MF lenses on smaller formats?

Kirks518 · Dec 13, 2014

I was perusing the auction site, and came across this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/361150990412

As I have 3 RB lenses (90/180/250, and planning on the 50), I thought it might be interesting to try this adapter on 35mm (or my D-word APS-C).

I think the advantages would be a) high quality lenses on the cheap b) the smaller format would only use the center of the image circle, which in theory would produce a better edge-to-edge image c) I could sell some of my EF lenses that would be duplicated

Disadvantages would be a) step-down metering (not a big deal, I do it now) b) size/weight c) manual focus (again, not a big deal).

Another possible downside would be if there is internal glass in the adapter, which would negate any benefit of the higher end glass, but it looks like it's glassless.

Has anyone tried these or similar? I'd be interested in hearing opinions and thoughts about MF to smaller.

MattKing · Dec 13, 2014

I'm not sure how you would deal with the shutter in the RB lenses.

The RB lenses have smaller maximum apertures than most lenses for 35mm.

Something like an L lens would probably deliver higher resolution on the film or sensor - 6x7 negatives require less magnification.

Dr Croubie · Dec 13, 2014

Done it, do it all the time. I started with Pentacon Six lenses with a tilt adapter, a shift adapter, and a straight adapter on my 7D, then on my EOS 3. Eventually I gave up on the shifting idea, because I got a Pentacon 6 body and it's just easier to shoot 120 film and crop, quality with RVP & Ektar is better than stitching digital, and a hell of a lot less headaches. Given that the widest non-fisheye I've got is 50mm, that's not very wide on 135, even less so on APS-C, and that's where shifting and tilting is most useful, I don't use it much for landscapes or architecture. The tilt adapter I do use occasionally with macro and such. They do make good portrait lenses in those lengths though, your 90 & 180 would do very nice, but then why not just use the 250 on 6x7 and get a bigger neg in the process? Also, they're not very fast, if shallow DOF is your thing. The leaf shutters could come in handy though. Leave them open and just use the focal plane for regular shots, or open the focal plane and use the leaf for high-speed flash-sync.

Dan Fromm · Dec 13, 2014

If you have the money to risk making a mistake with, do it. I've used large format lenses, mainly process lenses, on my Nikons.

That said, I don't see the point of using a 50 mm that fits and RB on a 35 mm camera. There are many, many excellent 50 mm lenses for any 35 mm camera you might want to use. Longer lenses can be a different matter entirely.

Fixcinater · Dec 13, 2014

Stop down metering/shooting with a flash in stop down mode can get old if you're used to fully automated native EF lenses. I've gotten used to it for use with studio strobes but it's not exactly easy.

I've used some LF lenses on APSC and 35mm (longer lenses) and prefer the use of native 35mm mount lenses, even adapted ones, for real world use. For fun, sure, but out when I want to just make images, they get in the way too much.

Alan Gales · Dec 13, 2014

As cheap as 35mm camera lenses are today I have to ask the question, why bother?

RalphLambrecht · Dec 13, 2014

Kirks518 said:
I was perusing the auction site, and came across this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/361150990412

As I have 3 RB lenses (90/180/250, and planning on the 50), I thought it might be interesting to try this adapter on 35mm (or my D-word APS-C).

I think the advantages would be a) high quality lenses on the cheap b) the smaller format would only use the center of the image circle, which in theory would produce a better edge-to-edge image c) I could sell some of my EF lenses that would be duplicated

Disadvantages would be a) step-down metering (not a big deal, I do it now) b) size/weight c) manual focus (again, not a big deal).

Another possible downside would be if there is internal glass in the adapter, which would negate any benefit of the higher end glass, but it looks like it's glassless.

Has anyone tried these or similar? I'd be interested in hearing opinions and thoughts about MF to smaller.

should work in theory.

Kirks518 · Dec 13, 2014

Matt - Not sure what issue there would be with the shutter, as the lens shutter would be open when on the adapter, and the camera would use its own shutter.
I have L lenses, but it's my understanding that MF lenses are inherently superior to their 35mm format counterpart. The thing is, you can pick up RB lenses for 1/3 the price of their respective L lens. I just grabbed my 250mm RB from KEH for $59. You can't even touch an L lens front element for that.

Dan - I already have ~50's for 35mm format, but I'm looking at getting the 50 for my RB, for use on the RB. I do realize getting an MF 50 only to then adapt it to use on a 35mm format would be at best - silly.

Fix - About 99.9% of my stuff is natural light (mostly out of laziness), so in my case, any issue with stop-down and flash would be negligible.
As for the getting in the way too much, that is mentioned in my negatives as to doing this. Just using them on the native RB67 is cumbersome.

