Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Voigtlander bayonet lenses on Nikon D40
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 9:53 pm    Post subject: Voigtlander bayonet lenses on Nikon D40 Reply with quote
Hello and sorry for bothering you! After 2 days of intense googling,I decided I could ask you people a few questions, if you have the time and willingness to help me. I received two lenses a couple of days ago, they were a gift:
- Voigtlander Color Skoparex AR 2.8/28
- Voigtlander Color Ultron 1.8/50
I am a Nikon D40 user, therefore I cannot use these lenses, but I would really like to change that fact. Please tell me if the info I found about them on the Internet is correct:
- they are 2 pins Rollei Quick Bayonet Mount (QBM) - in my case
- The Ultron has a 49 mm filter and the Color Skoparex a 58 mm filter
I searched the net for a QBM-M42 adapter, so I could use a M42-DSLR adapter afterwards, in order to make them work on my D40 (I know that I would use them in manual mode and I won't be able to focus to infinity because I have a Nikon). My search didn't actually pay off, sadly, until I found a thread on your forum stating that it was indeed possible:

I found the Voigtlander Retina DKL Lens Adapter Ring for Nikon AI mount.

It's 138$ and I'm not sure if it is a good investment and if it will do the trick for me. I don't mind shooting in manual mode, I usually do this on my D40, although now I must see what's the deal with that stop down metering. Some people advised me to buy a Voigtlander film SLR, but the prices I saw seemed huge and I am just a student! Rolling Eyes

I was wondering what to do. Could I still use them with something like this at least for macro shots? (I am into that kind of photography)
- 58-52 mm reversing ring?
- Nikon BR-2A 52mm reversing adapter?
- various step-down/step-up rings? (58-52, 52-49)
These would also be a lot cheaper - about a third of the price (and available in my country, also). Are they an ok solution for the moment, so that my lenses won't just stand on my shelf? Or is it just too complicated and I should forget the whole thing?

Thanks for your time!


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Nice to see you here!

The DKL adapter you found is actually for an earlier Voigtlander mount (one shared by the Kodak Retina).
It will not help you to mount these lenses.

QBM mount was used by Rollei and Voigtlander in the early 70's until ???
Film bodies are available but can be a bit fiddly and unreliable.
If you decide to find one I think the Voigtlander VSL and later are best (Also labeled Rollei 35 SL).

The QBM (Quick Bayonet Mount) is adaptable only to Canon Eos as far as I know.
The register distance would require a Glass element to use them with Nikon and this would degrade the image remarkably.
There may be mechanical issues with the Mount as well. Canon has a very large opening for the Eos Mount, the QBM is also large but fits into Canon, By comparison Nikon F is quite a bit smaller.

As to your last question. Yes is the answer Very Happy
You can use these lenses reversed for Macro and should give them a try. Wink

Cheers
Andy


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes...I did a little bit more digging and found out that my only chance (that adapter) wasn't gonna work. Well, I'm still excited about taking them out for a spin with some macro shots!
Thank you very much!


PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Show us some samples when you get a chance.
The ultron is quite a nice lens. Expect great results.


PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just bought these online. I'm expecting them in the next two days. I'll post a few shots pretty soon, I have to pass some exams at college first and then study about reverse lens techniques Smile
- 49 mm-52 mm step-up ring
- 58 mm - 52 mm reduction ring
- 52 mm - 52 mm reversion ring (for the 2 lenses)

Also, 52 mm slim caps for the 2 lenses.
Can't wait!

Imagine my excitement, as I only had the D40 for a month Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey, I know you...! Very Happy

Glad you found a way to put those to use; the Skoparex could be a monster macro lens when used in reverse Smile


One thing you might consider; I forget if I read about the technique here or one of the other forums, but you can't use the focus ring to do any focusing when the lent is mounted in reverse; you basically have to move the entire camera back and forth.

