buy a macro lens....

[elohim]

I'm thinking about getting a macro lens for macro works.
but I was told that most modern apo lens like apo-symmar would be just as good as macro lens, even at 1:1.
should I stick with my apo-symmar 180mm or get a macro lens
like makro-symmar for this type of work.

I am planning to do a lot of macro works.

I'd like to hear your opinions...

thanks a lot.

[chris_4622]

Bellows extension will be a factor with your 180, if you have enough plus light loss. Since you are going to do this often I think a macro lens will make things easier.

[Peter K]

At close-up the image circle increases. At 1:1 you have a two-time as big image circle compared to infinity. This means you can use e.g. a process lens with 100 mm focal lenght to cover a 4x5" negative. Process lenses are optimized for short distances. Of course a Makro-Symmar 120mm will do the work.

Peter K

[elohim]

Process lenses are optimized for short distances. Of course a Makro-Symmar 120mm will do the work.

Peter K

they also say that enlarging lens is for 2D,not so good for 3D subject,
is that true ?

I wonder if there is a noticeable difference between apo-symmar and makro-symmar
at 1:1 ....

anyone has compared these two?

:confused:

[Dan Fromm]

Elohim, your question has been asked many times. Use the forum's search feature.

The "2D - 3D" distinction is nonsense.

If you had asked about the equivalent Rodenstock lenses Bob Salomon would have responded that the macro lens is much better for closeup work. Just get a proper macro lens and be done with it.

Peter, there don't seem to be many 100 mm process lenses. I can think of only two, Apo Artar and Apo Saphir, both f/9. Please reduce my ignorance by giving a few more examples.

[Peter K]

Every lens picture only one plane with minimal circle of confusion. But when this circle of confusion is smaller as the resolution of the eye at the image, the image looks "sharp". So one gets a deepth of field. At macro work with increasing magnification the deepth of field goes to nearly zero. Only with very small apertures you can increase the deepth of field up to the point diffraction limits the circle of confusion. With a lens with some spherical abberation it seems you have more deepth of field, but the resolution itself is worser.

Yes, good enlarging lenses are also good macro lenses.

Peter K

[Peter K]

Peter, there don't seem to be many 100 mm process lenses. I can think of only two, Apo Artar and Apo Saphir, both f/9. Please reduce my ignorance by giving a few more examples.
Yes Dan, of course you're right. There was only the C Claron und the lenses you have mentioned, as I know. But the 100mm was only an example, it's easier to calculate with. :)

Peter K

[Mark Sawyer]

A lot of new 120mm Nikkor AM-ED macro lenses were sold at clearance prices recently, so one might come up cheap, maybe $300? Even cheaper (under $100?)would be a 127mm Rodenstock Ysaron, which is a tessar optimised for copy/close-up work.

[elohim]

Every lens picture only one plane with minimal circle of confusion. But when this circle of confusion is smaller as the resolution of the eye at the image, the image looks "sharp". So one gets a deepth of field. At macro work with increasing magnification the deepth of field goes to nearly zero. Only with very small apertures you can increase the deepth of field up to the point diffraction limits the circle of confusion. With a lens with some spherical abberation it seems you have more deepth of field, but the resolution itself is worser.

Yes, good enlarging lenses are also good macro lenses.

Peter K

Peter,
I have 3 enlarging lenses :

leitz focotar-II 50mm
rodagon 80mm
apo-rodagon 150mm

would any of them be better for macro works than my apo-symmar 180mm?
from 1:2 ~ 2:1
I have to use them in reversed right ?

I know very little about this.
thanks a lot for helping
thanks,everybody :)

[Dan Fromm]

Peter,
I have 3 enlarging lenses :

leitz focotar-II 50mm
rodagon 80mm
apo-rodagon 150mm

would any of them be better for macro works than my apo-symmar 180mm?
from 1:2 ~ 2:1
I have to use them in reversed right ?

I know very little about this.
thanks a lot for helping
thanks,everybody :)Since you have the lenses, ask them, not us.

[Dan Fromm]

Yes Dan, of course you're right. There was only the C Claron und the lenses you have mentioned, as I know. But the 100mm was only an example, it's easier to calculate with. :)

Peter KThanks for the reply, Peter.

Um, there are 100 mm macro lenses for 4x5. 100/6.3 Luminar, for one. When I found one M. J. Small told me it is the rarest Luminar, but they still turn up from time to time. 100/6.3 Neupolar, for another, but much much rarer.

[Peter K]

Um, there are 100 mm macro lenses for 4x5. 100/6.3 Luminar, for one. When I found one M. J. Small told me it is the rarest Luminar, but they still turn up from time to time. 100/6.3 Neupolar, for another, but much much rarer.
The rarest Luminar is the Zoom-Luminar 2,5 - 5. Also the Epi-Luminar isn't so common. I've used all and other macro lenses as the Summar's from Leitz.

Peter K

[Ron Marshall]

I'm thinking about getting a macro lens for macro works.
but I was told that most modern apo lens like apo-symmar would be just as good as macro lens, even at 1:1.
should I stick with my apo-symmar 180mm or get a macro lens
like makro-symmar for this type of work.