Alan - Yes, 35mm manual focus lenses are cheap. But at the same time, I revert to what I said earlier, the 'best' optical area of a lens's image circle is the center, and IQ drops off as you move towards the edges. A 35mm lens on a 35mm format is going to have image degradation towards and at the edges. Whereas with an MF lens, you're only using the center of the lens's image circle, so resolution should maintain a higher level towards and at the edges. All of the previous three sentences is theoretical.
But when we're talking about L lenses or high-end consumer lenses, the cost of a comparable RB lens is drastically lower (see my recent purchase above). So, again in theory, one would be able to get 'better' lenses that may be equivalent to IQ as an L for a whole lot less money.

One other question about the adapter; would it act as an extension tube? I think not, simply because the lens is designed to have it's inherent magnification at that flange to focal plane distance, but I'm not sure if things may behave differently on the different format.

Alan Gales · Dec 14, 2014

I understand what you are saying but I doubt you are going to get much if any more resolution with your 35mm camera when using the RB lenses. That is of course my non-expert opinion. If you really want more resolution for printing larger than I would just shoot 6x7 with the RB. I used to own an RZ67 and some of those lenses are physically pretty big and heavy. The RB lenses are also slow compared to 35mm lenses. To me using them on a 35mm camera with an adapter is defeating what 35mm excels at.

MattKing · Dec 14, 2014

I don't think you are going to find that the performance of a lens designed for the RB is going to exceed the performance of a good quality lens for 35mm if your comparison is limited to 24mm x 36mm (or smaller). Maybe a bit in the corners of the frame, but certainly not in the centre.

The quality of the RB lenses is at least partly a function of how relatively little enlargement is required from the 6x7 negative.

If you can find resolution charts for the respective lenses, I think you will find that the figures for the centre for the RB lenses are similar to the figures for the centre for the lenses designed for smaller formats.

Alan Gales · Dec 14, 2014

Kirks518 said:
I have L lenses, but it's my understanding that MF lenses are inherently superior to their 35mm format counterpart.

I used to hear the opposite. They used to say that medium format lenses didn't need to be as sharp because they used larger negatives. From my understanding 35mm lenses and medium format lenses are equally sharp as a whole.

The sharpest lenses are the modern computer designed optics. Yes, the computer designed 100mm Zeiss for Hasselblad will be sharper than the early 1980's 50mm or 100mm that I used on my Contax 35mm camera. I doubt there will be a lot of difference between the older Hasselblad 80mm CF lens and my 50mm or even 100mm Contax lens though.

Ian Grant · Dec 14, 2014

It's going to depend on the lens, some MF & LF lenses will give excellent results on a 35mm camera (or digital camera). When I researched my 17" f5.6 Dallon telephoto I found one with a Leica mount, my lens covers half plate and most likely 7"x5".

Kirks518 said:
I have L lenses, but it's my understanding that MF lenses are inherently superior to their 35mm format counterpart.

Highly unlikely with top marque lenses. The only reason the results are very significantly better with MF lenses is film size and the need for less enlargement.

LF lenses are optimised for greater coverage rather than high resolution for obvious reasons, the degree pf probable enlargement is very small compared to a 35mm negative.

Ian

gone · Dec 14, 2014

I don't think MF lenses are "better" than 35mm lenses. Depends on the lens of course. Generally, 35mm lenses are designed for sharpness, as it's such a tiny format. As you go up in negative sizes, lenses are designed more for coverage (especially in LF) vs sharpness. Not many lenses of any format are going to be better than some of the legendary Leica lenses. And of course rangefinder lenses are generally sharper than SLR lenses because they're closer to the film plane. BUT, since you already have the MF lenses, you are correct in that you should be able to get great results w/ an adapter for little money. Unless the adapter has an optical element, in which case you won't get great results, generally speaking.

Slixtiesix · Dec 14, 2014

Some time ago I tested a Hasselblad 180/4 against a Nikon 70-200/2,8 and a 110/2 against a Nikon 135/2,8 with a friend´s D800. The zoom and the 180mm were almost equal in performance, but the Nikon lens topped it at f8 and f11. Corners were better with the Hasselblad lens, which delivered a very consistent quality across the 35mm frame (but shouldn´t be a surprise). The 135mm Nikon lens was also better than the Hasselblad 110mm lens from what I remember. My adapter did just cost 20 and not 160 bucks, so I don´t regret it. I think I would use the lenses anyway had I a 35mm camera myself. They were not much worse, but were not better either. My opinion: If like in your case, one has a set of mf lenses and want´s to use it for 35mm, it makes sense, because you safe the money you would spend on the same focal lengths for Canon. However, the lack of auto aperture is really frustrating at times...

Jesper · Dec 14, 2014

This may be a stupid question but isn't it a bit bulky using MF lenses on a 35mm camera?

