Jump to content
Steve Ricoh

BEOON - enlarger lenses to avoid / recommended (Open thread - please add your experience for benefit of others)

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wish a thread like this existed before my purchase of an El-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8

 

Do NOT waste your time or money purchasing an El-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8, it does not work at 1:1 with any combination of extension tube supplied with the BEOON. With a FF M240 attached, the column height runs out of adjustment, bottoming at minimum height whilst still being approx 10mm too high.

 

For the benefit of other members, please add your experience of using different makes of enlarger lenses.

 

(I suggest a comment quantifying the availability of column adjustment BELOW critical focus, as most people find the ability to hunt arround critical focus to be of great benefit.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

I'm currently out of town, well out of town.

My recollection though was that my Apo Rodagon 50mm worked OK, but I was using a Fuji X camera (so APS).

The other thought though, surely the El-Nikkor will be the same as most any other enlarging lens, back focus wise?

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

This thread is an excellent idea. Since the distance between the nodal point of an enlarging lens and the mounting flange is not standardized, and is not published as far as I know, the necessary length of extension tubes for a given reproduction ratio with a given enlarging lens and a given sensor size can not determined analytically. It can only be determined empirically, i.e., by trial and error.

 

I will measure the available focusing range of both of my BEOON setups - 35mm and MF - when I get home from church where I will be praying for friends and family in the path of Hurricane Irma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the two setups I use for digitizing negatives with the BEOON. The 35mm setup fills the frame of the APS sensor with the image of a 35mm negative. The MF setup fills the height of the sensor with the image of a Rolleiflex F2.8 negative. A Hasselblad negative is significantly smaller so the "scan" includes a heavy black border.

 

35mm setup:

  - Fuji X-T20 camera

  - 2.8/50 Schneider Componon-S enlarging lens

  - 40mm extension tube

I can lower the assembly about 5/8" below the focus point and raise it several inches above the focus point.

 

MF setup:

  - Fuji X-T20 camera

  - 40/4 El Nikkor enlarging lens

  - Extension tube C supplied with BEOON

I can lower the assembly about 2" below the focus point and raise it more than 2" above the focus point.

 

There is probably no need to repeat the obvious, but just in case...  These setups use an APSC camera. They will not work with a full frame camera.

Edited by Doug A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve: Pardon my ignorance, but would a 10mm extension tube do the trick, or does the column need to be shortened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The entire K-64 slide captured with the BEOON using a Sony A7, 50mm 2.8 APO-Rodagon with the B,C and D tubes. I was able to successfully use a Fuji X-E2 (cannot remember which tubes I used), but found the Sony easier to focus and less fiddly than the Fuji. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve: Pardon my ignorance, but would a 10mm extension tube do the trick, or does the column need to be shortened.

It might take both: an extension tube to reach the proper extension and a shorter column to bring the slide into focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might take both: an extension tube to reach the proper extension and a shorter column to bring the slide into focus.

 

I understand, now. I should rummage through the Big Box of Forgotten Leica stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve: Pardon my ignorance, but would a 10mm extension tube do the trick, or does the column need to be shortened.

Using the Nikkor 50 f/1.4 and tubes B+C+D, the column bottoms prior to focus. If I lift the negative by 10mm (approx) I can then focus adequately. Removing tube C (which is 17.14mm) I can focus with plenty of adjustment on the column , but not at 1:1. Bizarrely, others report success with BCD tubes whilst using a Focotar-2 50 f/4.5. I suspect the Focotar has a shorter focal length than the Nikkor, that's the only logical explanation in my view.

Edited by Steve Ricoh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, just by curiosity, yesterday I took out EL-Nikkor N 2.8/50 and mount it on a bellow and figure out to reach 1:1 (without Beoon of course) with a slide Pentax duplicator.

So about 65mm of bellow from M flange to lens flange to have 1:1.

Distance from M flange to slide is about 165mm in this case 1:1.

 

Then on my Beoon, the shortest distance from M mount flange to 1:1 mask is about 172mm.

So in best case to reach 1:1 the film must be focused (placed) about 172 - 165 = 7mm nearer than the 1:1 mask plane with EL-Nikkor N 2.8/50.

