Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
This adapter was mentioned on a recent topic:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7835&sid=a7173c21e ... 2af#p69111
... but I thought it better to keep that discussion Olympus orientated.
45 60 29 is an afocal photo adapter which fits the Zeiss 40mm tube by means of the usual compression ring
it has a 63mm lens near the T-mount fitting [M42x0.75mm] at the top of the tube, and is designed for full-frame 35mm
Mine came with a Contax/Yashica adapter 47 60 89 but any manufacturer's T-mount adapter should fit.
... my Chinese micro 4/3 adapter from ebay is an excellent mechanical and cosmetic match.
This discussion [on photomacrography.net] includes a useful photo of the adapter, and some sample images
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... hp?p=99265
The advantage of afocal imaging, of course, is that the manufacturer's eyepiece corrections are utilised
... pretty-much essential with any Zeiss 'finite' microscope.
The reason for this topic is really for us to discuss 'variations on the theme' ... and for that, we need a theme!
MicroBob rightly deduced that 45 60 29 should be capable of producing landscape images, if used as a camera lens
This is true ... but in fact, with my Chinese m4/3 adapter attached, the focus is at about 2.25 Metres, not infinity.
I emphasise 'about' because, used this way, the image is not particularly crisp and I found it difficult to find a definitive focus by bodily moving the tripod!
The image is, I think, being degraded by flare [which does not happen when it is used as intended]
Here [for what they are worth] are two 'brick wall' test shots: Ignoring the softness: Note that the performance is reasonably planar, with negligible distortion and vignetting.
My version of 45 60 29 has no magnification marked on it, but others are marked 0.25x
______
For camera formats smaller than full-frame 35mm, it should be possible to construct a similar tube using a proportionately shorter focal-length lens.
Your mission [should you decide to accept it] is to identify lenses of suitable quality, and modest price, for other formats.
... Meanwhile, I will try to get a better baseline image from an indoor target.
MichaelG.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7835&sid=a7173c21e ... 2af#p69111
... but I thought it better to keep that discussion Olympus orientated.
45 60 29 is an afocal photo adapter which fits the Zeiss 40mm tube by means of the usual compression ring
it has a 63mm lens near the T-mount fitting [M42x0.75mm] at the top of the tube, and is designed for full-frame 35mm
Mine came with a Contax/Yashica adapter 47 60 89 but any manufacturer's T-mount adapter should fit.
... my Chinese micro 4/3 adapter from ebay is an excellent mechanical and cosmetic match.
This discussion [on photomacrography.net] includes a useful photo of the adapter, and some sample images
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... hp?p=99265
The advantage of afocal imaging, of course, is that the manufacturer's eyepiece corrections are utilised
... pretty-much essential with any Zeiss 'finite' microscope.
The reason for this topic is really for us to discuss 'variations on the theme' ... and for that, we need a theme!
MicroBob rightly deduced that 45 60 29 should be capable of producing landscape images, if used as a camera lens
This is true ... but in fact, with my Chinese m4/3 adapter attached, the focus is at about 2.25 Metres, not infinity.
I emphasise 'about' because, used this way, the image is not particularly crisp and I found it difficult to find a definitive focus by bodily moving the tripod!
The image is, I think, being degraded by flare [which does not happen when it is used as intended]
Here [for what they are worth] are two 'brick wall' test shots: Ignoring the softness: Note that the performance is reasonably planar, with negligible distortion and vignetting.
My version of 45 60 29 has no magnification marked on it, but others are marked 0.25x
______
For camera formats smaller than full-frame 35mm, it should be possible to construct a similar tube using a proportionately shorter focal-length lens.
Your mission [should you decide to accept it] is to identify lenses of suitable quality, and modest price, for other formats.
... Meanwhile, I will try to get a better baseline image from an indoor target.
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
-
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
I k ow this isn't Zeiss, but I just ordered a few potentially useful lenses from surplus shed to try over my Leitz, in place of their 0.32x lens. Seems like what is good for one should be good for the other.