Dan Fromm · Dec 14, 2014

Several posters have commented that a lens for a format larger than 35 mm won't be sharper than the equivalent lens for for 35 mm. Perhaps, but in my experience it depends on the lenses.

Ages ago I shot a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII against a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS. Three apertures, f/9, f/16, f/22. Three distances: 1:2, 10 feet, 40 feet or so. Same subjects. Same lighting. Same support. The GRII was a lot better at all aperture/distance combinations. With adapters and bellows for focusing it was larger, heavier, clumsier and slower working. Win some, lose some.

Lenses made for 35 mm still have to cover 43 mm. Lens tests in the Modern Photography that used to be made it clear that some lenses for 35 mm still put much better image quality in the center of the frame that at the edges/corners. A lens made to cover formats larger than 35 mm still should do better at the edges/corners than the equivalent lens for 35 mm still. An advantage, but for many people not worth the trouble.

Until fairly recently good process lens, particularly Apo Ronars and dialyte type Apo Nikkors, were much better at distance than a telephoto lens of the same focal length. Modern teles for all formats are better than those available in the '70s. Given a choice between, say, a 400/6.3 T-mount tele of that vintage (they're not bad around f/8 - f/11) and the much better 420/9 Apo Nikkor for me the tele wins because of the Apo Nikkor's size, weight and, yes, the size and weight of whatever I use to get the extension. Convenience is worth something.

Alan Gales · Dec 14, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
Several posters have commented that a lens for a format larger than 35 mm won't be sharper than the equivalent lens for for 35 mm. Perhaps, but in my experience it depends on the lenses.

I completely agree that it depends upon individual lenses but generally speaking I don't think medium format lenses as a whole would be any sharper than 35mm lenses.

To me using RB lenses on a 35mm camera gives no advantage over using 35mm camera lenses. It does bring a few disadvantages.

johnha · Dec 14, 2014

Most tests I've seen have shown medium format lenses to have slightly less resolution (over far greater image area) than 135 format lenses. How much of this affects the centre of the image (the 135 format) is a different question. What is probably of more importance is the quality/accuracy/usability of the adapter - it seems only recently that you can get an adapter for any lens/body combination 'cheap' on-line.

Why you would want to cart around MF lenses on 135 body is a mystery to me (unless you're also carrying the MF body to go with the lenses).

Sirius Glass · Dec 14, 2014

Alan Gales said:
As cheap as 35mm camera lenses are today I have to ask the question, why bother?

I adapt lenses to my 4"x5" cameras. Given the work it would take, I would recommend that you stick to buying the right lenses for your 35mm camera.

Alan Gales · Dec 14, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
I adapt lenses to my 4"x5" cameras. Given the work it would take, I would recommend that you stick to buying the right lenses for your 35mm camera.

Do you take Crown/Speed Graphic boards and cut the holes to size or do you make your own lens boards?

Sirius Glass · Dec 14, 2014

Alan Gales said:
Do you take Crown/Speed Graphic boards and cut the holes to size or do you make your own lens boards?

I buy boards and have the holes cut.

Dan Fromm · Dec 14, 2014

johnha said:
Most tests I've seen have shown medium format lenses to have slightly less resolution (over far greater image area) than 135 format lenses.

It really depends on the lens. See: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

k.hendrik · Dec 15, 2014

didn't read all the post but I bought one for my RZ lenses(50, 110, 140, 180, 250) to fit a D200; those lenses are beyond sharp!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/77846450@N00/11727913665/
only draw back; no handheld shooting.

Kirks518 · Dec 15, 2014

I guess I'm really just a gear junkie. If I were to get this thing, the primary purpose would be to test the MF vs 35mm lenses, and see which produces the better image. I don't think I'd get one, unless I could pick one up in the $20-$50 range, then it may be worth it.

I would think the only way to find out which is better, is to test them on the same format, to which the adapter would allow.

Dr Croubie · Dec 15, 2014

Kirks518 said:
I would think the only way to find out which is better, is to test them on the same format, to which the adapter would allow.

Well, that's only valid if you're talking about digital. Film is film, grain is grain. Shoot some test shots with the RB on 120 film, crop it to the size of a 135 frame, and compare it to native 135 lenses on 135 film, the results will hold. Or there's also a 135-back for RB/RZ, apparently.

MF lenses on smaller formats?

Kirks518

MattKing

Moderator

Dr Croubie

Dan Fromm

Fixcinater

Alan Gales

RalphLambrecht

Kirks518

Alan Gales

MattKing

Moderator

Alan Gales

Ian Grant

gone

Slixtiesix

Jesper

Dan Fromm

Alan Gales

johnha

Sirius Glass

Alan Gales

Sirius Glass

Dan Fromm

k.hendrik

Kirks518

Dr Croubie

MF lenses on smaller formats?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency