Sorry if the question is excusable, but it's to clarify myself fully.
Using a bellows, a lens and a camera, to take advantage without problems or limitations of the Tilt & Shift movements of the bellows, does the lens have to be always of a larger format than the camera sensor?
I understand this because T/S lenses from Canon/Nikon always have a larger image circle than other lenses exactly to cover the sensor when they move.
Example 1) with bellows: full frame camera+normal full frame lens (I mean non-T/S). Does not work.
A "normal" (I mean non-T/S) full frame lens does not allow movement covering the sensor as its circle is for the size of the sensor only.
Am I correct so far?
Example 2) with bellows: Medium format camera (Fuji GFX)+Fujinon GF Lens. Does not work. The same problem. The GF lenses are just big enough to cover the GFX sensor. Future GF T/S will have a larger image circle, like full frame T/S example.
Am I still correct?
So what if one use the current Fujinon GF lens but, the 35mm Mode on the GFX? Is it possible to use the T/S movements of a bellows in all their glory? ,-)
Luis Cunha wrote:
Sorry if the question is excusable, but it's to clarify myself fully.
Using a bellows, a lens and a camera, to take advantage without problems or limitations of the Tilt & Shift movements of the bellows, does the lens have to be always of a larger format than the camera sensor?
I understand this because T/S lenses from Canon/Nikon always have a larger image circle than other lenses exactly to cover the sensor when they move.
Example 1) with bellows: full frame camera+normal full frame lens (I mean non-T/S). Does not work.
A "normal" (I mean non-T/S) full frame lens does not allow movement covering the sensor as its circle is for the size of the sensor only.
Am I correct so far?
Example 2) with bellows: Medium format camera (Fuji GFX)+Fujinon GF Lens. Does not work. The same problem. The GF lenses are just big enough to cover the GFX sensor. Future GF T/S will have a larger image circle, like full frame T/S example.
Am I still correct?
So what if one use the current Fujinon GF lens but, the 35mm Mode on the GFX? Is it possible to use the T/S movements of a bellows in all their glory? ,-)
The lens has to project a significantly larger image circle than the capture media requires (so larger than the 43.2mm necessary for the 135 format, or larger than the 55mm necessary for the GFX format) to accommodate movement.
The answer to the question about using GF lenses on a bellows with a GFX camera is no, primarily because you can't put anything between the two native mounts and still achieve infinity focus, but even if you only wanted to use it for macro, the answer would still be no without some engineering of a solution to power the lens and control the aperture, and you'd have to accept some negative impact to the lens performance.
freaklikeme wrote:
The lens has to project a significantly larger image circle than the capture media requires (so larger than the 43.2mm necessary for the 135 format, or larger than the 55mm necessary for the GFX format) to accommodate movement.
The answer to the question about using GF lenses on a bellows with a GFX camera is no, primarily because you can't put anything between the two native mounts and still achieve infinity focus, but even if you only wanted to use it for macro, the answer would still be no without some engineering of a solution to power the lens and control the aperture, and you'd have to accept some negative impact to the lens performance....Show more →
Understood. It was as I thought. Thank you for the explanation.
So what if I use, for example, Mamyia RZ lenses, in the bellows, which are 6x7 unless I'm wrong? Will they cover the GFX sensor and should they have room for T/S movements?
If they cover, do I lose the ability to focus on infinity?
Will it work however for macro?
Luis Cunha wrote:
Understood. It was as I thought. Thank you for the explanation.
So what if I use, for example, Mamyia RZ lenses, in the bellows, which are 6x7 unless I'm wrong? Will they cover the GFX sensor and should they have room for T/S movements?
If they cover, do I lose the ability to focus on infinity?
Will it work however for macro?
Anytime, and yes, it's possible to use RZ (or just about any other medium format lens) on a bellows with the GFX and still achieve infinity. The GFX has a flange distance of 26.7mm, where the RZ has a flange of 105mm, so you've got 78.3mm to fill between the mounts. Something like a Cambo Actus with the RZ mount lens board would be perfect for it.
freaklikeme wrote:
Anytime, and yes, it's possible to use RZ (or just about any other medium format lens) on a bellows with the GFX and still achieve infinity. The GFX has a flange distance of 26.7mm, where the RZ has a flange of 105mm, so you've got 78.3mm to fill between the mounts. Something like a Cambo Actus with the RZ mount lens board would be perfect for it.
This Universal Tilt-/Shift Bellows does all the movements of Cambo, if we add an L-bracket.
There is also a Novoflex adapter for Mamyia RB/RZ lenses for this bellows.
