| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 3,988 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2784 Posts |
wondering does anybody here know. the mounting thread size for this lens. can you tell me as well the filter thread size. it would have to be very small. the front end of this lens is smaller than the back end. any help would be greatly appreciated. I would like to reverse this lens.
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
I am assuming you have the Polaroid version, based on the description that the front is narrower than the back. It was produced for the Polaroid Mp3 camera (4 X 5 format)
It is a macro lens in its own right so reversing it may not be that useful( very close working distance when reversed) It should get up to around 10X magnification mounted normally. Some reviewers have been disappointed with its performance. I wasn't able to find out the filter size, can you measure with some calipers?
Edited by austrokiwi
08/17/2016 12:45 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4038 Posts |
Don't reverse it. It was meant to be a macro lens when forward mounted. Get an M40 adapter for it. But be careful, as most "M42-M40" adapters are actually T-mount M42, not Pentax M42.
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
The 35mm Eurygon(35RE), along with the 35mm Tominon (35TT), which were both designed for use in the Polaroid macro system, are optimized for use above 5x. In my testing, their optimum aperture is f5.6. At f4, they are sharper in the center, but less sharp at the corners, than at f5.6. The sharpness is pretty flat across the whole field at f5.6. Used as a "finite" lens, ie without converging tube lens, the effective aperture is Feff = Finf * (M + 1). At f5.6, and M=5, Feff = f34, well into diffraction territory. Used as an "infinite" lens, ie mounted on the end of a "tube" lens focused at infinity, the Feff = Finf * M. At f5.6 and M=5, Feff = f28, only slightly better. As an experiment, I tested the 35RE both ways. Here are the results: Finite, no tube lens:  Infinite, with 186mm tube lens:  I don't see much difference between these, though on close inspection the Infinite is slightly sharper as expected. Edited by rmpsrpms
08/24/2016 3:37 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
2784 Posts |
wow ray those lens perform very well. I am waiting for the adapter. it will be here soon. excellent photos ray
|
|
Valued Member
United States
441 Posts |
Ray,
When using a lens like this, and to get the magnification shown in your pics, is a relay lens necessary? Could one use this lens on a bellows setup and achieve the same, or similar, results?
Could you take some pics on a <$300 bellows setup, get in ultra close to the mint mark, and post here? Would like to see results.
Edited by andywoj00
08/24/2016 4:41 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
Andy...yes, no tube lens is needed. The two pics above are done both ways, with and without tube lens. The top pic is the "normal" way like you'd get with the <$300 bellows setup. The bottom one is with the tube lens. There is only the slightest benefit to using the tube lens...Ray
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Valued Member
United States
441 Posts |
Well duh, I missed the parts that the pics were done with/without. Thanks for clarification.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
441 Posts |
Are these the lenses? Is there a difference between the two? 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
Same lens optically. I have examples of each, but the bottom one is easier to use. The hood on the upper one is not removable and can get in the way of lighting.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
441 Posts |
Ray,
If one wanted to pick up one of these to try out, what do you think would be a reasonable cost? I'm debating on it.....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
I think $60 would be a very good price. They seem to sell typically for $75 or more.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
The 35mm Tomioka Tominon (35TT) is a similar lens to the 35RE, and was also built for the Polaroid system. In fact I think the only Rodenstock lens made for Polaroid was the 35RE. All the other lengths, including the superb 50TT, were made only by Tomioka. I have a 35TT that has a broken aperture that I removed. It now only shoots wide open, which is OK as this lens does fairly well there. I tried it in same Finite and Infinite configurations as the 35RE. Here are the pics: Bellows only, no tube lens:  With 186mm tube lens:  Similar to the 35RE, I expect the 35TT to benefit from stopping down to f5.6, but I ended up testing a lens without this capability. Interestingly, I see more difference between the with and without tube lens shots with the 35TT. This is probably because the effective aperture differnces are larger when the lens is wide open. Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.comEdited by rmpsrpms
08/26/2016 10:50 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
For reference, I took a shot of the same coin with the Canon 35mm Macrophoto lens. This lens is good at f2.8 but slightly better at f4. I would think f3.3 might be the actual best but it does not click at half-stops. Here's what it looks like at f4:  |
|
Valued Member
United States
441 Posts |
Ray, Really nice pics. I can never seem get my lighting that soft and even  If using a 35mm enlarger lens on a <$300 bellows rig, is the bellows going to need to be a max extension to get these closeups? How is yours setup if using a bellows? Is that about all these lenses are good for or can one get full coin pics? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
For this magnification the bellows will need to be full extension. On the other end, even with bellows at minimum extension it will be tough to get below 2:1. I usually can't get below 2.5:1. So, no full coin pics with such short lenses using bellows.
|
| |
Replies: 18 / Views: 3,988 |
Posted 08/16/2016 10:05 pm
