Ideas for adapt lens at Holga 135 pan

[Fernando HF]

I have a Voitglander 40 mm and a nikon 50 mm and I would make a plastic ring adapter for the Holga 135 pan. I never do that and i don't have idea if it is possible. Please give me your advice abaut things to have in mind etc. Thanks

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You need to compare the lens flange to film distance for the lenses and camera body. If they are not the same and the camera body distance is larger then the lens cannot be used. The lens would not focus at infinity. The flange is that part of the lens that snugs up to the body when it is screwed in.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

At a negative size of 24 x 72, it is not likely that a lens from a 35mm slr will cover. To cover 24 x 72, you need a lens with an image circle of about 80mm.

 

[250swb]

I agree that the Nikon's image circle wouldn't be big enough to cover. I think you need something from a larger camera. Maybe a 65mm Angulon from a Linhof 23 would work, then see if you can adapt it. As with converting a 120Pan Holga you would mount the lens onto an M42 metal body cap, then mount that on a M42-M42 12-17mm focusing helicoid, then mount that onto something like an M42 to Nikon (because of the small bayonet flange) adapter that is screwed onto the modified Holga body.

Steve

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I agree that the Nikon's image circle wouldn't be big enough to cover. I think you need something from a larger camera. Maybe a 65mm Angulon from a Linhof 23 would work, then see if you can adapt it. As with converting a 120Pan Holga you would mount the lens onto an M42 metal body cap, then mount that on a M42-M42 12-17mm focusing helicoid, then mount that onto something like an M42 to Nikon (because of the small bayonet flange) adapter that is screwed onto the modified Holga body.

Steve

Why not just buy a real camera, instead of all that rigamarole? You still won't know where it's focussed.

 

[SMBooth]

If you pull apart a Bronica 40mm (645) the lens elements fit into a #0 compur rapid shutter.

 

[250swb]

Why not just buy a real camera, instead of all that rigamarole? You still won't know where it's focussed.

Well no, you do know where it is focused. It has a focusing helicoid to start with, that should be a clue. On one of the accessory shoes you have a rangefinder. And using a focusing screen on the film plane and by measuring off known distances and marking the helicoid you make an uncoupled rangefinder camera, similar to those made by Zeiss and Agfa for instance. And in my case for less than £250 including a 90mm Angulon to cover 6x12 you have a very light weight landscape camera that can deliver every bit as good a picture as an expensive and heavy 'real' camera Doing it with 35mm is more a trade off with overall image quality, but it is a sad day when people are discouraged from 'having a go' and seeing what they can do for themselves

Steve

 

[Athiril]

Many Canon EF lenses (inc non-tilt shift lenses) can cover MF, such as the 17mm TS-E. EG, the Hartblei MF camera with EF mount.

The 17mm in particular has +/- 12mm shift. The though TS-E 17mm is around a 67mm image circle iirc (vs 76mm circle needed for 72x24mm)

Otherwise a Super Angulon 50mm f/2.8 tilt shift lens should have a 120mm image circle, you can get them under $4k.. still cheaper than an Xpan setup.. probably.. but f/2.8 with a little movement left.


Otherwise, the Super Angulon 47mm f/5.6 will have loads of movements..hell it'll cover 4x5" You might as well still a 120 back with 35mm in a 4x5 camera.


Otherwise to keep it cheap, a Russian MF lens or LF barrel lens will do it for long exp.