Unless, you couple the reversed lens with a macro-focusing teleconverter (or, perhaps just a focusing helicoid), which will move the lens back and forth and will let you use it as a handy focusing helicoid, albeit, it will also change the magnification as you move it back and forth, kind of like a bellows.


Good luck!


PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I got the step-up and step-down rings and a 52-52 coupler ring for using the reversed Voigtlander lenses stacked on my D40 lens. Here are a few test shots.
1. normal 18-55 mm kit lens set at 55mm =>f 5.6 and 50 mm f 1.8 Color Ultron reversed, using 58-52 step-down and 52-52 mm coupler




2. normal 18-55 mm kit lens set at 55mm =>f 5.6 and 28 mm f 2.8 Color Skoparex reversed, using 49-52 step-up and 52-52 mm coupler




This last one is my cat's hair Rolling Eyes

3. just the Color Ultron 50 mm f 1.8 reversed over D40, lens held by hand, shot using a tripod




4. just the Color Skoparex 28 mm f2.8 reversed over D40, lens held by hand, shot without tripod





5. photos taken from the approximately same place with my kit lens at 55 mm



I must say in my defense that my tripod isn't the highest quality one and I kind of lacked space to move it, I was in the balcony (no flash used).

So, what do you think? Was it worth the few dollars spent? I'm thinking of buying a BR-2A ring to hold the reversed lenses into place and use them separately. Vignetting is pretty high...


PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So, what do you think? Was it worth the few dollars spent? I'm thinking of buying a BR-2A ring to hold the reversed lenses into place and use them separately. Vignetting is pretty high...

I commend your efforts. The sharpness with your setup is not the best and the DOF minimal. If you have the possibility, I would recommend buying a not too expensive prime (fixed focus, not zoom) macro lens. A good buy is the 55mm micro nikkor, but there might be other types available.

The second alternative, less expensive, is to buy a macro extension tube (set) for your camera.

Finally, probably to least expensive is by putting a closeup macro filter (lens)

Cheers
Peter


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You might also want to get the wireless remote for the D40 (see Click here to see on Ebay). I use one of these for UV shots which require long exposure times. If you have a less than solid tripod, this simple device will clean up your shots.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The best way to use a reversed lens is not to stack it on your kitlens, but to use a reverser ring with Nikon mount, direct to the camera. If you have a reverser ring for M42 you can use a lensles M42> Nikon adapter to mount the reversed lens, but you can also screw cheap M42 extension ring bewtween for stronger enlargements. No problems with that vignetting. I don't know if Nikon extensionrings are cheaply to be get.
Another macro possibility might be using the lenses in normal direction, if you can make them fit in a plastic Nikon bodycap, with a hole in it. Not too difficult to drill that. Ofcourse you can make a bodycap fitting for M42 or the filtersize of your reverser ring too en make pictures without vignetting. It is some tinkering to go, but may be worth the troubles.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bellows? Extension rings? Focusing rail? Any of these will help and are relatively cheap. They will all help with that awful problem of obtaining focus with stability


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bellows + enlarger lens or any lens in M39/M42 of Tessar formula relevant + adapter will give you good results for a reasonable amount (saying $50-70, second hand bellows and enlarger lens) Smile


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello from Bulgaria Wink

I have similar "problems". I use my pentacons(50/1.8 and 135/2.Cool with my m42 macro rings and Nikon-M42 converter. I have used all of the rigns together and each one separately. It depends of the object. One of the problems for me is that the converter has a back lens which decrease the image quality, but i'll buy one without back lens beacuse i don't need an infinity focus when taking macro photos.
If i forget about the back lens the results are very good, i have very close up photos and with an additional rings(the original kit is with 3 rings but sometimes i use 2 kits) the focal lenght is extremely short.
If you have sime m42 lenses you try this "system". It's not perfect, but it is probably the cheapest and results aren't so bad.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
seuret wrote:
One of the problems for me is that the converter has a back lens which decrease the image quality,


You should do a search on this forum for the relation of IQ and these M42->Nikon F adapters. It simply is not absolutely true that an optical adapter decreases IQ, at least not to the extent that your images would be unusable. It all depends on the optical adapter used.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
seuret wrote:
One of the problems for me is that the converter has a back lens which decrease the image quality


The general Internet opinion is that it is acceptable to use €€ filters in front of €€€€ lenses but unacceptable loss of quality to couple €€ lenses with an optical adapter.

