Repurposed lenses question for digital view camera

[Allthink]

Hello colleagues
I'm new to this forum, hope I chose the right category for question, because I want to use LF/MF/old and some newer lenses on digital camera.

I want to buy some lenses for use with Cambo view camera, for product photography I can buy copal 0,1, Pentax 645/67 with adapter and Mamiya Rz lenses.
I want to decide which line of lenses to choose and want to hear your opinion/lens suggestion. Currently for product photography.

For example, If I decide for P645 lens board, I can buy Pentax hd 35mm, 120mm macro, 55mm f2.8 SMC D-FA or 75mm, or SMC Pentax 67 55mm F/4 etc.

If I decide to go Mamiya rz, i don't have 35mm but do have 50mm uld, 65mm, 140mm macro and all the other lenses in 50-200mm range.
How the Pentax 645 55mm FA compares to Mamiya RZ 50mm ULD/65mm, and Pentax 645 120mm macro compares to Mamiya RZ 140mm macro.

There is also Nikkor SW 65mm f/4, 50mm f/4, etc. with copal 0. There are fujinons too and enlarger lenses.
I was considered enlarger lenses(like SK APO-COMPONON HM 60/4 ) too as well as there are options to choose SK/Rodenstock.

I already have SK 90mm apo digitar, and 28mm, so want to complement. For example with 50/65mm middle range and macro lens.

I'm seeking for good lens has no/minimal CA/noticeable vignetting at 10-15mm shifts and without need to do LCC each time.

If you know of better choices or had experience using both P645/RZ lenses and know how they compare, give your thoughts.
Thanks

 

[abruzzi]

Most of the pentax lenses don't have a shutter. It sounds like you're shooting with a digital back, does that back have a usable shutter? (Really, this location is for discussion of medium format film. There is another forum below this for digital discussion.)

Normally Copal 0/1/3 lens boards are used by one board per lens, rather than removing one lens to add a different one. They are also generally much cheaper than boards with custom bayonets for mounting SLR lenses.

One drawback you'll find with standard view camera lenses is that except for the digital rodenstock lenses, most view camera lenses are not retrofocal, meaning a 35mm lenswill need to get 35mm from the film/sensor plane, and many/most view cameras can't get the standards that close. I don't know what cambo you have, but the one I have has difficulty even getting the standards 75mm apart. The benefit of SLR lenses is that they are designed where infinity is a larger distance to clear the mirror. So Pentax 645=70.87mm, Pentax 67=85mm, Mamiya 645=63.3mm, RB67=112mm, and RZ67=105mm. So even with their ultrawides, you still don't have bellows issues for most of these.

 

[Allthink]

Thank you. I will try to post in digital category.
I'm currently using cambo actus with Sony but maybe later will upgrade to GFX or DB.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to Photrio!

Cross posting is not necessary and the monitors discourage it.

 

[abruzzi]

maybe a mod can move this thread? Its definitely worth discussing in the digital section.

 

[BrianShaw]

There are plenty of Calument/Cambo boards for Copal shutter, but finding one for the MF lenses you mention might be a challenge.

EDIT: Apparently I was mistaken and Actus has the boards you are thinking about using. You probably already knew that. I was thinking of the "traditional" Calument/Cambo view cameras.

 

[MattKing]

Thread moved, and most likely merged as well.

 

[wiltw]

Unless you are planning on mounting a medium format back, you will likely to run into the issue that medium format lenses lack the ability to provide a sufficiently large image circle to fill a large format frame, much less provide shift capability.
And unless you use a bag bellows, it is likely that the large format bellows can compress sufficiently to use short focal length lenses.
Lastly, getting any Seiko-shuttered medium format lens to fire its shutter will be complicated by the fact that the Seiko shutter is mechanically triggered to open, and electrically triggered to close.

 

[abruzzi]

Ignore my previous comments, they are more relevant to a film view camera that I have more experience with. I've never used an Actus, but they look like really interesting setup. One thing for sure--you'll get more movements out of a RB or RZ lens or a Pentax 67 lens than you will from a Pentax 645, if that matters to you.

Quality wise, I can't comment on the Mamiya lenses--I've never used them. The Pentax lenses are pretty darn good on film, but digital is a different story. I've used some Pentax 67 lenses on a Leaf Credo 40 (40mp, 44x33) and was generally pleased, but I haven't had much time to do testing.

A few comments worth making for "view camera" lenses: First, the last lot of Rodenstock lenses are apparently very sharp, and expensive. They are also retrofocal to keep the lens further from the sensor. This has a few benefits. First, at infinity they are less likely to have the rear interfere with the camera body. Second they compress the bellows less, aking movements easier. Last, as I understand it there are less LCC issues with longer lenses because the light is moving at less of an angle, so a retrofocal lens has similar benenfits.