So I can get T/S cheaper on the GFX than future Fujifilm GF T/S lenses in 2023, which will be great but very, very expensive. do you agree? .-)
This Universal Tilt-/Shift Bellows does all the movements of Cambo, if we add an L-bracket.
There is also a Novoflex adapter for Mamyia RB/RZ lenses for this bellows.
So I can get T/S cheaper on the GFX than future Fujifilm GF T/S lenses in 2023, which will be great but very, very expensive. do you agree? .-)
Agreed. It should work very well.
One note, The movements aren't exactly the same as a rig like the Actus. In a couple of ways, they're improved (being able to use shift and swing or rise/fall and tilt, depending on the orientation, on both the lens and camera is unique to the Novoflex). With the Actus, though, you can simultaneously use tilt and swing on the front and shift and rise/fall on the back.
freaklikeme wrote:
Agreed. It should work very well.
One note, The movements aren't exactly the same as a rig like the Actus. In a couple of ways, they're improved (being able to use shift and swing or rise/fall and tilt, depending on the orientation, on both the lens and camera is unique to the Novoflex). With the Actus, though, you can simultaneously use tilt and swing on the front and shift and rise/fall on the back.
Thanks :-) There are some differences in operation, but there is a big difference in price. Novoflex is within my budget and I think it does the essential thing. I have a focus rail for macro, a tripod and a ball head from Novoflex. Finally I will be able to work with T/S movements for less than a single T/S lens, whether the future GF or the current Canon/Nikon.
I hope the Mamyia RZ lenses are really good. Are they as good as the Fujinon GF?
Luis Cunha wrote:
Thanks :-) There are some differences in operation, but there is a big difference in price. Novoflex is within my budget and I think it does the essential thing. I have a focus rail for macro, a tripod and a ball head from Novoflex. Finally I will be able to work with T/S movements for less than a single T/S lens, whether the future GF or the current Canon/Nikon.
I hope the Mamyia RZ lenses are really good. Are they as good as the Fujinon GF?
Hi Luis,
My understanding is that many of the Mamiya RZ lenses are quite good, but I do not believe they are as good as the Fuji G lenses. However, the RZ lenses are designed for a 6" X 7" camera and will have larger image circles which will allow for more rise/fall, and shift.
Just be aware that if you add for instance a Novoflex L bracket as shown below, that the movement will be rather crude unless you have a geared drive and you will most definitely shake the whole set-up as you make your adjustments. Make sure that all of the motion and movement stop before taking any images. The first image is from B&H Photo and the second is from Novoflex:
By the way, unless you do not believe that you need rise/fall and shift you still are not done with the Novoflex Kit because for these movements, you still want to add the shift adapter, but you can only use it in 1 direction at a time (and I believe only 12mm in either direction) unlike the Cambo Actus.
My understanding is that many of the Mamiya RZ lenses are quite good, but I do not believe they are as good as the Fuji G lenses. However, the RZ lenses are designed for a 6" X 7" camera and will have larger image circles which will allow for more rise/fall, and shift.
Just be aware that if you add for instance a Novoflex L bracket as shown below, that the movement will be rather crude unless you have a geared drive and you will most definitely shake the whole set-up as you make your adjustments. Make sure that all of the motion and movement stop before taking any images. The first image is from B&H Photo and the second is from Novoflex:
By the way, unless you do not believe that you need rise/fall and shift you still are not done with the Novoflex Kit because for these movements, you still want to add the shift adapter, but you can only use it in 1 direction at a time (and I believe only 12mm in either direction) unlike the Cambo Actus.
Thank you very much :-) for your contribution to this topic.
I have to do my research on Mamyia lenses. I need a wide, a standard, a macro and maybe a long tele. Suggestions are very welcome ,-)
You say that GF lenses are better and I believe so; I have two and they are very good. But they only cover the sensor they were designed for. Do not allow T/S movements. That's why Mamyia 67, Pentax 67 or others are the possible alternative with a bellows.
The bellows allows me at least two things; macro beyond 1:1 with many lenses and T/S for other uses (interiors, portraits, landscape and products) with many lenses.
Now that Novoflex has released reversible rings for the GF lenses (I will receive them soon with the bellows), I will test this possibility for macro and replace (if it works) my Canon MP-E 65mm which is from 1999, with the compromises inherent and does not cover the GFX sensor fully.
Your cautionary notes make perfect sense. I will analyze in more detail the Shift-Adapter for BALPRO series bellows, but for now I don't need it. Good to know I can add it later.
