[mtngal]

Today I was in my local camera store and noticed they had an Ashai Pentax bellows/slide copier attached to a spotmatic for sale. There's a 50mm f1.4 super tak lens on the bellows, and all looks in beautiful condition. I'm really tempted to buy it minus the spotmatic and then get an M42 to K adaptor (I don't have any M42 lenses), but I'm not sure it would get me any further than I already can get. I've already played around with a 1:1 macro lens (which I like and use quite a bit), reversing a 50mm in front of it (or a 135mm lens), taking the glass out of an old, lousy 2X TC to use as an extension tube.

So will the bellows with the 50mm lens give me anything more than what I can already get? They want what's higher than I could buy a similar set-up on ebay (I think they want $100 for the bellows and 100 for the lens), but everything does look in beautiful condition and it's here. My desire for it is based on impulse, rather than a feeling of need, which is why I'm looking for more information on them.

I'm also thinking that I might be better off just getting a Raynox - buying both the 150 and 250 would be cheaper than the bellows, lens (and adaptor).

So tell me the truth - would I gain anything? Is an old, lovely bellows and super Tak 1.4 lens worth anywhere close to what they are asking for them? Tell me I'm crazy to even be thinking of getting it, if that's your experience.

[tim60]

I have never had a macro lens. Long ago I bought a set of bellows which I found a very nice tool. I use it occasionally to do macro work. What I like about it is the continuous variability of the bellows. I recently obtained a 50/1.4 STak. They typically sell on eBay for at least $100. I am getting used to the lens but it is a very nice addition to my kit. The slide copier could be useful if you have a collection of old slides. The value to you of that is your judgement call.

[RioRico]

Bellows are great. The SuperTak 50/1.4 is great. But the SuperTak isn't necessarily great on bellows. It won't be *bad*, it just won't be up to full potential. For bellows work, whether macro or close, we generally want a different standard of sharpness. Luckily, such sharpness is plentiful and cheap: enlarger lenses (ELs).

Many gruesome details can be found here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macro-b...lose-work.html . But I'll cut to the chase -- my recommendations:

A SuperTak 50/1.4 for US$100 is about right. This is a favorite general-purpose low-light and head+shoulder portrait lens. But it will be limited/awkward on bellows; it will only focus VERY close. Better to get cheap M42 macro tubes, and stop-down the SuperTak to f/4 or so, and shoot at a little distance.

You can find decent (new or used) M42 bellows on eBay for well under US$50. Attach it to your camera with a cheap safe wide-flange NIF (no infinity focus) M42-PK adapter. Use that same adapter on the macro tubes I mentioned above -- working close, infinity just doesn't matter. And you can often find decent enlarger lenses for under US$10 each. Some Japanese and German ELs are M42, but most have M39 thread, so they'll need a very cheap M39-M42 adapter ring. Many USA-made ELs have non-metric or just plain weird mounts. I buy cheap plastic M42 body caps, ream holes in them, and mount the lenses that way.

Ah, what kind of EL to look for? Starting off, brand doesn't matter. Even cheapest ELs aren't bad. More important is focal length. The shorter the lens, the closer you must work. For studio shooting, I'll use 35mm or 50mm or 65mm. For portraiture, I like 75mm (usually on tubes). For general work, I like ELs in the 100-160mm range. 100-105-110mm are my favorites. They can focus from very close, all the way out to infinity.

That's enough to get you started. Read the article when you get a chance. Have fun!

[Nass]

What bellows gives you that you don't currently have is the ability to vary the magnification easily. Reading your note you have tubes, which means if you want a little more or less of your subject in the frame you need to take off or add a tube. That's not the end of the world and is the easiest way to do things outside, but for inside stuff bellows just makes it a little easier because all you have to do is twiddle the knob. If it's the one that you can move both ends of the bellows independently it's a double win, that has a high convenience factor.

Rio is spot on talking about enlarger lenses. Have a look at my stream it's all I use nowadays (and microscope objectives for 10-20x work). No shortage of good value for money enlarging lenses around and if you wanted to buy just one to cover a lot go for the el nikkor 50 f/2.8 (avoid the f4).

[RioRico]

Something I forgot to mention: Using a short-tele EL (90-160mm) on bellows for general photography has a very liberating feeling! Now, my longest camera-macro lens (as opposed to bellows-macro) is an M42 Vivitar-Komine 90/2.8, a brilliant piece of glass that goes to 1:1. It's great fun -- but I feel more constrained with it than with a Novoflex Noflexar 105/3.5 on my little Bellowscope when I'm out wandering around. It's a psychological thang. Maybe it's just me -- I'd like to hear from others who put a hood on an EL and go shooting town and country.