Rolling Eyes

This is M42 CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 T with glass adapter on Nikon (D3). Click the link, take a look at this original size... then ask yourself; do you intend to shoot test charts or take photos for the pleasure of yourself and others?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3389977219/sizes/o/


PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:

The general Internet opinion is that it is acceptable to use €€ filters in front of €€€€ lenses but unacceptable loss of quality to couple €€ lenses with an optical adapter.


I never use UV filters, however the two things that you mention are not comparable. An optical adapter features an optical element that becomes part of the optical scheme, altering it.
By refocusing the image, the optical element can and often does introduce optical problems much worse than even a dirty UV filter can cause.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree: There is degradation of image quality both with optical adapters as well as optical filters in front of the lens. Whether or not this mathematically unquestionable loss of image detail has practical implementations remains to argue.

Even if you are pixel-peeping 100% crops it will require a very skilled eye to see the difference. Most noticeable implication is not loss of detail, but the fact that an M42 to Nikon mount optical adapter will have the effect of a teleconverter.

I have made 60x90cm prints out of 1.4x teleconverter photos, and I find the loss of quality acceptable. I have made 60x90cm prints of photos taken with Nikon D3 and M42 lenses using an 1.2x optical magnifying adapter, and I find the loss of quality acceptable. Practical implications? Minimal to none, because in 98% of cases it's only the artist who'll be able to spot which brush he/she used to create it.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
larsr wrote:
seuret wrote:
One of the problems for me is that the converter has a back lens which decrease the image quality,


You should do a search on this forum for the relation of IQ and these M42->Nikon F adapters. It simply is not absolutely true that an optical adapter decreases IQ, at least not to the extent that your images would be unusable. It all depends on the optical adapter used.


Ih, i'm sorry for the misunderstanding. There is (by my opinion and in my particular case) decreased IQ, but the images are usable and i'm using them. I just wanted to mention that it's not a perfect system, but it's the cheapest(probably). Anyway you can get a non-optical M42-Nikon adapter because in macro photos you don't need infinity. So, there won't be any(if on theory) IQ decrease.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
seuret wrote:
One of the problems for me is that the converter has a back lens which decrease the image quality


The general Internet opinion is that it is acceptable to use €€ filters in front of €€€€ lenses but unacceptable loss of quality to couple €€ lenses with an optical adapter.

Well,what's your point?

This is M42 CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 T with glass adapter on Nikon (D3). Click the link, take a look at this original size... then ask yourself; do you intend to shoot test charts or take photos for the pleasure of yourself and others?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3389977219/sizes/o/


PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OTOH, you can always butcher your Nikon as I did and use M42s (and Exaktas fitted as M42s) with infinity. I haven't yet tried to reverse the mods instead I just got rid of my few F-mount lenses - for my purposes they weren't as useful as the older glass anyway (UV). I converted even the Steinheil and Argus Cintagons to M42 mount, but, as someone here had warned me, I'm mms away from infinity. Good macro glass, though.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
I agree: There is degradation of image quality both with optical adapters as well as optical filters in front of the lens.


Well, you don't really agree if you say so Laughing because I think that while filters can (not always) produce a slight loss of contrast, the damage of an optical converter is of a different nature - usually noticeable as corner problems, sometimes also as CA problem.

Esox lucius wrote:
Whether or not this mathematically unquestionable loss of image detail has practical implementations remains to argue.