I'd note their 0.32x lens is awful as a solo lens (as I found while figuring out infinity focus outdoors), worse than the above picture. It'll image but it's soft and ugly. It is reminiscent of flare but I am not sure that is what it is. Works great over the eyepiece, though, aside from cropping badly on aps-c of course. I got a canon 40mm pancake which produces an apparently excellent image of about optimal size (I've only taken handheld pictures as I'm waiting on RAF for the needed parts), so between these two exemplars I'm hoping I'll be able to tell if the surplus shed lenses hold up.
I definitely seems like it could be a very big money savings for anyone going digital on these old systems if they didn't need either a desirable pancake lens or semi-rare microscope lens.
I'd note their 0.32x lens is awful as a solo lens (as I found while figuring out infinity focus outdoors), worse than the above picture. It'll image but it's soft and ugly. It is reminiscent of flare but I am not sure that is what it is. Works great over the eyepiece, though, aside from cropping badly on aps-c of course. I got a canon 40mm pancake which produces an apparently excellent image of about optimal size (I've only taken handheld pictures as I'm waiting on RAF for the needed parts), so between these two exemplars I'm hoping I'll be able to tell if the surplus shed lenses hold up.
I definitely seems like it could be a very big money savings for anyone going digital on these old systems if they didn't need either a desirable pancake lens or semi-rare microscope lens.
Last edited by Scarodactyl on Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Hi Michael,
thank you for the brick wall test! There was a very interesting thread about this photo adapter in the german mikroskopie-forum.de:
https://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index. ... ic=23644.0
The conclusion is that the 63mm lens is not really up to the performance of today's digital sensors. It was designed in a time when documentary photography in b/w it was sufficient.
I know a microscopy professional who regards the Zeiss Photomicroscope in its 3,5 versions as a very competent setup, even by todays standards.
So perhaps this was the intended solution for high performance and colour photography.
The Phomi is sometimes disparaged for it's "overly complicated design with too many lenses". But in fact there is no more glass in the photography light path than with other systems with the same features like optovar. The arm of the phomi is painted with dust collecting grease on the inside and this gasses out a little. So if a Phomi doesn't perform as it should a thorough cleaning could be all that is needed.
Bob
thank you for the brick wall test! There was a very interesting thread about this photo adapter in the german mikroskopie-forum.de:
https://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index. ... ic=23644.0
The conclusion is that the 63mm lens is not really up to the performance of today's digital sensors. It was designed in a time when documentary photography in b/w it was sufficient.
I know a microscopy professional who regards the Zeiss Photomicroscope in its 3,5 versions as a very competent setup, even by todays standards.
So perhaps this was the intended solution for high performance and colour photography.
The Phomi is sometimes disparaged for it's "overly complicated design with too many lenses". But in fact there is no more glass in the photography light path than with other systems with the same features like optovar. The arm of the phomi is painted with dust collecting grease on the inside and this gasses out a little. So if a Phomi doesn't perform as it should a thorough cleaning could be all that is needed.
Bob
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Many thanks for that link, BobMicroBob wrote:There was a very interesting thread about this photo adapter in the german mikroskopie-forum.de:
https://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index. ... ic=23644.0
The conclusion is that the 63mm lens is not really up to the performance of today's digital sensors. It was designed in a time when documentary photography in b/w it was sufficient.
I know a microscopy professional who regards the Zeiss Photomicroscope in its 3,5 versions as a very competent setup, even by todays standards.
So perhaps this was the intended solution for high performance and colour photography.
... it looks well-worth the modest effort of translating.
I feel sure that you are right about the 63mm lens lacking the resolution for [high quality] digital work, but I do think the concept is worth pursuing ... if we can find the right lenses.
