Is there a way to get a similar image that a 4x5 with meniscus lens produces, but on 35mm?

[loccdor]

Fine detail with simultaneous heavy but pleasing aberrations is what I'm interested in. Is it possible on 35mm? What would be the best way to go about it?





Or is the larger format necessary to make up for the lack of resolution these lenses have?

 

[xkaes]

You can easily use these lenses on a 35mm camera by using a bellows for focusing, and place the close-up lens on the front of the bellows. The easiest way is buy a reversing ring for the bellows lens mount -- these usually have 55mm, 52mm, or 49mm thread on the front. That allows you to place the CU lens backwards on the bellows -- just like a meniscus lens. If you want it to put the filters on NOT reversed, you can add a simple coupling ring that allows you to put the CU lens on normally.

The aperture of the CU lens is always wide open, but that's what you want -- and exposure is controlled by the shutter speed, film speed, and filtration.

Use a lens shade to reduce flare -- if that's what you want.

 

[AnselMortensen]

You might like the Sima Soft Focus lens.
100 mm, sliding-tube focusing.
Quite inexpensive, very effective.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have 4 meniscus lenses, 3 are Lancaster, and they have a restriction stop in front of the lens, limiting the widest aperture to f8. Then between the two there is a slot for a Waterhouse stops, or an iris diaphragm,

Ian

 

[retina_restoration]

Have you looked at any of the LensBaby lenses?

 

[koraks]

Have you looked at any of the LensBaby lenses?

My thought exactly. Should be easy to get; they were a bit of a fad ca. 10-15 years ago but seem to have gone out of fashion.

 

[Paul Howell]

There are lots of cheap plastic 35mm camera, single shutter speed and set aperture, no meter, set focus, some were given away with subscriptions to Time or other promotions. Just a step above shoot and toss.

https://shopgoodwillimages.azureedge.net/production/114/Items/2025-12-02/45640637-70ab-4e3a-8f63-680040eb396aan68_12021.jpg

 

[Mr Bill]

If I wanted to play with this sort of thing, and assuming an SLR camera, I'd probably just use a cheap magnifier lens, handheld in front of the camera. Probably attached to a black card, mainly to exclude a lot of the extraneous light. If you wanna stop it down just cut a hole in some black paper and tape it over the lens. (Stopping down, smaller hole, will drastically increase the quality of the image.)

Of course, if you already have a bellows attachment (per xkaes) for your camera, this would give you a much more stable platform.

You might want to shoot for a sorta "normal" focal length of about 50mm/2 inches. In magnifier language this would be probably around 5X. These lenses will probably be biconvex (both sides bulge out), not meniscus, but if you're just playing, does it really matter?

 

[retina_restoration]

Ya know, this is much more easily accomplished on large format — there are plenty of lenses available that do this.

 

[loccdor]

Ya know, this is much more easily accomplished on large format — there are plenty of lenses available that do this.

That's what I was thinking. I've looked at the LensBaby and some Lomo stuff but it seems that the fine detail I'm looking for is not present in those, though the aberrations can be similar.

I wonder if there might be a middle ground by tinkering with the lens elements on a 6x9 folder or something. I really like the quality of these pictures but I don't want to delve into large format at this time.

 

[loccdor]

You might like the Sima Soft Focus lens.
100 mm, sliding-tube focusing.
Quite inexpensive, very effective.

Thanks, I'll have a look.

 

[blee1996]

Another way to experiment is using a Zeiss Softar filter, which can fit your existing lenses (either 35mm or medium format). From my limited use, Softars produces quite pleasing glow with the right lighting conditions. You might want to combine with your short tele lens wide open.

Since nobody wants soft look on smaller format anymore, Softars tend to be very cheap.

I have tried the Canon EF 135/2.8 soft focus lens: it can get mushy very quickly. On the weakest settings, it looks interesting.

 

[loccdor]

Thanks. I think what I'm going to try out is a 77mm diameter +10 close up filter (apparently these are positive meniscus lenses) with a 77mm lens cap that has a hole drilled into the middle so it can take f-stop inserts, mounted by way of approximately ~26mm of tube (100mm focal length - 74mm flange distance) to a 6x6 Kiev 6C.

I think that will get me a good balance between detail and aberration, something like this:



Please let me know if what I'm doing won't work. (and apologies that this started as a 35mm topic and is now medium format)

 

[cowanw]

Won't you be focussing at 10cm in front of you?

 

[wiltw]

Won't you be focussing at 10cm in front of you?

Well...

f(meters) = 1 / Diopter (D),

...this is the focal length equivalence of the lens. But mounting 100mm lens does not automatically imply the object being photographed is at 100m distance, it could be at Infinity.
If +10 diopter were mounted in front of another lens (focused at Infinity), used as a close-up or supplemental lens, you would be right, the object would be 10cm in front of the nodal point of the lens.

