Thanks, I've made note of the page... and also realized (belatedly) that
I have Shaw's book. I didn't recall the movie lens stuff.
Chuck Norcutt
Jay Drew wrote:
> Chuck, your memory serves you well, they are 8mm lens.
> Quoting John Shaw's book (page 126 for those following along:)
>
> "For the best results you should use a reversed movie-camera lens for subjects
> that are the actual size of the of the original film format or smaller. In
> other words a lens from an 8mm camera can be reversed for 7X or higher
> magnification, while that from a Super-8 can be used at 6X or more"
>
> So you are correct, using the larger format would produce a lower
> magnification.
> But if you follow Mr. Shaw's theory, a 16mm lens would be for a subject 16mm
> or
> smaller. If I was shooting an object that was 16mm across I'd be in the 2X
> range of magnification. I can do that in a couple of ways:
>
> On the 65-116 tube you can get the following subject size @ distance
> With the tube at 65 / 116
>
> 50mm lens 24 @ 54 / 15 @ 37
> 35mm lens 17 @ 23 / 10 @ 18
> 28mm lens 14 @ 10 / 8 @ 3
> 24mm lens 13 @ 5 / To close
>
> And reversing the lens
>
> 50mm R 18 @ 65 / 12 @ 55
> 35mm R 12 @ 47 / 8 @ 45
> 28mm R 8 @ 39 / 6 @ 38
> 24mm R 7 @ 40 / 5 @ 40
>
> I stole that information from Wim Verheyen's site at:
> http://users.skynet.be/aemit/photo/macro.html
> Check it out, it's better formatted than my text.
>
> As Wim points out:
>
> Reversing a lens gets higher magnification with greater subject distance and
> better quality but with the loss of the auto aperture.
>
> However, if you use the bellows and reverse the lens board you can still use a
> dual cable release and maintain that auto aperture. Score one for Olympus.
>
> But for those who have a thirst for the itsy bitsy, when I mount that 6.5mm
> Raptar on my bellows at full extension, I am getting near 36X magnification.
> It's not great quality but it does have some bragging rights. I don't have
> the
> 20mm macro and I am sure that the quality of the shots taken with it would
> probably be better and easier to shoot with the 20mm, but that cine lens was a
> lot cheaper.
>
> Jay - a cheapskate OM'r if there ever was one.
>
>
>
>>From memory of my father-in-law's 8mm movie camera these sound like 8mm
>>lenses.
>> I thing his lens was 12mm. Can one readily find longer focal lengths from
>> 16mm
>> cameras so as not to have such high magnification? Maybe 16mm lenses run
>> towards the 12-36mm range?
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>
>>> Jay Drew wrote:
>>>
>>> Wayne raised the question as to what cine lens did I use (reversed) on my
>>> bellows (and extension tubes).
>>>
>>> It was basically choosing a cine lens that would provide an easy mounting
>>> scheme. What I wanted was a lens that had threaded ring that I would guess
>>> enabled a drop in filter to be inserted and then the ring screwed back in to
>>> hold that filter in place.
>>>
>>> My method of mounting was to take the female portion of a metal 49mm filter
>>> stack cap and make hole in the center of it that would accommodate the
> threaded
>>> male portion of the cine filter capture section. I then was able to screw
>>> the
>>> lens and filter holder together pinching the stack cap between the two
>>> pieces.
>>> I then use a 49mm reverse mount and screw the cine/stack cap onto it, and
> mount
>>> that onto the bellows/tubes what have you.
>>>
>>> I use a Wollensak Raptar 9mm, 6.5mm and a Wittnauer Chronostar at 13mm. The
>>> Wittnauer was 8 bucks at a surplus store.
>>>
>>> The 6.5mm is really difficult to deal with, the depth of field is just about
>>> nothing. The 13mm on my 65-116 tube was giving me a 9X magnification.
>>>
>>> Maybe Dean Hansen will pipe up, we traded notes once and he mentioned using
>>> an
>>> Elgeet 7mm reversed and getting 12x directly on the camera. I've got the
>>> distinct feeling he's gotten much higher quality shots than I have.
>>>
>>> The price is a lot cheaper than a 38mm or a 20mm, but you do lose the auto
>>> diaphragm and the quality is not superb. Lighting is tough. But it is
>>> cheap.
>>> I got the idea from John Shaw's book Closeups in Nature.
>>>
>>> Jay
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|