sizes are all over the place. I'll be re-photographing many roughly 9x13" prints to do extreme things with the contrast, but I also will be doing much closer shots of contact sheets, Polaroids, details of larger prints, etc. Sometimes I'll want a nice sharp reproduction, and sometimes intentional degradation. In terms of focus, the larger prints can be handled by the unaided Summicron. I ordered the ELPRO filters online yesterday, as they were pretty cheap. I won't be exceeding 1:1.

 

[Dan Fromm]

9" x 13"? If you frame tightly, the unaided 'cron should be fine. Better used for subjects farther away but good enough.

Whether a supplemental lens like the elpros you ordered will give better results than adding extension is an interesting question. From the late '60s through the early '80s Modern Photography that used to be asked it every two years. The answer never changed, which approach gives better results close up depends on the lens. The only way to find out which is better with a lens MP didn't test is to try both and test.

A modest proposal for the closer work you have in mind. If you want to use a lens that's optimized for close work, that's in a focusing mount and are willing to put y'r Leicaflex and Summicron on the shelf for this project, buy an inexpensive Nikon body (used), a 55 MicroNikkor (/3.5 and /2.8 will both do what you want very well) and an M2 ring. The Nikon rig will cost less than a Leitz macro lens to fit your 'flex and will do well enough. Better, if used wisely (don't shoot at too small an effective aperture) than an enlarging lens, easier to focus and usable at lower magnifications than an enlarging lens.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I once owned a 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor (floating element) and it was the sharpest lens I'd ever owned up to that time... maybe ever.

 

[silvergelatin]

KEH is having a 25% off sale on film gear today. 55 Micro 3.5 and N8008 for $60 shipped. I'm normally not THAT impulsive, but come on...

Thanks for the tip. If it works out, it can just live on the copy stand permanently.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

My guess is it'll be the only lens you'll need for the purposes you mentioned. The floating element makes the 55 ((f/2.8)) Micro Nikkor excellent for all the ranges you apparently need. Dan always gives good advice. I'd try to stick with f/8 until you exceed 1/4 life size then open to f/5.6 and then probably f/4 for 1:1. But Dan can be more accurate than I.

 

[Dan Fromm]

KEH is having a 25% off sale on film gear today. 55 Micro 3.5 and N8008 for $60 shipped. I'm normally not THAT impulsive, but come on...

Thanks for the tip. If it works out, it can just live on the copy stand permanently.

Don't forget, you'll need a 55 mm extension tube to go to 1:1. Look for a PK-13. Pre-AI (that's most of them) 55/3.5's won't work on an N8008 so if the lens isn't AI or adapted you'll have to have the lens AI adapted. Some were made in AI mount, my wife has one.

Good luck, have fun.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Just get the f/2.8 AI

 

[silvergelatin]

I got the 3.5 AI version. The 2.8 was 2x the price, unless I wanted a stiff focus one.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Beautiful. My wife has one.