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Very interesting link Thanks!There was a very interesting thread about this photo adapter in the german mikroskopie-forum.de:
https://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index. ... ic=23644.0
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
A quick question, BobMicroBob wrote:The conclusion is that the 63mm lens is not really up to the performance of today's digital sensors. It was designed in a time when documentary photography in b/w it was sufficient.
Is it presumed [or known] that the lens in the 45 60 29 adapter is the same one as in the MC63 ?
I have, so far, only translated one snippet from your linked discussion [using DeepL]
I will study the remainder with great interest.I don't want to comment whether the optics of the Zeiss MC63 surface mount camera are good or bad. But I wanted to know how good or bad an achromat, similar to MC63, is for today's digital photography with sensors from 15 - 25 - 50MP.
So I tried my arithmetic assistant and did some optical-theoretical exercises. First the question, how is the imaging performance in the image corners influenced by the distance between eyepiece and achromat? Assumption : a simple achromat made of common glasses BK7 + F2.
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Michael, do I correctly understand that the "mission" is an afocal alternative to the complete Zeiss adapter, that will have the following features:
1) Installed on top of a visual eyepiece, to preserve the (a) chromatic and spatical corrections of the finite Zeiss microscope,
and (b) parfocality with the viewing eyepieces
2) Include a relay lens (0.25X or other, depending on the sensor size) that will not affect the planarity and chromatic quality delivered by the existing objective+eyepiece
3) Mechanically fit on top of the photo-tube (may I wish it for the 25mm diameter plain phototubes, not only 40mm ones with dovetail)
4) connect directly or via simple adapter to a camera body
5) Inexpensive, somehow, and not rare
6) Hopefully, fit other microscopes that suffer from the same "problems" (finite, optical compensation, rarity, price....)?
1) Installed on top of a visual eyepiece, to preserve the (a) chromatic and spatical corrections of the finite Zeiss microscope,
and (b) parfocality with the viewing eyepieces
2) Include a relay lens (0.25X or other, depending on the sensor size) that will not affect the planarity and chromatic quality delivered by the existing objective+eyepiece
3) Mechanically fit on top of the photo-tube (may I wish it for the 25mm diameter plain phototubes, not only 40mm ones with dovetail)
4) connect directly or via simple adapter to a camera body
5) Inexpensive, somehow, and not rare
6) Hopefully, fit other microscopes that suffer from the same "problems" (finite, optical compensation, rarity, price....)?
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
I don't know. I have had no intention to use a full format camera and for this reason I have never looked closer at these original Zeiss film camera adapters.MichaelG. wrote:Is it presumed [or known] that the lens in the 45 60 29 adapter is the same one as in the MC63 ?
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Basically ... YesHobbyst46 wrote:Michael, do I correctly understand that the "mission" is an afocal alternative to the complete Zeiss adapter, that will have the following features:
[ ... ]
Doing the job this way means that a single adapter should be useable with any matched set of optics ... regardless of where the corrections are applied in the system.
Peter Walker, of QUAD, famously said that a perfect audio amplifier would be "a piece of wire, with gain"
I believe that, in photomicrography terms, the afocal adapter could approach that.
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
-
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
My order came in from surplus shed.
I got one of these https://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/L3221.html , but it is a bit moldy and infinity focus is a bit further inside my canon than is likely to be practical, though I might be able to make something work.
Also some unmounted lenses which will need more work.
This lens showed the most initial promise: https://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/L10305.html
Adapting it to a camera is an exercise for the reader (I put on some sticky labels to get a press fit into an m42 adapter which works.) Infinity focus is a reasonable distance in front of the camera.
The microscope-facing end has a rim that is just slightly larger than 40mm so it can rest semi-securely on the adapter, and honestly could probably be held in place with tape and be just fine. I haven't had time for a proper test with remote triggering and consistent lighting/settings and such, but here is a basic view of what the framing is like:
Cell phone camera to show full FoV:
Leitz 0.32x lens focused to infinity:
Canon 40mm pancake focused to infinity:
Surplus shed 60mm lens focused to infinity (or close):
The surplus shed lens is quoted as being 60mm, but I am not 100% sure about that. It crops more than my Canon 40mm pancake lens but is still fairly reasonable on aps-c, much better than the Leitz lens.