[rvannatta]

I've had a bellows for years, also extension tubes, and macro lenses. When macro lenses only extended to 1/2 to 1 (like th Pentax-A models I used the bellows
frequently. I have a cheap short barreled 150mm lens and with the bellows, it was my solution for the 'bee on a flower' macro shots.

With the advent of the 1:1 macro lenses, the need/usefulness of a bellows was greatly diminished, and of course with a tube or two you can push some beyond 1:1.

But life is different if you want to push to 2x-3x or 4x.or want to do dental photography on a termite. to get there you need to reverse the lens.---any cheap wide angle to normal lense will work for a reversal lens--it just needs to be one with an aperture ring on it so you can adjust the aperature without the lens on the camera.

But the fact remains, ifyou want to experiment with this sort of extreme macro photography, an old extension tube, a lens, and a roll of duct tape and a toilet paper
tube will do the trick.---you will need to adjust the length of the toilet paper tube to provide the level of magnification you want.---a bellows is only a more convenient
way to hold the lens out there and keep the side light from wrecking your image.

[mtngal]

Thanks for all the input on the bellows. After thinking about it some more I think I'll pass on this. I do have the Viv S1 105 which I'm quite happy with. I've played around with reversing a 50mm in front of it with some success, but it can be somewhat frustrating. While I think I'd find the bellows fun and enjoy the flexibility, I'm not doing enough macro at the moment to justify the cost to myself - I think I need to play some more with what I have, rather than look for something new. As far as reversing a lens, I've had some success with reversing a 49mm thread 50mm f1.4 lens in front of the 52mm thread 105 macro lens (my reversing ring is 52 to 49). When I tried to reverse a 52mm thread 24mm f2.8 lens in front of a 49mm thread 77mm f1.8 lens, the image didn't fill the frame, I got vignetting/mostly a black ring around the image. What am I doing wrong - is it because of using the 49mm thread lens on the camera (but would have thought that would have worked better - more like a step-up ring instead of a step down)? Should I try getting a 52 to 52 reversing ring and try the 24 f2.8 with a longer lens, like the 105 or a 135?

[RioRico]

Thanks for all the input on the bellows. After thinking about it some more I think I'll pass on this.
[...]
While I think I'd find the bellows fun and enjoy the flexibility, I'm not doing enough macro at the moment to justify the cost to myself - I think I need to play some more with what I have, rather than look for something new.

My shameful confession: I mostly don't use bellows for macro, but for mounting odd lenses for general photography. Enlarger-projector-copy-process-etc lenses, many of which produce images unlike standard camera lenses. And neither my bellows nor any of those lenses cost anywhere near US$100. For me, bellows are a cheap interface for odd optics. And as I mentioned, they liberate me psychically.

When I tried to reverse a 52mm thread 24mm f2.8 lens in front of a 49mm thread 77mm f1.8 lens, the image didn't fill the frame, I got vignetting/mostly a black ring around the image. What am I doing wrong - is it because of using the 49mm thread lens on the camera (but would have thought that would have worked better - more like a step-up ring instead of a step down)? Should I try getting a 52 to 52 reversing ring and try the 24 f2.8 with a longer lens, like the 105 or a 135?

I was going to say: Reverse-stacking a larger-diameter secondary onto a smaller-diameter primary shouldn't vignette the image unless the primary's aperture isn't wide open. I see vignetting whenever I close a primary's iris at all. But then then I thought of a rough test. I normally use a 100mm or 135mm primary, no problem. But I tried a 58mm primary with a 35mm secondary -- and alas, massive vignetting! I tried again with an 80mm primary -- less vignetting, but still noticeable. My conclusion: 100mm is the shortest primary that should be used for stacking.

[bjake]

Is the Takumar m42 135 flat enough to do a decent job of copying slides?
Jake

[mtngal]

Thanks for letting me know about the focal length limitation, I couldn't figure out why I would have such vignetting when the primary lens was smaller than the reversed lens. Reversing rings are inexpensive, I can get a 52 to 52 ring so I could use the 24, giving me 2 choices. Too bad I no longer have the F 70-210 that died on me before I bought a dslr - it had 49 diameter threads and I could have used it.

[RioRico]

Is the Takumar m42 135 flat enough to do a decent job of copying slides?

I don't know if it's appropriate for slides. I use a dedicated slide copier with a built-in lens. I *can* say that the Tak 135 would be sharp and flat enough for a proper flat-surface shoot. The trick is to increase DOF by stopping down. With the 135 un-reversed, try f/8 or so. If the 135 is reversed, f/4 and down should be good. The best would probably around f/8-f/11.

[bjake]

Will be on a bellows using light from the north sky in cloudy conditions.F8-f11 shouldn't be a problem as it will be mounted and using the timer so speed shouldn't be a problem.Got several years of slides to do.
Thanks,
Jake