The problem is if you can't afford the Rodenstock lenses, most/all other view camera lenses are not retrofocal so they will have more LCC issues if you like wide lenses. Wide SLR lenses like the Pentax or Mamiya will be retrofocal in order to clear the mirror.

 

[Allthink]

Welcome to Photrio!

Cross posting is not necessary and the monitors discourage it.

It wasn't intentional. After posting on film category, which is legitimate, because I asked about very old LF lenses. I was advised later to put it into a digital, as partly my post is about digital, that's what I did. Sorry it made you sad.

 

[koraks]

It wasn't intentional.

No worries about this! In case of a requested thread move, please always feel free to use the 'report' function and explain what you'd like to be done, and generally we'll happily comply. In this case, it's debatable where a thread would fit the best. In such a case, we'll either keep it in the place it is, or move it to where we (as moderators) feel it fits best.

Welcome to Photrio and I hope you get some useful input on your questions!

 

[Allthink]

Unless you are planning on mounting a medium format back, you will likely to run into the issue that medium format lenses lack the ability to provide a sufficiently large image circle to fill a large format frame, much less provide shift capability.
And unless you use a bag bellows, it is likely that the large format bellows can compress sufficiently to use short focal length lenses.
Lastly, getting any Seiko-shuttered medium format lens to fire its shutter will be complicated by the fact that the Seiko shutter is mechanically triggered to open, and electrically triggered to close.

Thank you. Currently planning to use with Sony a FF, maybe later will buy into GFX or DB with specific mount addition.
If I use mirrorless body like Sony a or Fuji GFX, I just close the shutter on Mamiya/Pentax lens or it's more complicated and I need some cables to trigger RZ lens?? I'm working with flash. I use standard bellows from Cambo actus.

 

[wiltw]

Also keep

Thank you. Currently planning to use with Sony a FF, maybe later will buy into GFX or DB with specific mount addition.
If I use mirrorless body like Sony a or Fuji GFX, I just close the shutter on Mamiya/Pentax lens or it's more complicated and I need some cables to trigger RZ lens?? I'm working with flash. I use standard bellows from Cambo actus.

As I stated previously, the Seiko electronic shutter uses a mechanical lever on the rear of the lens to open the shutter (after the reflex mirror has swung out of the way), then an electric signal closes the shutter when the electronic timing circuit in the body determines that the shutter duration which is selected has elapsed.

If using large format lenses, keep in mind that the manufacturers like Rodenstock have wriiten, in their own lens performance sheets, that the large format lens has an MTF which corresponds to the LESSER resolution (in line-pairs per millimeter, delivered at the focal plane) because the 4x5 film area permits lower magnification to create the same final print size... 1/4 the magnification as 135 format, so 4x5 film image does not need the same high resolution that a lens designed for 135 format has to deliver!

 

[Allthink]

Did anyone compare those lenses ~50mm focal range in terms of IQ (resolution, movements, CA, need of CF etc.)?

Schneider Kreuznach Super Angulon 65mm F5.6 MC
Schneider Kreuznach Super Angulon XL 58mm F5.6 MC
Schneider Super-Angulon 47mm F5.6 XL

SMC PENTAX-D FA 645 55mm F/2.8 AL IF SDM AW
Pentax 67 55mm f/4

Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digital 55mm F5.6
Rodenstock Grandagon-N 65mm f/4.5 MC

Mamiya ULD M 50mm f/4.5 L
Mamiya M 65mm F4 L-A

About macro lenses, anyone knows this lens?

Cambo Actus SCHNEIDER-KREUZNACH COMPONON-S 5.6 100mm Macro
and how it compares to
- Schneider-Kreuznach MAKRO-SYMMAR HM 5.6/120
- Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Componon HM 90mm 4.5 Enlarging Lens
- Pentax 645 FA 120mm/Mamiya rz 140mm macro

 

[abruzzi]

The Componon was Scneider’s enlarging lens, but I know little about them in other uses.

 

[Allthink]

Sadly no one have anything to say about these lenses as well as comparing at least some of them.

 

[Pieter12]

Except for the Rodenstock Digital, you might be disappointed with the results of using an analog lens with a digital back or camera.

 

[xkaes]

Lots of people have lots to say about lots of these lenses, and many have actually done tests of lenses. But many of these tests are done in different ways for different purposes, so direct comparisons are difficult. Ctein, with others have done many tests comparing many enlarging lenses and published their results in Darkroom Photography and elsewhere.
There are also on-line testers, such as https://www.closeuphotography.com
But since you want as-yet-unspecified tests done on particular lenses, you might have to resort to what most of us do in that situation -- DIY.

