Tominon Lenses

[Harold Gough]

This thread, in another forum, may be of interest:

http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=11595

Harold

[Charles Krebs]

Harold,

The 17mm is probably the most interesting in this group. Since it has a max aperture of f4 it's can't produce the resolution possible with certain 10X microscope objectives (which are about 16mm in focal length). But for people not interested in "stacking" (a virtual necessity with the microscope objectives) it can be worth trying if located at a low price. I think I paid less than $50 for the one I have.

A midge image taken with this 17mm can be seen here.

(Admin edit to fix the link.)

[Harold Gough]

That mide image is stunning, much like a highest quality drawn (cartoon) image. There is a lot to be said for a lens which gives such results.

Harold

[Planapo]

I am digging out this older thread/string because with the MP-4 Polaroid stand that I was given some time ago there came bellows, viewfinders etc. and some other MP-4 parts.

Amongst them a shutter (labelled "Polaroid MP-4" on top, and "Copal Made in Japan" on the side) with two Tominon lenses mounted together in a (at least for me ) strange combined way: On the rear of the shutter is a Tominon 4,5/75 mm reversely mounted and a 4,5/135 mm on the front of the shutter. So when the board that is holding the shutter is screwed on the bellows then the 135 mm Tominon is mounted normally like a lens on a view camera, but the 75 is hidden inside the bellows in reverse position.

Does anybody of you know what that combination of lenses was possibly used for? It makes the image smaller. And this stacked mounting of the two lenses doesn´t look like tinkered but as if it was meant to work so from the manufacturer: There's a metal adapter to hold the 75 mm on the rear of the shutter (in the bellows) and around the metal adapter a plastic tube that links the aperture of the inner 75 mm lens to the outward aperture lever of the shutter.
Or maybe the adapters were just meant to enable reverse mounting of a lens and somebody (without knowledge about this equipment like me ) has then screwed the second lens in the shutter that was appearing empty from the outside.

And are these Tominon 4,5/135 mm and 4,5/75 mm useful for our kind of photomacrography with DSLR and bellows, or should I trade them in, same as the shutter?

It´s the first time I have such a shutter in my hands. Is there a way to test if the shutter is working and not damaged?

Thanks for your answers, guys.

--Betty

[Charles Krebs]

Betty,

The shutter is basically a "#1" size self-cocking ("press" type), looks to have been made by Copal.

In the earlier Polaroid stand (MP-3) the Tominon lenses were each mounted in their own Prontor or Copal #1 shutters. This meant that the iris diaphragm was built into the shutter, and the lens had front and rear optical "components" that screwed directly into the shutter. Much like most other large format lenses.

With the MP-4 things changed a bit. The lenses were now "self-contained", built into barrels that included the aperture. The MP-4 shutter therefore had no need for a built in diaphragm (the one's I have do not have one). The "complete" lenses simply screwed into the front of the shutter. This meant that a single shutter could now be left attached to the MP-4 and used with all the lenses for the MP-4. Previously each lens had it's own shutter... more expensive, more things to break, and more things to do when changing lenses.

Now for your odd configuration....

While it was really for 4x5" and other Polaroid sizes, Polaroid provided a means to produce 35mm sized slides using the MP-4 camera. But to get the appropriate magnification (reduction, actually) the lenses needed to be positioned closer to the film plane than was possible when mounted "normally". They made a reduction kit that positioned the lens "inside" the bellows! (It was generally used with the 75mm lens. If you have an MP-4 groundglass you can see 35mm format markings on it). So it would have been used for "reduction" with a single lens inside the bellows. The lens mounted on the front of your gear was likely put there as a convenient temporary storage location (or vice versa).

The lenses themselves could of course be mounted on a bellows and used for lower magnification work. Probably pretty decent, but no way of knowing without trying.

One possible use of the shutter would be on a bellows or on a microscope as part of a lower vibration arrangement. The DSLR shutter is fired first, and then when everything settle down the MP-4 leaf shutter makes the actual exposure. Some people have done similar things with old microscope cameras that had very gentle shutters built in. Not sure if it would be worth the effort in most cases.

