Bellows Recommendation?

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Deanimator wrote: I don't always stack the Minolta on the Tokina. Sometimes I just reverse the Minolta, which I did tonight, using cheap manual extension tubes. Bellows would give me more flexibility than the extension tubes.
When new, the Vivitar Bellows came with a reversing ring. I'm not sure if it was 52mm or 55mm, as most of them are lost by the owners and not included when they sell the bellows. If you can find a reversing ring it would simplify your mounting the Minolta 50mm.

dolmadis
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: UK

Post by dolmadis »

ray_parkhurst wrote:
Do not buy an adapter with glass. Those are designed to give infinity focus for FD lenses, which have shorter flange focal distances than EOS. For macro work, you don't need (and don't want) the glass there. A simple adapter, as thin as you can get, works best. I use this one because it is very thin:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-to-Ca ... SwCGVX71Z1

That one comes from India (with long ship times) but you should be able to find similar on Amazon or other.
Has anyone tried one of these please?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/112214827207
BR

John

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

I own a similar adapter (M42-Nikon) that enables an older Nikon body (D5000) to work in Av and Tv mode vs only Manual mode. With the adapter, the camera believes it sports a 50mm lens (I don't remember the aperture obfuscation) and camera functions (focus confirm, auto adjust of ISO and Tv) then work. The lens functions of course don't work, so the focus and aperture settings must be set manually.

My adapter also had the glass to allow infinity focus with M42 lenses, but I removed it and just used the adapter for Macro application.

My D7000 does not require chipped lenses for the ISO and Tv to be adjusted automatically, so I have not used the adapter in a long time. Similarly, all recent Canon bodies work in Av mode without chipped lens (at least from the XS forward), though AF confirm does not function. I've never found the AF confirm function useful for macro work, so would not care if this function worked or not. I focus using Live View on-screen. I don't trust AF to critically focus correctly. Too often the wrong focus point is chosen and a bad shot results.

dolmadis
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: UK

Post by dolmadis »

Thanks Ray for the knowledgeable explanation.

BR

John

mawyatt
Posts: 2497
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater, Florida

Post by mawyatt »

Ray,

I also use an old Canon Auto Bellows with my Nikon camera bodies. I found a Canon to Nikon adapter without glass on eBay for the camera mount end, and a old Kalt CA52 52mm Canon Reverse adapter for the lens end. Both these adapters are for the old Canon FD mount, not the new EOS (I'm not that versed on Canon, so don't shoot me if I got this backwards :roll: ).

The Canon Bellows is really nicely built and similar to the Nikon PB-6. I think both of these serve well for our macro work, as I don't tend to bother with tubes now for extension, just use these nice bellows which allow coarse and fine adjustment.

Best,

Mike

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

Ray:

In general, which do you think would be easier to deal with, as far as getting components (lenses, adapters, etc.), the Canon FD or the M42 (I keep wanting to call it M43 after the WWII German field cap!)?

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Deanimator wrote:Ray:

In general, which do you think would be easier to deal with, as far as getting components (lenses, adapters, etc.), the Canon FD or the M42 (I keep wanting to call it M43 after the WWII German field cap!)?
This question requires a multi-part answer:

The camera end is no problem for either CFD or M42. Adapters are easy to find and cheap. Same is true for the T-Mount bellows.

For the lens end:

For enlarging/duplicating lenses, M42 is slightly easier, but it's also quite easy to buy a CFD-M42 adapter, making the two equivalent. Add a "helicoil" type M42-M39 and you can mount most enlarging lenses. T-Mount is harder.

For reversing lenses using filter mount threads, CFD is slightly easier, because Canon made accessory CFD-M49/M52/M55 reverse adapters available separately. Pentax included M42-M49 reverse adapters with some bellows, but like the Vivitar they are generally lost and not sold with a used bellows.

The drawback to the Pentax is that, due to its height, it is difficult to point the camera backwards (or perhaps "upside-down" is a better term"), so they are not as flexible in a vertical setup as the Canon or Vivitar.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

ray_parkhurst wrote:This question requires a multi-part answer:

The camera end is no problem for either CFD or M42. Adapters are easy to find and cheap. Same is true for the T-Mount bellows.

For the lens end:

For enlarging/duplicating lenses, M42 is slightly easier, but it's also quite easy to buy a CFD-M42 adapter, making the two equivalent. Add a "helicoil" type M42-M39 and you can mount most enlarging lenses. T-Mount is harder.

For reversing lenses using filter mount threads, CFD is slightly easier, because Canon made accessory CFD-M49/M52/M55 reverse adapters available separately. Pentax included M42-M49 reverse adapters with some bellows, but like the Vivitar they are generally lost and not sold with a used bellows.

The drawback to the Pentax is that, due to its height, it is difficult to point the camera backwards (or perhaps "upside-down" is a better term"), so they are not as flexible in a vertical setup as the Canon or Vivitar.
Thanks. That's more useful information.

Which do you recommend for bellows use of enlarger lenses, normal orientation or reversed? I use my Minolta MD 50mm prime reversed exclusively, either by itself, on extension tubes, or on the end of the Tokina 100mm macro.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Deanimator wrote: Thanks. That's more useful information.

Which do you recommend for bellows use of enlarger lenses, normal orientation or reversed? I use my Minolta MD 50mm prime reversed exclusively, either by itself, on extension tubes, or on the end of the Tokina 100mm macro.
Generally speaking, enlarging lenses should be used in forward orientation for <1:1, and reverse orientation for >1:1. Which way is best at exactly 1:1 depends on the lens.

I'd expect you are using your 50MD at >1:1 magnification (certainly this is true if mounted to the Tokina), so reversing it is likely going to produce the best result.

Enlarging and taking lenses are generally designed to normally operate at <1:1, so the subject is larger than the image produced on the film. It's best to keep this relationship when using lenses for taking, so if the image on the sensor is larger than subject, reversing the lens best conforms to its design parameters.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

ray_parkhurst wrote:Generally speaking, enlarging lenses should be used in forward orientation for <1:1, and reverse orientation for >1:1. Which way is best at exactly 1:1 depends on the lens.

I'd expect you are using your 50MD at >1:1 magnification (certainly this is true if mounted to the Tokina), so reversing it is likely going to produce the best result.

Enlarging and taking lenses are generally designed to normally operate at <1:1, so the subject is larger than the image produced on the film. It's best to keep this relationship when using lenses for taking, so if the image on the sensor is larger than subject, reversing the lens best conforms to its design parameters.
That's what I suspected, but I wasn't sure.

Thanks for the confirmation.

This afternoon I was playing with the Minolta reversed onto two sets of extension tubes, my ProMasters with contacts on top of my cheap ones without contacts. It worked much better than I expected. It'll work even better when I get my Wemacro and can focus stack.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic