Printing-Nikkor Adapter

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:49 am

This http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/30mm-45mm-30-45mm ... 3cb3f4784f
I think would have a 45mmx 0.75mm female thread one side?

If the outside diameter of that part were say 47mm, it might be gluable inside a 49?

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:03 am

[quote="ChrisR"]This http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/30mm-45mm-30-45mm ... 3cb3f4784f
I think would have a 45mmx 0.75mm female thread one side?[/quote]

Possibly but I thought filter threads were 0.5mm pitch? I hadn't even seen these so thanks for sending the link. I also found a 40.5-45 on eBay after you sent this. If these are 0.75 pitch then I might have a short term solution...Ray

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:20 am

You're right, probably 0.5mm

- I was thinking filters were generally 0.75mm - until I checked my own post inthe FAQ section!
I'd just searched for 45mm step ring. There only seemed to be the 2 with 45mm female threads. I've tried a few UK suppliers too - no luck

You need a better camera Ray.
240lp/mm
I we say minimum 480 pixels/mm
squared, x24 x36
=200 Megapixels

dickb · Post by **dickb** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:31 am

There is also an extension tube set that uses 45mm threads:

http://cgi.ebay.de/Minolta-Extension-Tu ... 0461704657

Be aware there is also an "Extension tube set for SR II". This later set has 57mm threads.

The earlier chrome set consists of an SR mount to 45mm ring, a 45mm to 45mm ring and a 45mm to Minolta SR ring. The middle one, the 45mm extension ring, should be useful for creating an adapter to Nikon F mount.

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:41 am

[quote="dickb"]There is also an extension tube set that uses 45mm threads:

The earlier chrome set consists of an SR mount to 45mm ring, a 45mm to 45mm ring and a 45mm to Minolta SR ring. The middle one, the 45mm extension ring, should be useful for creating an adapter to Nikon F mount.[/quote]

Thanks, I'll look for that set! ...Ray

Craig Gerard · Post by **Craig Gerard** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:16 pm

dickb wrote:The earlier chrome set consists of an SR mount to 45mm ring, a 45mm to 45mm ring and a 45mm to Minolta SR ring. The middle one, the 45mm extension ring, should be useful for creating an adapter to Nikon F mount.

Well spotted db!

Thankyou for the information

Craig

dickb · Post by **dickb** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:39 am

I sold my Printing Nikkor before I found a complete set of the Minolta tubes, so I can't say for certain that the pitch is the same. Even with a slightly different pitch it can be used for adapting the Nikkor, as long as you don't force the threads. I haven't found my Minolta ring with a 45mm thread in my slightly chaotic collection yet, but when I do, I'll report the pitch back. If any lucky owner of the printing nikkor has any luck adapting his lens with these rings, I'd like to hear of it.

Edit: I just found the No.5 ring, with female 45mm 1.0mm pitch thread and a male Minolta SR mount. The inner diameter of the SR mount is 37mm, too narrow to fit onto the Printing Nikkor. So only the middle ring which I haven't got may be useful for this purpose. Even though it's a 1.0mm pitch rather than 0.75mm.

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:04 pm

I got quotes for the adapters and will be ordering one but delivery quoted was 5-6 weeks. In the meantime I've done a "quick and dirty" mount by putting a few layers of masking tape on the 40mm lens barrel and then screwing a 42mm extension tube onto the masking tape. It makes a nice tight and square fit and should work until I get a real adapter...

And of course I took some pictures. I am not sure the protocol on the group for uploading large pictures, so I posted them to Photobucket. I have a favorite coin for making comparisons with, a nicely-toned 1957-D cent. Magnification is ~1:1.25 to nearly fill the sensor with a 19mm diameter cent.

I took 3 photos, one each with the 95mm Printing-Nikkor, the 105mm APO-EL-Nikkor, and a 100mm Asahi-Pentax Bellows-Takumar. These are jpgs right out of the camera with sharpening and saturation set to Zero. The photos can be seen here:

http://s943.photobucket.com/albums/ad27 ... O-Takumar/

100AP = 100mm f/4 Asahi-Pentax Bellows Takumar
105AEN = 105mm f/5.6 Nikon APO-EL-Nikkor
95PN = 95mm f/2.8 Nikon Printing-Nikkor

Click on the image, then Zoom to original size to see the 4928x3264 original.

The difference between the Nikons and the Takumar are pretty clear, but the two Nikons are very close to each other. The P-N seems to have a flatter field and a little better contrast. The A-E-N may be a bit sharper in the center. Admittedly the P-N is much closer to its optimum magnification of 1:2 while the A-E-N is far outside its optimum. Perhaps I will re-do the comparison with the A-E-N reversed to see if the field flattens.

