Q1 2024 (Jan-Mar) — Through Your Adapted Lens

This thread is intended as a place to show your images made with adapted lenses, DIY optics and any other optical experiments you might come up with.

Of course showing and discussing images is a central part, but please don't hesitate to also share any kind of additional information regarding your lenses, adapting solutions and tools as well as your experiences and impressions, as this can be highly interesting and valuable information for anyone interested in looking beyond regular modern taking lenses.

Here are some broad guidelines:

• Images with a removable adapter between lens and camera
• Images with the lens mount permanently modified to fit a different camera
• Images with the lens held by hand without an adapter (freelensing)
• Including metadata (camera, lens, aperture, shutter speed) is encouraged but not required.
• Images can be, but are not required to have been taken this month, so feel free to add some adapted lens shots from your archives as well

Comments are encouraged, but please keep them friendly and constructive.

We have changed the format of this thread from a monthly to a quarterly-based one. If you have any feedback regarding the guidelines or general description of the thread or some new ideas, please don't hesitate to let me know - I'm always open for suggestions and happy to share the joy and creative freedom adapted lenses can provide with as many people as possible!

simplejoy

Happy New Year!

I hope you will continue having fun with adapted lenses and optical experiments and join me in sharing images and experiences with them here.

I decided to start this one by showing a lens, which might not be spectacular in terms of sharpness and contrast (it's quite old, so uncoated and s relatively simple 5 elements in 3 groups design, from what I could find), the

Dallmeyer Pentac 4 1/4 inch f/2.9

It has a beautiful rendering though, which is the main reason I really enjoyed using it. I haven't tried finding out the exact date when it was built, but I would suspect perhaps in the 1930s or thereabouts. Quite impressive that it still works reasonably well. Here are a couple of shots:

Leaf-LED by simple.joy, on Flickr

Frankly, sharpness is... meaningless! by simple.joy, on Flickr

There's a melody in everything... by simple.joy, on Flickr

In hindsight everything's a blur... by simple.joy, on Flickr

Building fences causes storms... by simple.joy, on Flickr

This one from 1922 is near: dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS10/00472/00472.HTM it's the only Pentac I found here: dioptrique.info/sommaire/sommaire.HTM

I have a maybe 60 years younger lens, a multicoated, Linhof selected, 135mm Symmar-S by Schneider in Prontor 01 shutter:

I took a test shot, it looks quite sharp.

Looks very nice! Is the diaphragm on your Symmar-S fully open at f/5.6 or not? I have a Symmar-S 150 mm f/5.6 and it seems to be at least an f/4 lens, but doesn't open fully, so I was wondering if it could possibly be changed by using a different housing...

Thanks - yeah, that's likely its design. It's very interesting that those Pentac designs are very close to the Heliar design (just slightly different and mirrored outer groups) and both types of lenses are known for their nice rendering. The symmetrical 6/4 Double Gauss and similar designs may have their benefits in terms of correction as well as performance in the corners, but when it comes to rendering many of the 5/3 designs seem to do really well (even quite old ones) while the 6/4 designs seem to be all over the place.

Speaking of unusual designs, here's a shot with my Carl Zeiss S-Sonnar 62 mm f/2.5 - one of my favorite lenses:

Great ex-stacked-ations... by simple.joy, on Flickr

It's a very unusual design to say the least. Just look at it:

(Lens Drawing from Marco Cavina's excellent article: www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/TEST_Zeiss_Makro_Planar_50mm_2_vs_S-Planar_60mm_2,8/00_pag.htm

You can also find a lot more information on the lens including performance for macro shooting here:
www.closeuphotography.com/zeiss-s-sonnar-62mm-f2-5-lens-test

What I like most about it is certainly its rendering though:

So close, yet out o'range! by simple.joy, on Flickr

Happy birch-day by simple.joy, on Flickr

Yes, it's almost fully open. I see a little difference between fully open and stopped down to 5.6 mark. Aperture blades just come visible at f/5.6. Sony camera doesn't react in that at exposure time. It looks less than one third of stop. I also have Apo-Symmar 150mm lens, the next generation after Symmar-S. It's in Copal 0 and have the same behavior. I think those both are f/5.6 lenses.

Compare the aperture at f/6.3

Edit. These pictures was taken with Schacht-Novoflex-Travegar 1:3.5/105mm R in Novoflex bellows using aperture f/8

What do you say of these Heliars? dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS17/00812/00812.HTM and
dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS21/01034/01034.HTM

This one with turned outer groups dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS8/00370/00370.HTM
Or which one has turned groups? This one is older.

