> Is your message telling us at the end that you want to try LF > and MF, or > reproduction lenses on a 35mm camera? Yeah. Why not? With my mentor Karl's invaluable help I built a view camera just so how it works and what it can do. Of course I'll try mounting non-35mm format lenses on a 35mm camera if it will teach me something and maybe even let me do things I can't do with a 35mm lens. But to clarify a bit. I am currently looking to place a macro bellows between camera and whatever lens I use. Mounting would likely be by epoxy and m42 threads. > Quoting Ansel when I asked him about depth of field from an > enlarger, he > said it was of no concern. The aperture was to control the > AMOUNT of light, > not depth of field. Now see even if my large format to 35mm glue fest is a complete waste of time, you and Ansel have enlightened me on this one point. Thank you both. > Then you mention you don't care about the quzality, only the > sharpness of the lens That's now what I meant. I care about the quality of the image but I don't care about how the lens looks. Some people need to look professional whereas I am perfectly content using a tarnished, uncoated lens that is duct taped to a piece of sewer pipe which is epoxied to the dust cover from the shift lever of a 1983 Toyota. If it gives me good results and doesn't cost me $500 then I'm good to go. > I sincerely advise you to read Kingslake. > > The book is fascinating and hard to put down, actually. Another piece of good advice. I've heard about this book enough times now to actually get it. Thanks Steve. Greg
