Bellows ii on m8

[michali]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been looking for a bellows II to attach to the M8 via my VisoflexIII mount, and have found one on the web.

 

A couple of questions before I buy it:

1.

Am I correct in saying that the back of the bellows has a "male" M mount to fit my Viso III?

 

2.

What mount is on the front of the bellows II, is it a "female" M mount?

 

Thanks & regards,

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[luigi bertolotti]

1 - Yes, the back of the Bellows II has a std. male M-mount - fits directly on the Viso II/III

 

2 - IT DEPENDS on how is the item you find: as factory standard , the bellows II (16556 P) had a front ring with a screw mount to fit Elmar and Elmarit 90 mm lensheads, as well as the Elmar 65 mm macro lens: then, a number of adapters were available to fit other optics.

[luigi bertolotti]

Here are scans of old Leitz catalog - Bellows II pages

 

[ATTACH]130746[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]130747[/ATTACH]

[michali]

Luigi- I was really hoping that you in particular would see this thread. Your response has been extremely helpful.

 

I see from the catalog that it most probably comes with a basic screw mount (16558), so I'll get the bayonet adaptor as well (16596) to be safe.

 

Thanks again and regards,

[luigi bertolotti]

Luigi- I was really hoping that you in particular would see this thread. Your response has been extremely helpful.

 

I see from the catalog that it most probably comes with a basic screw mount (16558), so I'll get the bayonet adaptor as well (16596) to be safe.

 

Thanks again and regards,

Just to complete (not yet mentioned in the catalog), the std. 16558 screw ring takes also the Tele Elmar 135 f4 lenshead - one of the best for macro. Of course, if you can find it, 16596 is really useful for "modern" 50s/90s : I do not remember to have seen here macro pics take with bellows II with a present Summicron or Summilux asph 50, but I suppose it can be a very fine combo... next time I make a bellows macro work, I want to try on it my Summarit 75...

[farnz]

... Of course, if you can find it, 16596 is really useful for "modern" 50s/90s : I do not remember to have seen here macro pics take with bellows II with a present Summicron or Summilux asph 50, but I suppose it can be a very fine combo... next time I make a bellows macro work, I want to try on it my Summarit 75...

I recently acquired a 16596 for my Bellows II but I can't seem to get my 50 Summilux aspherical to focus at all with it. The 90 APO-Summicron aspherical focuses (just, and with a tiny depth of focus) yet it's not mentioned as being compatible in any of the catalogs.

 

Test shot of 90 APO-Summicron aspherical + M8 + Viso III + Bellows II + 16596, ISO 160 @ f/11.

 

Pete.

 

[ATTACH]130850[/ATTACH]

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently acquired a 16596 for my Bellows II but I can't seem to get my 50 Summilux aspherical to focus at all with it. The 90 APO-Summicron aspherical focuses (just, and with a tiny depth of focus) yet it's not mentioned as being compatible in any of the catalogs.

 

Test shot of 90 APO-Summicron aspherical + M8 + Viso III + Bellows II + 16596, ISO 160 @ f/11.

 

Pete.

 

 

[ATTACH]130850[/ATTACH]

 

Pete, it's strange you cannot focus with the Summilux 50... looking at the catalog page I posted above, a 50 mm BM lens, with 16596, had to be compatible, even if, of course, with so strong reproduction ratios (more in the "micro" than "macro" field) that usage can indeed be someway critical : I mean, front lens to subject distance is surely so little that problems of illumination can arise... DOF is so thin that using f 1,4 or 2 probably makes it almost practically impossible to focus a unflat subject... and there is also the basic issue of focus plane curvature: can be that even an excellent lens like the Summilux 50 asph, not being designed as a micro lens, proves to be untrustable at such distances... I even wonder if the optical schema of the 50 asph is such that, even with the bellows at minimum extension, the theroical front-lens to subject distance is unachievable : I mean, if I remeber well, the significant parameter to take into account in micro photo is indeed the lens' nodal point to subject distance.. can be that with a design like the Lux asph's one, simply there is too much glass in front of the nodal point to have a subject at the needed distance. This, of course, is less probable to happen with longer focals... and this can explain why you can focus with your 90 : the fact that it is not mentioned in the catalogs, for me is simply related to the fact that the APO 90 has been made available several years after the Bellows II has been discontinued.

Weekend is not so far... ... I'll make some trials with my Bellows + 16596 + some modern lenses..

[farnz]

Thanks, Luigi.

 

I haven't got round to getting closer than around 5 cm from the subject so I'll try to go closer to see if I can get my 50 Summilux asph to focus. So far I've only been able to get vague blobs of colour, which seem to be way out of focus.

 

Pete.

[Knorp]

Well just tried both the 50 Lux Asph and the 50 Lux Pre-Asph and I found that the Pre-ASPH will focus all right in all configurations but the ASPH is very limited making it IMO unusable

 

Configurations:

min bellows lenght [0x] X min lens setting [0.7 mtr]

min bellows length [0x] X max lens setting [infinity]

max bellows lenght [4x] X min lens setting [0.7 mtr]

max bellows lenght [4x] X max lens setting [infinity]

[Knorp]

Well just tried both the 50 Lux Asph and the 50 Lux Pre-Asph and I found that the Pre-ASPH will focus all right in all configurations but the ASPH is very limited making it IMO unusable

 

Configurations:

min bellows lenght [0x] X min lens setting [0.7 mtr]

min bellows length [0x] X max lens setting [infinity]

max bellows lenght [4x] X min lens setting [0.7 mtr]

max bellows lenght [4x] X max lens setting [infinity]

 

Let me add to this that especially at 4x, focussing gets more difficult in the way that I don't see a real sharp image with the Asph. The Pre-Asph does better. At 0x the Asph is not too bad.