 

Thing that I have done already in the past with "about 1cm thick material" to raise the slide when I used the EL- Nikkor N 50mm with Beoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bizarrely, others report success with BCD tubes whilst using a Focotar-2 50 f/4.5. I suspect the Focotar has a shorter focal length than the Nikkor,

 

The Focotar might have a different nodal point. In my experience I find it to be a poor enlarging lens. In fact, all the Focotars are deficient, but they still might be good close-up lenses. I've never used them as such.

Edited by pico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire K-64 slide captured with the BEOON using a Sony A7, 50mm 2.8 APO-Rodagon with the B,C and D tubes. I was able to successfully use a Fuji X-E2 (cannot remember which tubes I used), but found the Sony easier to focus and less fiddly than the Fuji. 

 

@Jim. May I ask your opinion of the IQ and colour rendition of the Sony A7 compared to the Fuji XE-2? I'm considering purchasing an A7 as a full frame. I'm happy with my XT-1 but we're always curious eh?

 

Thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reeray I found the A7 were more neutral. The link below is to the RAW files of a K-64 image made with both cameras. Same lightbox used for both images so a pretty good apples-to-apples comparison. I thought the Fuji might be better since I'm not using the entire image circle but I didn't see any benefit to APS-C over FF.

 

In the end the A7 won out for the ability to mount so many old MF lenses on it and still be the same focal length. I didn't expect this. I soon dumped my Fuji X100T in favor of the A7. I found it a nice companion/backup to an M body.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mga67pb3fyunbwg/AACZXEmIroP07geZ66nR0RUNa?dl=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, just by curiosity, yesterday I took out EL-Nikkor N 2.8/50 and mount it on a bellow and figure out to reach 1:1 (without Beoon of course) with a slide Pentax duplicator.

So about 65mm of bellow from M flange to lens flange to have 1:1.

Distance from M flange to slide is about 165mm in this case 1:1.

 

Then on my Beoon, the shortest distance from M mount flange to 1:1 mask is about 172mm.

So in best case to reach 1:1 the film must be focused (placed) about 172 - 165 = 7mm nearer than the 1:1 mask plane with EL-Nikkor N 2.8/50.

 

Thing that I have done already in the past with "about 1cm thick material" to raise the slide when I used the EL- Nikkor N 50mm with Beoon.

On Saturday, in total frustration, I quickly measured the height by which I would need to raise the negative and worked it out to be 9mm, so I wasn't far off your more precise measurements.

What did you use to make the 1cm thick material? Presumably black and non reflective, and how did you hold the negative in place, using the 1:1 BEOON slide, or by other means? (A picture of the set up you used would be handy - if you still have it).

I won't be rushing out to buy another enlarger lens until I have complete grasp of the underlying optical considerations, but as Doug A stated above, it's more empirical than analytical, we'll certainly for me. I did basic optics at A level, but that was a long long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, the spacer was empirical and I used something handy-to-try.

I used as "spacer" screw in 49mm Pentax Standard lens hood (or Minolta MD 28/2  hood a bit shorter) put on the light table without 1:1 mask.

Really tricky to position slide and much flare : so why I gave up at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, the spacer was empirical and I used something handy-to-try.

I used as "spacer" screw in 49mm Pentax Standard lens hood (or Minolta MD 28/2  hood a bit shorter) put on the light table without 1:1 mask.

Really tricky to position slide and much flare : so why I gave up at that time.

Yes I see your point, I think I'll abandon the idea.

I'm wondering about a shorter tube replacing C (17.14mm: pop's measurement), however this is all empirical 'playing' that will definitely lead to more expense, but without much gain (I realise I won't get 1:1 but 1.1:1 would be good on a 24MP camera). Without knowing the nodal point of the Nikkor, it's merely guesswork on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyone with experience of using the Shneider Componon-S 50 f/2.8 on the BEOON, and if so how much column adjustment remains once critical focus is nailed. In my mind it's important to be able defocus either side of critical focus - running out of column adjustment to make the assembly shorter is a non-starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use this lens as follows.