I've occasionally thought of incorporating a shutter like that somewhere in a fiber optic light "stream", again as a way of combating vibration. (Open camera shutter, pause, then trip shutter to illuminate subject for exposure time). Never got motivated enough to try it.

An electronic shutter speed tester (repair shop equipment) could tell you how accurate the shutter speeds are. If you cycle through the speeds (especially the slow ones... 1 sec to 1/8 sec) you should clearly hear the difference in the duration. Above those speeds it gets hard. (From about 1 second to 1/4 sec you can, with some experience tell if it is slow. If anything, these shutter tend to be slower as the lubes get thicker with time). These Copal made ones were generally pretty rugged.

[Cyclops]

I would never have associated such a lens with macro! These lenses usually have really large apertures. My 19-35 zoom is only f3.5 but the front element is a whopping 77mm!

[g4lab]

Just before the world went digital I got my filthy paws on a bunch of MP4 stuff. It is reasonably nice gear.

The 35mm gadget that Charles refers to I never got a piece of. It was a 4x5 film holder slide with a 35mm film transport and back mounted onto it. a 24x36mm image aperture right about in the center.

The whole 4x5 camera had a sliding ground glass focusing screen with
a binocular 90 degree mirror housing that you would slide out of the way and cause the actual film holder to click into place.

I had intended to trim the bellows off of one of these(that I bought at a JUNKYARD) and use the 4x5 focusing rack as holder for a digicam.

But after seeing Charles arrangement my natural reticence to attack a 4x5 camera with a razor proved correct. I will just mount the camera about as I would have and use the 4x5 bellows and place where the camera mounts as a big hood/shade

There was an 8x10 back made for the MP4. But reportedly the Tominon lensese were not quite up to throwing a ten inch circle.

Many of the lenses for the MP3 that were mounted in individual shutters
were supplied by Schneider. I have a 35 f4 Eurygon like that.

The MP3 was mechanically a little nicer than the MP4. The four was built by the Fujimoto company in Japan.

They made all kinds of neat gadgets for it. Like an enlarger lamp house head (Fujimoto makes enlargers) And if you get an MP4 a valuable accessory is the gadget that lets you remove the camera and replace it with a "tripod" mount so you can mount any camera on it. The MP3 also had a beautifully made helical fine focuser that fit the front bellows standard. And solid cast aluminum macro "stentions" as my friend from Tennessee calls them (Macro extentions) About 3 1/2 inches of extra extention. Fun stuff.

[Planapo]

Thanks much for your comprehensive answer, Charlie. Now, I understand what this lens was doing inside the bellows, and yep, I have found the 35 mm frame on the ground glass.
Checked the shutter, it seems to work fine, at least the blades are flawless and the exposure times get shorter and shorter from 1 to 1/125. And the reversing tube that was meant to be used with the 75 mm lens inside the bellows will offer a not too difficult way to tinker an adapter when glued into a T2 to M42 ring. (This method is shown in the link Harold gave above).
See, that´s how it goes: Now the "arsenal/asylum" has two more lenses, just because they came unexpectedly with that heap of MP-4 stuff. So, don't blame me!

Larry, Gene thanks for your additional information!

Gene, fortunately "tripod/SLR"-mounts that are to be clamped into the round hole came with it. Otherwise, for a self-made mount, I would have had to buy an aluminium tube of which I would have had to have the diameter "milled" smaller on a lathe as the tube diameter to fit in that hole on the MP-4 isn't German standard, probably it's British/American or Japanese.

Thanks again,
Betty

P. S.
(Jeez, is my gut feeling right and that last sentence with so many "woulds" and "haves" is still correct, understandable English? Betty, partly lost in translation.)

[rjlittlefield]

Otherwise, for a self-made mount, I would have had to buy an aluminium tube of which I would have had to have the diameter "milled" smaller on a lathe as the tube diameter to fit in that hole on the MP-4 isn't German standard, probably it's British/American or Japanese.

Jeez, is my gut feeling right and that last sentence with so many "woulds" and "haves" is still correct, understandable English?