Cheers.
Luis Cunha wrote:
Thanks :-) There are some differences in operation, but there is a big difference in price. Novoflex is within my budget and I think it does the essential thing. I have a focus rail for macro, a tripod and a ball head from Novoflex. Finally I will be able to work with T/S movements for less than a single T/S lens, whether the future GF or the current Canon/Nikon.
I hope the Mamyia RZ lenses are really good. Are they as good as the Fujinon GF?
Don't get me wrong. I'm with you on the Novoflex. If I could get them to ship to the US directly, I'd buy in at those prices. I'm using a Mamiya 645 auto-bellows for macro with the 50sII and I'd happily pay those prices to replace it with something smaller, lighter, and easier to adapt to different lenses. I'm just too pedantic not to note the differences between it and the Actus.
As far as the RZ lenses go, I think Rich is right about tempering your expectations. Fuji's got decades of lens design advances working for them in their current offerings, which are, on the whole, excellent performers. Film-era lenses designed for a much larger format aren't going to give you the same resolution highs. What the RZ lenses can give you, in my limited experience, are big image circles with very even performance from edge to edge.
I've used the M 65/4, which was fantastic for landscape panos, every bit the equal of my Rodenstock Grandagon 65, and an equally nice lens close focused with it's adjustable FLE. Bokeh can get a little busy, but you can tilt/swing your way out of the worst of it for less distracting subject isolation. It is huge and heavy though, at over a kilo. I also used the Z 110/2.8, which I think is the smallest and lightest of the line, and it's an all-around sweetheart of a lens. Lovely, lightly undercorrected SA wide open, nicely sharp stopped down. Last was the 140 macro. I only had a week with it, so I can't say I ever really mastered the focusing (there was a lot of fiddling with the bellows and the FLE control on the lens itself) but I got great sharp shots out of it, and very nice close focus bokeh, but at longer distances, it wasn't as impressive as the 65 or 110. I really like Novoflex's little piece of the adapter that screws in to the shutter port and keeps the aperture preview slider engaged. I had to tape mine down with gaffer's tape.
Luis Cunha wrote:
Thank you very much :-) for your contribution to this topic.
I have to do my research on Mamyia lenses. I need a wide, a standard, a macro and maybe a long tele. Suggestions are very welcome ,-)
You say that GF lenses are better and I believe so; I have two and they are very good. But they only cover the sensor they were designed for. Do not allow T/S movements. That's why Mamyia 67, Pentax 67 or others are the possible alternative with a bellows.
The bellows allows me at least two things; macro beyond 1:1 with many lenses and T/S for other uses (interiors, portraits, landscape and products) with many lenses.
Now that Novoflex has released reversible rings for the GF lenses (I will receive them soon with the bellows), I will test this possibility for macro and replace (if it works) my Canon MP-E 65mm which is from 1999, with the compromises inherent and does not cover the GFX sensor fully.
Your cautionary notes make perfect sense. I will analyze in more detail the Shift-Adapter for BALPRO series bellows, but for now I don't need it. Good to know I can add it later.
Cheers....Show more →
I think the shift adapter only works with the 135 format and smaller. They don't appear to make an adapter the will allow you to mount a GFX, likely because the diameter of the opening is too small for the larger sensor without significant mechanical vignetting.
Several friends are telling me that the idea of big and heavy lenses like the Mamiya RZ or something like that will be a problem in terms of stabilizing the whole set, especially if used with the L-bracket. They recommend smaller and lighter lenses but with a large image circle, such as enlarging lenses.
Enlarging lenses can work out really well. The APO-Digitar 80/4 and 90/4.5 lenses Novoflex and Schneider sell are just rebranded APO-Componon 80 and 90 enlargers, and they're both excellent lenses, regardless of branding, with image circles that will cover all the movements you can make with the Novoflex. Rodenstock's APO-Rodagon-N 80/4, 90/4, and 105/4 are equally excellent lenses for the task, and their APO-Rodagon-D 120/5.6 is my favorite macro lens, though it would need an extension tube to get to 1:1 on the Novoflex which will limit the use of tilt/swing.
The problem with enlargers is that the flange distance shrinks with the focal length, so 80mm is about as wide as you can go and retain any movement at infinity because the standards will otherwise be too close together. That and the wider lenses have smaller ICs because they were made to work with small format film. Many companies made great enlargers between 90 and 135, so it's hard to find a bad lens, but not all of them perform as well at infinity as the Rodenstocks and Schneiders. If that's as wide as you want to go with this, then you're well covered.