I tried hitting a better target for quality comparisons, but I won't be able to do a better test (remote triggering, more consistent lighting and settings) until tomorrow probably. But (within the confines of this relatively low end Leitz objective) edge performance unfortunately looks poorer on the surplus shed lens.
Canon:
Surplus shed:
Canon:
Surplus shed:
Canon:
Surplus shed:
In conclusion: it's 8 bucks and gives decent framing, quality probably isn't too bad in practice.
A canon 40mm pancake plus appropriate adapters can be had for about 140 all in on any given day, less if you find a deal (note: still waiting on said appropriate adapters from RAFcamera, will report back on that).
I got one of these https://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/L3221.html , but it is a bit moldy and infinity focus is a bit further inside my canon than is likely to be practical, though I might be able to make something work.
Also some unmounted lenses which will need more work.
This lens showed the most initial promise: https://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/L10305.html
Adapting it to a camera is an exercise for the reader (I put on some sticky labels to get a press fit into an m42 adapter which works.) Infinity focus is a reasonable distance in front of the camera.
The microscope-facing end has a rim that is just slightly larger than 40mm so it can rest semi-securely on the adapter, and honestly could probably be held in place with tape and be just fine. I haven't had time for a proper test with remote triggering and consistent lighting/settings and such, but here is a basic view of what the framing is like:
Cell phone camera to show full FoV:
Leitz 0.32x lens focused to infinity:
Canon 40mm pancake focused to infinity:
Surplus shed 60mm lens focused to infinity (or close):
The surplus shed lens is quoted as being 60mm, but I am not 100% sure about that. It crops more than my Canon 40mm pancake lens but is still fairly reasonable on aps-c, much better than the Leitz lens.
I tried hitting a better target for quality comparisons, but I won't be able to do a better test (remote triggering, more consistent lighting and settings) until tomorrow probably. But (within the confines of this relatively low end Leitz objective) edge performance unfortunately looks poorer on the surplus shed lens.
Canon:
Surplus shed:
Canon:
Surplus shed:
Canon:
Surplus shed:
In conclusion: it's 8 bucks and gives decent framing, quality probably isn't too bad in practice.
A canon 40mm pancake plus appropriate adapters can be had for about 140 all in on any given day, less if you find a deal (note: still waiting on said appropriate adapters from RAFcamera, will report back on that).
Last edited by Scarodactyl on Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Many thanks for posting your results
I will have a better look in the morning [UK], but at first sight Fred's lens doesn't look very achromatic.
['achromatic or not' should probably be a binary choice, but let's not worry about that]
MichaelG.
I will have a better look in the morning [UK], but at first sight Fred's lens doesn't look very achromatic.
['achromatic or not' should probably be a binary choice, but let's not worry about that]
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Thanks for the comparison. In my opinion, the Canon 40mm lens performs definitely better. The price difference is large, yes, although shipping expenses might triple the price of the Surplus lens.Scarodactyl wrote:...
-
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Absolutely. My camera's battery is charging so I'll see if I was having focus problems or something tomorrow, but I don't think the surplus shed one makes much sense if this is the best it can do.
As a side note, it seemed more functional as a standalone lens than the leitz one was. I currently have the leitz lens tied up in an assembly on my mz95 trinoc port that I don't want to disassemble so I probably won't so much more head to head with it for a bit.
As a side note, it seemed more functional as a standalone lens than the leitz one was. I currently have the leitz lens tied up in an assembly on my mz95 trinoc port that I don't want to disassemble so I probably won't so much more head to head with it for a bit.