To me that sentence is definitely correct English. It looks just like something I might have written. Unfortunately that raises great doubts about whether it is understandable!

That sentence is also a great example of how subtle verb usage can be in English. Your use of "would have had to buy" correctly indicates a hypothetical event in the past --- one that did not actually occur but would have been required under other circumstances. And "would have had to have...milled" not only indicates a hypothetical required event in the past, but also an action that would have been performed by somebody else at your instigation.

Even as a native reader, it takes me some effort to figure out all that is probably meant by those words. And of course I have to assume that the words were written by at least a Level 4 writer, since otherwise it would be dangerous to read so much into them.

--Rik

[NikonUser]

How about:
"... I would have had to buy an aluminium tube and had the diameter "milled" ......."

Of course for the Americans you probably should have writted "aluminum"

[Planapo]

To me that sentence is definitely correct English. It looks just like something I might have written. Unfortunately that raises great doubts about whether it is understandable!

Yeah, same here, Rik. Sometimes I actually have to proof read my own grammar constructions (in German!) several times to make sure they are totally flawless, and to understand them.

That sentence is also a great example of how subtle verb usage can be in English. Your use of "would have had to buy" correctly indicates a hypothetical event in the past --- one that did not actually occur but would have been required under other circumstances. And "would have had to have...milled" not only indicates a hypothetical required event in the past, but also an action that would have been performed by somebody else at your instigation.

I know you do believe me when I say that this just is what I wanted to express. But it's helpful to have the confirmation of a native speaker. And I am glad that you don´t mind that sometimes I "misuse" the forums for my language excercises.

Thanks for your witty and helpful reply! Much enjoyed! And thanks for the flowers! I will come back to this if I should apply for a Green Card once.

It´s really nice to have you guys over there! And over here as well, of course!

--Betty

[Harold Gough]

Further to Rik's comments:

I found myself mentally "conserving my breath", as a pause was not in sight. A comma after "tube" and another after "lathe" would have made reading more comfortable.

The use of punctuation in English is very contentious, especially that of the comma. Some authors of fictional prose deliberately wrote entire books without using the semicolon (;).

Unfortunately, what we used to call "received" English, i.e. that broadcast by national radio (in the first instance) and now also TV, has declined to a very poor standard. What should be the end of a sentence is usually in the middle and the uses of "I" and "me" rarely used correctly. The sense is also muddled, for example, "(a bomber) attempted a failed bomb attack". No, he attempted a successful one! The attempt failed!

Harold

Harold

[lothman]

Otherwise, for a self-made mount, I would have had to buy an aluminium tube of which I would have had to have the diameter "milled" smaller on a lathe as the tube diameter to fit in that hole on the MP-4 isn't German standard, probably it's British/American or Japanese.

I hoped to adapt with a M40,5->M49 Stepup ring but M40,5 drops from the M40 of the Tominon - therefor I switched on a lathe.
I made an adpater from alumina and had it black anodised. There is enough material for the M40x0,75 Tominon thread inside a M42 thread.

Regards
Lothman

[Planapo]

Thanks Lothman, for showing this method for obtaining an adapter.

Since you've posted that picture of the pen tip which is of very good quality, I reckon that some others too could be interested in a way of mounting Tominons.
(I can well imagine Tominons shipping downhill in the near future ... the word is that, astonishingly, there is still a little bit of room left in the augusthouse ... )

therefore I switched on a lathe

Yeah, believe me, sometimes l wish I could just switch on a lathe too, especially since I am a member of the "nutters club" here aboard. But unfortunately, I can't.

--Betty

P.S. The sentence you've quoted is not about how to mount a Tominon lens to a bellows, but how to mount an SLR camera to the MP-4 stand. But possibly this is only obvious for people who know about the Land Camera System, so never mind at all, and thanks again for your answer.

[DaveW]

I could never understand punctuation. I was told you insert it where you pause when speaking. However I seldom pause!

It is a bit like pronunciation, even the English professors seemingly disagree about it, and most of them mispronounce room as "rum", after as "arfter" and piano as "piarno"!

DaveW