 

My Beoon Set Up

 

35mm with APS-C and Componon S 50mm - 3rd party 40mm tube

120 with APS-C and Rodagon WA 40mm - 2 small tubes total 12mm (just because I have them. A single 12mm would do)

120 with FF and Componon S 50mm - as above small tubes and Beoon C tube

35mm with FF and 50mm Componon S - Beoon tubes B+C+D

 

In all instances I have more than enough adjustment available for critical focus with lots in hand to de-focus either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

Eureka !

 

After trying combinaisons of rings of what I have.

I've found what you can use now with what you have if you accept "only 12 Mpix" file (good enough for negative for me, see grain of film).

 

Just try without ring C.

 

M240 + Beoon + B + D + EL-Nikkor N 2.8/50 and 1:1 mask.

Negative under the mask and I focus with small margin but with large waste of field.

 

In PP if only negativ surface keeping, remain about 12 Mpix of 24 M.

You can try that to begin with what you have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By RexS
      I thought I’d share this experience as it is M8-related…
       
      This weekend I loaded Ilford FP4 Plus in my IIIc + Summicron and walked down to the riverfront to try out this film. I used a light yellow filter (0) and shot it at ISO80 – 100. I’ve never developed FP4, so I tried the same developer/time combination as I would with my favorite film (APX100) out of shear ignorance on my part.
       
      I couldn’t get into the darkroom this weekend because of some construction work (and the dust!), so on a lark I shot the negatives with the M8 mounted on an old BEOON stand with a Canon FD 50/3.5 macro lens.
       
      I opened the .dng files with Apple Aperture, reversed the curves to produce a positive image, and then grey-scaled the image to get rid of the color cast produced by the light box I was using.
       
      The low-resolution .jpg here is not a great photo as I was experimenting with film exposure and development. But I was pleasantly surprised by the detail and tone produced by a minimum of effort. It really was more satisfying than any of the negative scans I’ve made.
       
      I admit that some more manipulation with Aperture (or Photoshop) would no doubt improve the digital image, but at least I have a place to start.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
    • By Avatar
      I'll preface this post with a bit of background on this comparison I am sharing.
       
      To be fair, I am not a pixel peeper by nature, nor do I do comparisons frequently.
       
      This example is non scientific and I am sure some of the experts at scanning or the Beoon would know how to do more flat scientific testing.
       
      As said I don't have the knowledge or inclination to do much of this in the first place but I know some of you will be interested in the results.
       
      I shot a roll today and as the Epson was scanning (3200dpi), I used the Beoon with enlarger lens set at F8. Just as I know the scanner can be set better, possibly different F stops might improve the Beoon's performance.
       
      I used an M246 and had good focus on the negative. I set the M246 to base ISO of 320 and used a 2 second timer to reduce shake. Shutter speeds were slow, guessing 1/2 of a second.
       
      My scanning skills  are abysmal. I did try adjusting height but still I doubt I have it set 'right'. I unselected unsharp mask and used the supplied Epson software. 
       
      I'll have to make two posts due to 500kb size restrictions.
       
      I wasn't going to identify which is which but don't think it means a lot.
       
      My original thesis was the Beoon was really good, super fast and convenient. I am even more convinced than ever of that! I was able to capture 36 frames in less than 10 seconds per!
       
      For me this means, I can use the Beoon to see my images and the ones I really want to print or share, I probably would scan.
       
      I will be using the Beoon later this week with an SL on a ton of Kodachrome slides from the 60's-80's. The Beoon is invaluable and I am excited to save time on this project as well. 
       
      Oh, pictures taken with an M7 and 28mm Elmarit.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
    • By Steve Ricoh
      I'm on the look-out for a BEOON. Condition-wise what should I be looking for / checking prior to making a purchase, or asking the seller if I can't find one locally? I have no experience other than reading about the device.
      Many thanks.
    • By Nowhereman
      "Scanning" old film shots with the BEOON, the photo below made me think that its worthwhile to shoot transparency film occasionally: had I shot this with the M10, I would have underexposed by ⅔rds  of a stop and lifted the shadows enough to show some detail inside the doorway; but in the Ektachrome slide there is no detail in the deep shadow — and there's the rapid fallout of light in the top-right of the frame, under the roof of the verandah we're standing on. This dark area is what accentuates the color of the shot. Color negative film would, in this shot, also not have the same look. So, shooting this with the M10, you would to have to be very conscious of wanting this light fall-off. My feeling is that if you shoot and scan transparency film occasionally, you can keep this look in mind much more easily when you process a digital shot. 
       