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Just to note that Fred Lamothe has one of the best arrangements for overseas shipping that I have ever seen. I place an order and pay for the goods using PayPal ... Then he checks the postal charges and advises me of the price [usually two options]. When I agree, he sends another PayPal request.Hobbyst46 wrote:... although shipping expenses might triple the price of the Surplus lens.
If the shipping cost is unreasonable to me, he will cancel the order and refund my original payment.
Scrupulously fair, I believe.
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Sorry, I forgot to ask: with which eyepiece (in series with the tested lens) and objective were those images taken ?Scarodactyl wrote:Absolutely. My camera's battery is charging so I'll see if I was having focus problems or something tomorrow, but I don't think the surplus shed one makes much sense if this is the best it can do.
As a side note, it seemed more functional as a standalone lens than the leitz one was. I currently have the leitz lens tied up in an assembly on my mz95 trinoc port that I don't want to disassemble so I probably won't so much more head to head with it for a bit.
-
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
This is an old Leitz Pv 10:1 A=0.25 170/- with a periplan 10x/18 on my ortholux 2 stand. Not an amazing objective. I have a 40x fluotar up on eBay that I might put back on it for further testing, though this is my only graduated slide and it is sort of ideal for 10x.
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Thanks. To me this eyepiece-objective combination is relevant and fine for these comparisons.Scarodactyl wrote:This is an old Leitz Pv 10:1 A=0.25 170/- with a periplan 10x/18 on my ortholux 2 stand. Not an amazing objective. I have a 40x fluotar up on eBay that I might put back on it for further testing, though this is my only graduated slide and it is sort of ideal for 10x.
-
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
I forgot to post avout it, but as you'd guess the surplus shed lens only performed worse with closer inspection, so I didn't feel the need to post more pictures. Surplus shed replaced the 50mm enlarger lens that was moldy, so I will try to experiment with that next.
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Thanks for the updateScarodactyl wrote:I forgot to post avout it, but as you'd guess the surplus shed lens only performed worse with closer inspection, so I didn't feel the need to post more pictures. Surplus shed replaced the 50mm enlarger lens that was moldy, so I will try to experiment with that next.
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
I feel obliged to suggest using the lens from a Minox 35GT
https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2017/ ... onversion/
... He even uses a wall [nicer than mine] for his test shots !!
MichaelG.
https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2017/ ... onversion/
... He even uses a wall [nicer than mine] for his test shots !!
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Hi MichaelG,
Some time ago I compared a CZ Jena 4:1 Projektive ocular against my KPL ocular on the same afocal setup (ss in the signature). Would such type of results fit into this post ?
Some time ago I compared a CZ Jena 4:1 Projektive ocular against my KPL ocular on the same afocal setup (ss in the signature). Would such type of results fit into this post ?
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Thanks, Doron,
Any and all comparisons that will help us better understand the use of afocal technique are, I believe, of interest and relevance here.
So ... Yes please.
MichaelG.
Any and all comparisons that will help us better understand the use of afocal technique are, I believe, of interest and relevance here.
So ... Yes please.
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
.
That's what I am hoping
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Well, there was a fairly comprehensive test on 2018, afocal I think, so I purchased one and tried. When back home within a couple of days will post.
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
MicroBob wrote:Hi Doron, this was probably meant to project directly on the film. Did you test it this way?
My setup consists of an afocally mounted EOS-M10 mirrorless Canon with ASP-C sensor and prime 50mm/1.8 EF Canon lens. The lens is connected to the camera via a third party EF-EOSM adapter, since Canon do not market a fixed 50mm (or 40mm, for that matter) prime lens for their EOS-M series AFAIK. The various electronic features of the lens function as they should. Camera focus is set to infinity and the focusing ring is secured with a piece of cellotape. I shoot in M (manual) mode. The camera lens is mounted on top of the narrow (25mm OD) photo tube by means of a shallow 49mm-1.25" telescope adapter. There are no extension rings or other extenders.MichaelG wrote:That's what I am hoping
The reason for a 50mm, rather than 40mm camera lens is that my photo eyepiece is a regular Zeiss West 8X KPL. So, the multiplication result, 400 is obtained by 8X50 instead of 10X40. My only 40mm camera lens is a zoom, which possibly introduces more variables into the test, so I did not try it.