Beautiful! Warm colours, warm feelings.

I agree, very unusual. Did Zeiss make S versions of all their lenses?

Thanks a lot. Yeah - mine does indeed look closer to your f/6.3 opening with the blades clearly showing. I really don't get Schneider's thoughts behind their aperture systems.

Indeed - one of those does look almost identical to the Pentac one. No wonder both tend to have a similar rendering.

Thank you!

No, not all - but lots of them:

S-Biogon
S-Distagon
S-Orthometar
S-Orthoplanar (I don't think there are non-S versions of those lenses, as Zeiss themselves mention some S-Planars as their precursors)
S-Planar (many of those with very different constructions and at different times)
S-Pleogon
S-Sonnar
S-Tessar (many of those)
S-Triotar

It's possible that there are others, but I'm not aware of more than those.

What is the housing of your 150mm Symmar-S? You did not mention it. If it is in the Schneider aperture mount with it's crazy aperture blades I'm not surprised. I've had some of those which didn't fully open.
I did not find a good example now because I have remounted most of my best lenses to some better housing, better at least aperture wise.

Very nice picture! But birch allergic people are not so happy in those birch-days.

It's one of those typical Schneider enlarging lens mount (I think it's called B-00 or BK-00 - something like that according to Robert OToole's information on closeuphotography.com). Perhaps I have a different Schneider mount with the same thread sizes... but because I also have a Makro-Symmar 120 mm f/5.6 I haven't attempted that.

Thanks! Yes, I can imagine that. Luckily I'm not affected by that, but members of my family are, so I know about the struggle...

Given that you seem to know a lot about Schneider lenses, I'm curious: Have you ever heard of the Schneider Kreuznach Apo-Artar HM 75 mm f/4 ?
It's a lens specifically made for 1:1 magnification (or anything close to it) and supposedly has a 6 elements in 6 groups construction (at least that what I seem to understand from Schneider's definition in the data sheet as "the lens consists of 6 symmetrical elements").

I assume you're familiar with the Apo-Artar name? It's a lens name by Goerz, used for (seemingly quite good) 4/4 Dialyte design repro lenses earlier. At some point Schneider got the name (I think through an acquisition of Goerz US?) and made some lenses with the same or a similar 4/4 design. Then they also created an additional 6/6 design and added the HM (High Modulation - usually reserved for their top-of-the-line lenses). It certainly feels like a nice nod to history... I'm not sure how many of those lenses they made (it can't be too many, because the name is not found a lot on the internet, compared to their other repro-lenses), but I just love things like that.

I think it's Schneider's barrel type ”B”. The number 00 is for the size.
Robert OToole calls lenses in that B barrel "standard Schneider enlarger lenses".
The lenses in Schneider B-V barrel he calls "Makro-iris lenses". Look at this interesting test: www.closeuphotography.com/50mm-lens-test-2023

In Schneider's terminology both of those ( and some others) are "Iris mounts". Like Schneider tells "The barrel type ”B”, with a built-in aperture, is the only unit which is offered in all four sizes (00, 0, 1, and 3)". Look: www.davechewphotography.com//temp_images/pdf/enlarging/Iris_mounts.pdf and www.davechewphotography.com//temp_images/pdf/enlarging/Makro-System.pdf

Very probably your Symmar-S is mounted in B-1 barrel like my older 150mm Symmar without S. The mounting thread sizes are the same as in Copal or Compur shutters, at least the 0 and 1 are same. So you can mount those barrel lenses in view camera's #0 and #1 lensplates using the same retaining rings. Look at the mount sizes here: www.davechewphotography.com//temp_images/pdf/enlarging/Makro-Symmar_HM.pdf

What even better the inner threads and body thickness in B-0 and Copal 0 are identical. The same with B-1 vs. Copal 1. You can screw the front and rear lens groups off the B-0 and screw them in the Copal 0. And vice versa. Naturally small misalignments can happen if you do this without the optical bench. I have remounted some lenses and haven't seen any bad quality losses. Maybe I don't see them. A pro here: skgrimes.com/lens-mounting-to-shutter/

It's better a little than a lot what I know about lenses.

No, unfortunately not. I've not heard of it. All I knew about Apo-Artars before you asked, were those 4/4 repro lenses similar to Apo-Ronars. Maybe they are called dialytes. That 75mm Apo-Artar must be quite new with HM in it's name. Maybe it's the same kind of a rare lens like the 43XL and 60XL taking lenses, very many samples weren't manufactured before Schneider flow away from the market.

