Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes, there is a downside........ the longer bellows is heavier... and it will be less stable ( more jiggily... ).....more parts = less stable....and you must hold that LB WAY out there... Not so easy.... it sounds good, but...... Yes, given a specific lens FL, the longer the bellows the closer you can get.. But keep in mind that a 135mm Lens has relatively no DOF at 1 foot.. a 210 less, a 400 less again.......so if this is for macro work, best think about a digital camera along before you go nuts..... Are you going to do Art photography....? Are you proposing to ake pictures of art works for galleries etc? There may be better solutions than a Field camera....and cheaper...... And for a lens, you will use ???? The APO Nikkors were really terrific lenses... 210mm.. But I am not so sure about the coverage... G-Clarons are good at 1:1. Ditto APO Artars, other process lenses.... You will need a 210 at least, and more likely a 355..... Only available used.... Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net g Thanks. The longer bellows model appeals, as if I'm not mistaken, I can get a larger mag image 1:1 or better with the long bellows. Am I correct here? Is there any downside to the longer bellows? Thanks, Scott