      I should add that digitalizing slides with the M10 on the BEOON is fast and easy. My feeling is that the dynamic range of the M10 handles even dense slide easily, and most of the file only a little adjustment in LR is needed.
       
       
      M6 | Summicron 35v4 | Ektachrome E100S

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4419/36512122871_6139bf9a02_b.jpg&key=5179fc2bf7385a2fea0bb8da4f617eb1c18ddb6eca22c2032d55ced14fc461d2"> Wiang Pa Pao
       
      _________________
      Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
    • Guest Horst Wittmann
      By Guest Horst Wittmann
      Bis zum Erwerb meiner Leica M8 habe ich ausschließlich Farbdiapositive aufgenommen. Jetzt, in der überwiegend digitalen Fotowelt, wollte ich diese Aufnahmen nicht vergessen - also digitalisieren, natürlich selbst! Dazu boten sich die digitalen Leicas und das BEOON-Nahgerät mit seinem möglichen Abbildungsbereich von 1:1 bis 1:3 an.
       
      Die ersten Versuche machte ich mit der Leica M9, Maßstab 1:1, einem kleinen Leuchtpult und verschiedenen 50mm-Objektiven. Nach den ersten Testaufnahmen schieden wegen mangelnder Randschärfe (Zonenhöhe ab 17mm) das Summicron 2/50 (Vers.IV), das Summarit 1,5/50 und das Elmar 3,5/50 (Red Scale) aus. Lediglich das Focotar 4,5/50 aus dem Focomat brachte bessere Ergebnisse. Die nutzbare Bildqualität des Focotars konnte durch einen Crop gesteigert werden. Also: Abbildungsmaßstab auf 1:1,5 erhöhen und als Kamera die Leica M8 mit dem kleineren Aufnahmeformat verwenden. Die erforderliche Tubusverlängerung des Focotars wurde durch den Zwischenring Nr. 14020 K (15,5mm) und durch den BEOON-Ring "D" (34,5mm) erreicht. Das gerahmte Dia (Hamafix) wurde auf die BEOON-Bildbeldbegrenzung 1:1 gelegt und mit einem Blick durch die Lupe scharfgestellt. Nach dem Abblenden des Focotars auf 11 und dem Wechsel Lupe gegen Leica M8 konnte belichtet werden. Für die nächste Aufnahme eines Dias braucht man nur das Dia zu tauschen. Kamera und Schärfe brauchen nicht verändert zu werden, solange die Diapositive in einem gleichen Rahmen sind.
       
      Bei der Belichtung des Dias stand die Kamera auf den Modus "A" und als Belichtungskorrektur verwendete ich, je nach Dichte der Diapositive, einen Wert von -2/3 bis -1 1/3. Eine Kontrolle der Belichtungskurve auf dem Kameradisplay sowie das Arbeiten im DNG-Format ist zu empfehlen.
       
      Bei der nachträglichen Bearbeitung der Bilddateien am PC machte mir zunächst der Farbcharakter des Leuchtpults Probleme: das Leuchtpult hatte kein Normlicht. Die Farbtemperatur liegt bei 8.000 K° und dazu ein kräftiger Peak im grünen Spektralbereich.
      Die DNG-Dateien ließen sich nach einiger Übung gut mit dem Konvertierungsprogramm CaptureOne 7 und dem eingebundenen Farbtool "Farbbalance" ausgleichen.
       
      Ich bin mit den Ergebnissen, selbst von unterschiedlichen Diamaterialien, sehr zufrieden.
      Diese Dateien gestatten ohne Schwierigkeiten eine einwandfreien Ausdruck bis zum Format 30X40. Verfechter des analogen Fealings werden die sanfte Wiedergabe des "Filmkorns" schätzen.
       
      Das Digitalisieren der Dias auf diesem Weg kann ich als Zeitvertreib an Winterabenden empfehlen.
       
      Bilder: 1) Arbeitsaufbau; 2) Datei eines Velvia 50; 3) Datei eines Provia F

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
×
×
  • Create New...