One more with SK Symmar-S 135mm, at f/9

Thank you so much for the explanation. That makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, true... possibly not too old. And certainly rare as well, but heavily specialized for 1:1 (like Rodenstocks Apo-Rodagon-D 75 mm f/4 or the Carl Zeiss S-Planar 74 mm f/4) - seems to be a sweet spot for that magnification that focal length. The 43 and 60 XL are Digitars - made for medium and large format digital backs, correct? I have an Apo-Digitar 90 mm f/4.5 - a really good lens and great across a wide range of magnifications. Have you ever used one of Rodenstocks equivalents - the HR Digarons? They are even more expensive, but they have that incredible sounding HR 105 mm float lens:
www.arca-shop.de/objektive/rodenstock-objektive/aperture-only-ohne-verschluss/2934/rodenstock-hr-digaron-macro-1-5-6/105-mm-float-blendenkoerper

Jim Kasson has one of those and said it's pretty much unmatched, even though the Makro-Symmar does provide similar quality at its designated optimal magnification.

Beautiful abstract. Love the shapes and tones and the red background provides a nice contrast.

I've tried capturing ice crystals once... they're geometry is marvellous, even though I only managed to find incomplete ones:

Ice: the window to the… cold! by simple.joy, on Flickr

I think almost all macro lenses were optimized at 1:1, or said to be so. Nothing to do with focal length.
For excample the Makro-Symmar was sold for photographers as a lens 1:1 optimized, but usable from 1:4 to 4:1 magnification.
For scientific purposes they sold (are still selling) four different versions at fixed magnifications.

Those lens designers say that you can make a lens with peaking sharpness at one magnification or a lens which is quite sharp at wider range of magnifications, not both at the same lens. The floating elements are made to correct this limitation.

No, too expensive for me. I'm aware of Jim's writings but... If you need a lens for only one magnification, maybe Schneider's industrial lens could be a good solution.
If you need wide range of magnifications, you'll need four of them.
Btw. did you know they are Pyrites now? schneiderkreuznach.com/en/company/news/newsroom/lens-renaming

And one more link: www.cambo.com/en/actus-series/actus-b-mini-view-camera/actar-105-hr-macro/

Yeah, of course... But if you look at the test results by Robert and some other people who do thorough testing, lens performance at 1:1 is not that good with many, many macro lenses (particularly when it comes to CAs), so that seems to be more in theory than anything else.

I have a Makro-Symmar optimized for 1:3, and this is its quality at 1:1:

Walking away from the competition... by simple.joy, on Flickr

Tip-for-tat by simple.joy, on Flickr

You certainly won't hear me complain about that... 😉 It's also more than fine at infinity when stopped down a bit, according to Rob de Loe. Sure it won't reach the sharpness of the best lenses optimized for landscape work, but I doubt the difference will be dramatic.

Again... certainly true to some extent. But I feel like they're really only talking about peak performance, as you hinted at. There are many macro lenses, which are excellent at the medium range, or even infinity. But for industrial grade requirements and very specific kinds of application, there certainly is a reason for the highly optimized lenses (+ the float element ones). The Apo-Digitar 90 mm f/4.5 (which Schneider also sold as Apo-Componon with seemingly identical specs) is known to be a great performing lens at a variety of magnifications. That's not true for all Schneider enlarging lenses though...

Thanks for the link - yes, that's the same lens. And also at the same crazy price. It's very similar for me - that's way out of my league... You can buy it for half the price (new) as Linos inspec x L float 105 mm f/5.6 - or even less when used... but it doesn't come up much. I also don't know how it compares to the Schneider Macro-Varon, which is also a great lens.

Yes, I get that they want to unify their portfolio... but that's really strange, and the naming not very original. They had quite good name recognition before and the naming after gemstones is weird. Boyer has done that one hundred years ago - but to me it seems to make more sense there. The Macro Varon is also a Pyrite lens, likely costing several times as much as everything else in that line...

Or more marketing than anything else!
I think photographers seldom shoot at 1:1 magnification. More often they need macro lenses for 1:8 - 1:2 shots. But it's nice to know that my lens performs fine even closer than I need.

Nothing to complain about your pictures.😅 They are fine.
But I complain about Rob's claim. I checked this with my Apo-Digitar-M a couple of years ago. Almost at infinity, focused to ~ half a kilometer, the image circle, or with Rob's term, the circle of good image quality was not even covering the FF frame. I have better lenses to landscapes. But not better ones to shots at near to life size!😏

Symmar-S 135mm is quite good a lens to close-up work too. Here around 1:3 at f/8.