The challenge for OP would be a means of mounting the diopter as the primary optic at the proper distance, which would be 100mm in front of the film, in order to focus at Infinity, or adjusting it farther (>100mm) to focus closer than Infinity

 

[xkaes]

Please let me know if what I'm doing won't work. (and apologies that this started as a 35mm topic and is now medium format)

The exact same approach is useful with any size format.

 

[xkaes]

Won't you be focussing at 10cm in front of you?

As wiltw pointed out (above), a #10 diopter CU lens lens will focus the lens to which it is attached at 100mm (1000/10) when the lens to which it is attached is focused at infinity. When used all by itself, it is a 100mm lens and can be focused at any distance you want by adding extension. If it has 100mm of extension between the CU lens and the film, it will focus at infinity. Add more extension and it will focus closer. With 200mm it's 1:1.

But not all CU lenses are created equal. The inexpensive ones are single elements that are single coated and create a lot of aberration. Two-element CU lenses, like Minolta & Nikon control chromatic aberration much better and are multi-coated -- and more expensive. There are also some three & four element CU lenses that are even more corrected -- if that's what you want. The stronger the diopter, the greater the aberrations. See:

https://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html

 

[Cholentpot]

Both my Olympus XAs will do this wide open at f/2.8, you get a sharp image with a very nice glow.

 

[xkaes]

If your XA is producing pictures like the ones above at f2.8, there's something wrong.

 

[ivan35mm]

I wonder if there might be a middle ground by tinkering with the lens elements on a 6x9 folder or something. I really like the quality of these pictures but I don't want to delve into large format at this time.

I’d start by slowly reverse threading the rear element. 1/4 turn at a time, for instance.

but if you wanted to stay true to your original post, and use a 35mm camera to render similar photos, i’d use a white net filter or a softar, or both, because why not at this point. sounds fun! completely mess around with a lens that’s been corrected for aberrations.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

pinhole?

 

[reddesert]

A +10 close-up lens is a positive meniscus lens with 100mm focal length. This is a pretty good analog to a meniscus "landscape" lens for ~35mm to 6x6 or so. If you use about 50-25mm diameter of clear aperture you get a f/2 to f/4 lens.

A few practical notes: for the standard "landscape meniscus" mounting, the lens should be mounted with the concave side towards the subject, opposite of the way it's usually mounted as a close-up. And the aperture stop should be in front of the meniscus (toward the subject). Both of these are similar to how the lens is mounted in a meniscus-lens Brownie or similar and tend to reduce field curvature and other undesirable off-axis aberrations. You should still have plenty of spherical aberration for the soft focus glow effect.

Also, because the lens is a fairly strong meniscus, the focal plane will be somewhat offset from 100mm-from-center-of-lens (IOW, the principal plane may be somewhere outside the physical glass). It will be useful to try it out to measure the focal distance and/or build some kind of focusing tube into whatever you use for a lens mount.

 

[koraks]

pinhole?

Won't cut it; pinhole has the same fuzziness regardless of subject distance. The key to this look is a combination of limited depth of field and hence a distinct plane of sharp focus, but with very significant coma in the plane of sharp focus.

 

[loccdor]

Thanks all for checking the math.

A few practical notes: for the standard "landscape meniscus" mounting, the lens should be mounted with the concave side towards the subject, opposite of the way it's usually mounted as a close-up. And the aperture stop should be in front of the meniscus (toward the subject). Both of these are similar to how the lens is mounted in a meniscus-lens Brownie or similar and tend to reduce field curvature and other undesirable off-axis aberrations. You should still have plenty of spherical aberration for the soft focus glow effect.

This is one part that confuses me a bit - I saw Andy's video from a year ago using a large format meniscus lens and his is concave toward the subject as you describe. But then I look at Holgas, disposable cameras, pretty much any single element toy camera out there and they have convex toward the subject. I've seen varying opinions online about it but the topic doesn't quite "click" for me as an optics design newbie. I guess I can always try both orientations and see for myself.

pinhole

Pinhole photography is interesting to me but not quite the same - and to get the resolution I'd want out of pinhole I'd need to go up to at least 4x5. Just not ready to add another format to my repertoire, got too many pots in the kitchen as it is.

Both my Olympus XAs will do this wide open at f/2.8, you get a sharp image with a very nice glow.

There are indeed certain 35mm lenses wide open that will get me about 60% of the way there. I'm looking for something just a little bit more specific... kind of that 1800s lens nostalgia. I realize I am being a bit picky here.

The key to this look is a combination of limited depth of field and hence a distinct plane of sharp focus, but with very significant coma in the plane of sharp focus.

Yep that seems right.

 

[cowanw]

wiltw and xkaes: Thanks for that.