 

[Allthink]

Except for the Rodenstock Digital, you might be disappointed with the results of using an analog lens with a digital back or camera.

Thanks. Did you try that rodenstock digital 55mm and have something good to say about it?
What about MC PENTAX-D FA 645 55mm F/2.8 AL IF SDM AW, it's also was made for digital.

 

[Allthink]

Lots of people have lots to say about lots of these lenses, and many have actually done tests of lenses. But many of these tests are done in different ways for different purposes, so direct comparisons are difficult. Ctein, with others have done many tests comparing many enlarging lenses and published their results in Darkroom Photography and elsewhere.
There are also on-line testers, such as https://www.closeuphotography.com
But since you want as-yet-unspecified tests done on particular lenses, you might have to resort to what most of us do in that situation -- DIY.

Of course, agree. I just wanted to head maybe people already did some of the tests and I can learn from them, otherwise - to buy and test myslef, which is a long way.
Sometimes, it's enough that a photographer can confirm that he tested and have good experience with specific lens(on my list) Good IQ, lack of CA etc. or maybe a lens that i can pass on as it's mediocre in IQ, I'm not seeking for scientific tests.

 

[koraks]

Sadly no one have anything to say about these lenses as well as comparing at least some of them.

The formulation is quite specific/focused, which naturally limits the population which is in a position to chime in. Had you asked a more open question about suitability of lenses in your use case, I'm sure many people would have responded. However, you would also have received more general remarks that are likely outside the scope of what you're looking for.

Have you tried the getdpi forums? I have a feeling there are some gearheads (not intended as a derogatory term here) over there who might have a word of advice to share.

 

[xkaes]

Sometimes, it's enough that a photographer can confirm that he tested and have good experience with specific lens(on my list) Good IQ, lack of CA etc. or maybe a lens that i can pass on as it's mediocre in IQ, I'm not seeking for scientific tests.

I sympathize, but as you have seem, even when you talk about one specific lens, one person can't live without it, while another one thinks the trash bin is too good for it. And when you want to compare lens X to lens Y, that's when the gloves come off!!!

 

[Pieter12]

I sympathize, but as you have seem, even when you talk about one specific lens, one person can't live without it, while another one thinks the trash bin is too good for it. And when you want to compare lens X to lens Y, that's when the gloves come off!!!

Add to that that the intended use is for a view camera, so the lenses have to have a large enough image circle to accommodate movements, plus digital, where not all analog lenses perform well. I would recommend the OP to do his own research on the internet, plus any practical trials he can undertake.

 

[reddesert]

Relatively few people are going to have experience with many or all of these lenses, and they aren't necessarily also going to have experience with using them for product photography, or on a full frame or medium format digital camera.

I think it may be more important to focus on some usability differences among these lenses rather than particular details of image quality. You're probably going to be shooting with the lens well stopped down anyway.

Here are some issues to think about:
- Using camera movements with a back that is not centered on the standard - if you use a mirrorless the plane of the sensor is behind the standard, which can make different movements coupled and sometimes lead to vignetting.
- Using camera movements with a lens that is not centered on the standard. Some of these lenses are adapted SLR lenses and will have nodal planes out in front of the standard, which can do odd things when you apply tilt/swing.
- Image circle - most of the LF or 6x7 lenses would likely cover unless you use extreme movements.
- Whether the lens is designed to work well at tabletop magnification ratios
- Artifacts caused by light hitting the digital sensor at a sharp angle.

You already have the 90mm apo digitar which seems like it would work well. Have you got all of the process worked out with that already?

 

[Allthink]

Relatively few people are going to have experience with many or all of these lenses, and they aren't necessarily also going to have experience with using them for product photography, or on a full frame or medium format digital camera.

I think it may be more important to focus on some usability differences among these lenses rather than particular details of image quality. You're probably going to be shooting with the lens well stopped down anyway.

Here are some issues to think about:
- Using camera movements with a back that is not centered on the standard - if you use a mirrorless the plane of the sensor is behind the standard, which can make different movements coupled and sometimes lead to vignetting.
- Using camera movements with a lens that is not centered on the standard. Some of these lenses are adapted SLR lenses and will have nodal planes out in front of the standard, which can do odd things when you apply tilt/swing.
- Image circle - most of the LF or 6x7 lenses would likely cover unless you use extreme movements.
- Whether the lens is designed to work well at tabletop magnification ratios
- Artifacts caused by light hitting the digital sensor at a sharp angle.

You already have the 90mm apo digitar which seems like it would work well. Have you got all of the process worked out with that already?

No, just want to add macro lens and ~50mm regular lens to get the minimum set.
Seems like not many people tried any of these.
Ok, seems like I have to test them myself.