 

Kind regards.

[UliWer]

M8+VisoIII+BellowsII+16596G+1:1,4/50 -asph; f:1:8 (bellows at 0/lens at infinty/ca. 6 cm lens to object):

 

[ATTACH]131028[/ATTACH]

 

Same combination with pre-Aspherical:

 

[ATTACH]131029[/ATTACH]

[UliWer]

This time bellows at 4x, lens at 0,7m:

 

50 Asph.:

[ATTACH]131043[/ATTACH]

 

 

50 pre-Asph:

[ATTACH]131044[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

It may be my fault of not focussing exactly, but this time the pre-asph seems to be a lot sharper. Though both lenses were on f 1:8, the pre Version needed much, much more shutter time, for which i do not see any reason (the over-exposure on some parts is obvious).

[UliWer]

Now with coated 1:3,5/50 Elmar from 1932 with M-Adapter; f 1:8; bellows 4x; lens at infinity:

[ATTACH]131047[/ATTACH]

 

 

and with lens at 1m:

 

[ATTACH]131046[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

The winner is...???

[farnz]

Uli and Bart,

 

Thanks for your posts, which show that the 50 Summilux asph can be used. The shooting settings are particularly interesting and I'll try to match them and see what I get.

 

Pete.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Now with coated 1:3,5/50 Elmar from 1932 with M-Adapter; f 1:8; bellows 4x; lens at infinity:

 

The winner is...???

 

At f8 and 4x mag. the effective aperture is f40 ... Maybe you would probably get a better result at set aperture f4 = effective aperture of f20 ?

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[Knorp]

This time bellows at 4x, lens at 0,7m:

 

50 Asph.:

[ATTACH]131043[/ATTACH]

 

 

50 pre-Asph:

[ATTACH]131044[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

It may be my fault of not focussing exactly, but this time the pre-asph seems to be a lot sharper. Though both lenses were on f 1:8, the pre Version needed much, much more shutter time, for which i do not see any reason (the over-exposure on some parts is obvious).

 

Thank you UliWer for your images which tell more than a thousand words: they confirm my findings that the Asph at 4x doesn't focus properly.

 

Anyone a clue why ?

 

Kind regards.

[UliWer]

.

 

Anyone a clue why ?

 

 

Floating element??? Just a guess.

 

May be, the optical design is not apt to extremely close distances like here. Which would be no fault, as the lens was never meant to work for this combo.

 

The old Elmar - which in my opinion came out best in my little "test" - with it's simple design may be much more able to cope with these conditions. It has always been a sort of universal lens, useful for closeups, projecting as well as for normal photography.

[luigi bertolotti]

It's a pity that there isn't some accessory to have a BM lens mounted REVERSED... it has always been a practical way to have better results with a non-macro lens; of course, you couldn't mount a filter in front... but it would be a not difficult to build adapter: a simple and robust small tube with one male screw for 16558 and one male E39 screw to mount the lens via filter mount (and with some double-threaded filters, maybe one could also afford to have a filter... on the back of the lens).

Such an accessory, if I remember correctly, was indeed available from Leitz for the Elmar 65, using the 16471 tube... I wonder if the 16471 (which screws into 16558) could be re-machined to have an E39 screw...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Knorp]

It's a pity that there isn't some accessory to have a BM lens mounted REVERSED... it has always been a practical way to have better results with a non-macro lens; of course, you couldn't mount a filter in front... but it would be a not difficult to build adapter: a simple and robust small tube with one male screw for 16558 and one male E39 screw to mount the lens via filter mount (and with some double-threaded filters, maybe one could also afford to have a filter... on the back of the lens).

Such an accessory, if I remember correctly, was indeed available from Leitz for the Elmar 65, using the 16471 tube... I wonder if the 16471 (which screws into 16558) could be re-machined to have an E39 screw...

 

Using lenses reversed would be great but I know of no such adapter that makes it possible. Regarding the 16471 tube I wonder how that would attach to the Elmar 65, at least my copies don't match to each other, but perhaps the black Elmar ?

 

Kind regards.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Using lenses reversed would be great but I know of no such adapter that makes it possible. Regarding the 16471 tube I wonder how that would attach to the Elmar 65, at least my copies don't match to each other, but perhaps the black Elmar ?

 

Kind regards.

 

Reversing lenses gains nothing optically (apart from slightly increased magnification) unless the entrance and exit pupils are different ie unless the pupillary ratio is less than 1. The 65mm bellows mount Elmar looks to have same diameter front and rear elements so there would probably be no advantage in reversing it. The 50mm Elmar might benefit from reversal because the rear element diameter is a bit less than the front element... but when held at arm's length the entrance and exit pupils look the same so seems unlikely that reversal would improve its performance. It is incorrect to say that reversing a lens always improves macro performance especially with symmetrical lens designs. Sometimes it may appear to improve the performance but only as far as slightly increased magnification is concerned because reversal increases the lens extension ie the front lens mount recess/bezel shroud then acts as an extra extension tube.

 

Cheers

 

dunk