Craig Gerard · Post by **Craig Gerard** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:09 pm

Ray,

The Nikon Printing-Nikkor, in particular, returns a beautiful image:

95mm f/2.8 Nikon Printing-Nikkor:
http://s943.photobucket.com/albums/ad27 ... t=95PN.jpg

105mm f/5.6 Nikon APO-EL-Nikkor:
http://s943.photobucket.com/albums/ad27 ... 105APO.jpg

100mm f/4 Asahi-Pentax Bellows Takumar:
http://s943.photobucket.com/albums/ad27 ... =100AP.jpg

Craig

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:40 pm

Here is same coin taken with Schneider-Kreuznach 90mm f/4.5 APO-Componon HM

http://s943.photobucket.com/albums/ad27 ... 90AHM.jpg/

Quality somewhere between the Nikons and the Takumar.

I've noticed a few things while comparing these lenses. Chromatic Aberration seems relatively easy to spot by adjusting focus up and down and looking for change in hue when the image is slightly defocused (viewing at 100%). The APO lenses don't change hue at all, the image just goes in and out of focus.

Craig Gerard · Post by **Craig Gerard** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:04 pm

Ray,

Another respectable result; but my eye is continually being drawn back to the P-N; that's a beautiful piece of 'glass'.

Craig

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:38 am

Ray, I don't know about the Takumar, but the only one of these lenses designed to work at about the magnification you're using is the Printing Nikkor, isn't it?
How would something like a 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor at about f/5.6, compare?
I hope, for your sake, not as well(!) but I imagine you would have tried it and it would be interesting to see.

ChrisLilley · Post by **ChrisLilley** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:51 am

ray_parkhurst wrote: I've noticed a few things while comparing these lenses. Chromatic Aberration seems relatively easy to spot by adjusting focus up and down and looking for change in hue when the image is slightly defocused (viewing at 100%). The APO lenses don't change hue at all, the image just goes in and out of focus.

That would be axial CA, then (as opposed to lateral). If you get a high contrast subject with detail at a range of depths then you will also see a little axial colour even with an APO lens, although much less than with a non-APO.

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:40 am

[quote="ChrisR"]Ray, I don't know about the Takumar, but the [i]only [/i]one of these lenses designed to work at about the magnification you're using is the Printing Nikkor, isn't it?
How would something like a 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor at about f/5.6, compare?
I hope, for your sake, not as well(!) but I imagine you would have tried it and it would be interesting to see.[/quote]

Chris...actually, the impetus for me to head down the "exotics" path was my dissatisfaction with the 105VR Micro. It's a great lens, but in typical fashion I became obsessed with resolution and wanted to see if I could do better. Several thousand dollars later I am seeing better results and am now questioning the camera resolution as limiting factor. None of the lenses I've tested, other than the P-N and A-E-N, have pointed me in that direction, ie the lenses all were worse than the camera. This will be a topic for future discussion...

In the meantime, I took comparable pictures with my 105VR and 105/4AIS. From what I see, the 105VR is slightly better than the 90HM in the center but worse at the edges, otherwise comparable in resolution. The 105AIS is worse all over, more comparable to the Takumar.

Here are (all) the links:

95mm f/2.8 Nikon Printing-Nikkor:
http://s943.photobucket.com/albums/ad27 ... t=95PN.jpg

105mm f/5.6 Nikon APO-EL-Nikkor:
http://s943.photobucket.com/albums/ad27 ... 105APO.jpg

100mm f/4 Asahi-Pentax Bellows Takumar:
http://s943.photobucket.com/albums/ad27 ... =100AP.jpg

90mm f/4.5 Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Componon HM:
http://s943.photobucket.com/albums/ad27 ... t=90HM.jpg

105mm f/2.8 VR Nikon Micro-Nikkor:
http://s943.photobucket.com/albums/ad27 ... =105VR.jpg

105mm f/4 AIS Nikon Micro-Nikkor:
http://s943.photobucket.com/albums/ad27 ... 105AIS.jpg

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:35 pm

Well there's 6 lenses I don't have.. yet

I think it would be a Schneider Componon HM not Rodenstock?
The Nikon 105 AIS is the f4, I see. I wonder how much it improved when they made it f/2.8 and added the feature whose name I forget - the lens alters internally as it's focused.
I suppose another "nice to try" would be the Rodenstock 74mm Apo f/4 designed for 1:1. I'm surprised that they make one for 1:1 and another for 1:2. Does that imply that things are very critical at these ratios?