My 8X KPL is of the low eyepoint type, namely, the eyepoint is about 9mm from the glass surface. There are better Zeiss photo eyepieces for this purpose, as mentioned by 75RR in a past post, but they are rare and expensive.
Some time ago, a comprehensive comparison of eyepiece-objective combinations was posted by cmtalb01:
"Comparing the Zeiss MF Projektiv 4:1 to other eyepieces"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6291&p=56557&hilit= ... ive#p56557
The comparison was based on a focal setup (as far as I could understand) on a Zeiss Phomi and Sony and Canon cameras. In my opinion, the overall conclusion from that post was that the MFP4:1 performs reasonably well, at least with Zeiss Neofluars. Since the MFP4:1 is not so rare, I purchased one for a modest price. It is a Carl Zeiss Jena product. The eyepoint is high, about 20-25mm. I decided to try it as replacement for the 8X KPL, in afocal setup. Just took out the KPL 8X and inserted the MFP4:1 in place.
The objective was a Zeiss 10X0.30 Neofluar.
Edit and update: A look through the MFP4:1 in the photo tube showed a very clear image, exactly parfocal with the viewing eyepieces in the bino tubes. So, its purpose is viewing/afocal, not projection (thanks 75RR for the tip!).The FOV, however, is significantly narrower than that of the KPL 8X (whose FOV number is 18).
The results are shown below. The only post processing was a resize. I think that even under this afocal setting, the flatness of field and chromatic correction of the MFP4:1 are fairly similar to those of the KPL 8X. The FOV of the MFP4:1 is narrower, but it is still usable.
In addition, I found that direct replacement of the KPL with the MFP4:1 without camera lens (so, direct projection) is possible only by the well known "trick" of raising the eyepiece by about 9 mm above the rim of the phototube, otherwise the image is blurred. Hopefully, will report about it later.
- Attachments
-
- Zeiss(Jena) MF-Projektive 4_1 with 10X0.30 Neofluar.JPG (69.77 KiB) Viewed 12137 times
-
- Zeiss(West) KPL 8X with 10X0.30 Neofluar.JPG (65.37 KiB) Viewed 12137 times
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
I haven’t tried one, but: These lenses are widely available on ebay:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mini-35mm-F1 ... 3524419469
As they claim to cover APS-C format, they might be ideal for our purpose.
MichaelG.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mini-35mm-F1 ... 3524419469
As they claim to cover APS-C format, they might be ideal for our purpose.
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Hi Michael, I have a similar but not identical lens bought for about the same price. On Aps-c the image is very dreamy, like from a fast pre war lens. So for general photography more an effect lens. It would not be my first choice to use for camera adaptation, though it might work better than for general use.
Bob
Bob
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Thanks, Bob ... That's probably saved me wasting precious time [and a little money] experimenting.
MichaelG.
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Zeiss afocal photo adapter45 60 29 ... and variations on the theme?
Hi Michael,
frequently the Pentax M 40mm 1:2,8 is used. Real wide angles for SLRs are usually retrofocus designs but some 1:3,5 version are built quite short. They might fit to an eyepiece with lots of eye relief. A 35mm objective buchered from a Minox 35mm camera would probably work very well but has not mount to connect to a DSLM, so more difficult to adadpt. Are you going to use a DSLR or DSLM?
Bob
frequently the Pentax M 40mm 1:2,8 is used. Real wide angles for SLRs are usually retrofocus designs but some 1:3,5 version are built quite short. They might fit to an eyepiece with lots of eye relief. A 35mm objective buchered from a Minox 35mm camera would probably work very well but has not mount to connect to a DSLM, so more difficult to adadpt. Are you going to use a DSLR or DSLM?
Bob