I have used an optical adapter from M42 to Nikon and believe me, you could see it easily if you looked at the corners. Of course more visible on full frame camera than on APS-C camera.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
seuret wrote:
Well,what's your point?


What one photographer finds unacceptable another viewer would not even notice.

Last summer, I sold a 60x90cm print to a client who clearly was serious about photography gear. The client, when seeing my 70-200/2.8G Nikkor lens, delivered me a rant about how crap that lens is on full-frame: weak detail at 180-200mm, vignetting wide open, doesn't handle a teleconverter without severe loss of detail etc. etc. Once done with the rant, client bought the photo and paid €€€. I never told buyer that the photo sold was taken with a full-frame Nikon D3 and the very same "crap" lens, at 200mm near infinity, wide open (f/4) using a 1.4x teleconverter. I know for fact the photo adorns the client's wall still today.

Critics talk about art, artists talk about brushes.

Very true, most of us photographers will see how M42 glass with optical adapters results (especially with wide-angles) in aberrations and loss of corner detail. I just find it interesting when these M42 lenses are subjected to technical quality demands most of them, objectively speaking, cannot pass even on register-compatible Canon DSLRs using mechanical adapters.

Let people themselves judge results and themselves decide what is acceptable quality and what not. Don't decide on their behalf - it's their money not yours.

Last edited by Esox lucius on Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:21 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Esox lucius wrote:

The general Internet opinion is that it is acceptable to use €€ filters in front of €€€€ lenses but unacceptable loss of quality to couple €€ lenses with an optical adapter.


I never use UV filters, however the two things that you mention are not comparable. An optical adapter features an optical element that becomes part of the optical scheme, altering it.


A UV filter is also an optical element and becomes part of the optical scheme, altering it.

Less so if the glass used has good transmission characteristics and has been precision ground to perfect flatness on both sides, then multicoated.

More so if its some cheap bit of poured glass that is "sort of flat'.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:

A UV filter is also an optical element and becomes part of the optical scheme, altering it.
Less so if the glass used has good transmission characteristics and has been precision ground to perfect flatness on both sides, then multicoated.
More so if its some cheap bit of poured glass that is "sort of flat'.


I don't think that UV filters that are properly made, are supposed to deviate the direction of the light rays, which is what optical adapters obviously do, since their purpose is to refocus them.

Of course I am no technician and don't pretend to be one, but simple logic tells me that there is a difference.

On a more general level, I always thought that optical adapters do not have a real justification to exist today, when most lenses are available used for little or reasonable money.

In the past, before digital and autofocus, optical adapters were for many the only possibility to use certain types of lenses (such as super wides) without spending a fortune; the most typical case here in Italy was Nikon users who resorted to use Flektogon or MIR wide angles with optical adapter, because they could be purchased at second hand markets for little money, while Nikon lenses, even used, were a lot more costly.

But today, after autofocus and digital, a lot of the older Nikon lenses are available for the same used price of Flektogons. Sometimes even for less. So the thing makes a lot less sense to me. Because it is obvious, that any Nikkor superwide (just an example, the 3.5/20, which I used to own) will perform better, on a Nikon camera, then a Flektogon 20 with optical adapter. And the cost of the two used lenses is the same, if not even more favorable for the Nikkor today.
So where is the point in using optical adapters, at all?
I have read a lot of talk on the subject in the last couple of years, but I still have to read a good answer to this question.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:

Even if you are pixel-peeping 100% crops it will require a very skilled eye to see the difference.


Well, I have looked at your photo sample:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3389977219/sizes/o/

and I think that it would take a blind man not to see the coma aberrations in the lower corners of the image. The word "corners" used quite largely, because the coma begins to be perceptible already from the bottom of the tower structure, which is far from the real corner.

For me, this result is very poor, and definitely not acceptable. You would obtain a way lot better result even using a cheap third party nikon compatible lens such as an Arsat 50mm.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2