I am planning to do a lot of macro works.

I'd like to hear your opinions...

thanks a lot.

I compared an APO Sironar-S 150 and a Nikkor AM 120 at 1:3 and 1:1.

At 1:3 with the 150mm, the image was slightly softer on the ground glass, but very acceptable.

At 1:1 there was no contest.

[Dan Fromm]

The rarest Luminar is the Zoom-Luminar 2,5 - 5. Also the Epi-Luminar isn't so common. I've used all and other macro lenses as the Summar's from Leitz.

Peter KThanks for the reply. I've always wondered whether an Epi-Luminar (any of them) can be used on anything except an Ultraphot; if so, can it be used to shoot with axial illumination too off an Ultraphot?

[Peter K]

Thanks for the reply. I've always wondered whether an Epi-Luminar (any of them) can be used on anything except an Ultraphot; if so, can it be used to shoot with axial illumination too off an Ultraphot?
Hi Dan,

of course the Epi-Luminars where made for the Ultraphot and the Universal-microscope (in this case only 18,7mm, 25mm and 40mm). But with an adapter and a glass-plate mounted at 45° one can use any camera. This is also possible with the Leitz Ultropak lenses. In this case of course only dark field illumination. One can also mount the 45° glass plate for illumination before the lens, when there is enough space e.g. with the Luminar 100mm at 1:1.

Sorry for my bad english please :o

Peter K

[Dan Fromm]

Peter, thanks for the additional explanation. Your written english is at least as good as mine, and I'm a native speaker.

At least the 50/3.5 and 100 Neupolars were sold with dovetails that incorporate a beamsplitter in the form of a piece of plain glass sits between lens and subject. Useful for axial illumination at low magnifications, especially with the 100. The dovetails fit, I think, an MeF-2, are hard to use on anything else.

[Peter K]

Peter, thanks for the additional explanation. Your written english is at least as good as mine, and I'm a native speaker.

At least the 50/3.5 and 100 Neupolars were sold with dovetails that incorporate a beamsplitter in the form of a piece of plain glass sits between lens and subject. Useful for axial illumination at low magnifications, especially with the 100. The dovetails fit, I think, an MeF-2, are hard to use on anything else.
Thanks Dan!

It's easy to mount a dovetail. One needs only a metal ring with the big diamater of the dovetail and three screws spaced 120°. Two short screws are fixed and the third can be turned. Remove the movable screw, put the ring over the dovetail and fix it with the movable screw. With the two short screws one can align the dovetail. Also the adapters for Zeiss microscope parts are made in this way. And the Luminar 2,5 - 5 can be used with other cameras as the Ultraphot II.

Peter K

[Matt Blaze]

Bellows extension will be a factor with your 180, if you have enough plus light loss. Since you are going to do this often I think a macro lens will make things easier.

I understand about needing less extension with the 120, but why would bellows loss be less of a factor for the macro-type lens here? While a 120 macro lens needs less extension than a 180 for a given magnification (because of the shorter focal length), I believe they both lose the same amount of light at any given subject magnification. Or am I misunderstanding something?

[Ron Marshall]

I believe they both lose the same amount of light at any given subject magnification. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Correct

[Peter K]

I understand about needing less extension with the 120, but why would bellows loss be less of a factor for the macro-type lens here? While a 120 macro lens needs less extension than a 180 for a given magnification (because of the shorter focal length), I believe they both lose the same amount of light at any given subject magnification. Or am I misunderstanding something?
Matt you are right, both lenses lose the same amount of light. At 1:1 it's four times more as at infinity. [Close-up exposure time = (magnification + 1)^2 x time of distant exposure] But with a certain bellows extention you can get bigger magnifications with shorter focal-lenghts. So macro lenses for 1:1 up to 30:1 are made 100mm and shorter. The Macro-Symmar is optimized for 1:1.

Peter K

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks for the advice Peter.

I'm sorry to be contrary, but what I had in mind was putting my 100 Neupolar in its mount in front of a #1 shutter for use in the field with, as needed, axial illumination. I now use a threaded bushing to attach the lens without its usual holder to a #1.

Cheers,

Dan

[Peter K]

Thanks for the advice Peter.

I'm sorry to be contrary, but what I had in mind was putting my 100 Neupolar in its mount in front of a #1 shutter for use in the field with, as needed, axial illumination. I now use a threaded bushing to attach the lens without its usual holder to a #1.

Cheers,

Dan
Sorry Dan,

I'm not familiar with Reichert Austria except some special phase contrast lenses and the interference tester. But Zeiss Opton lenses, like the Luminar 100 with dovetail can easily mounted to a shutter size #1 with a mounting ring.

Nice to meet another fan of special lenses. :)

Peter K

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Peter, thanks for the additional explanation. Your written english is at least as good as mine, and I'm a native speaker.

At least the 50/3.5 and 100 Neupolars were sold with dovetails that incorporate a beamsplitter in the form of a piece of plain glass sits between lens and subject. Useful for axial illumination at low magnifications, especially with the 100. The dovetails fit, I think, an MeF-2, are hard to use on anything else.

Dan, I have that complete Reichert set (30/50/75/100mm) in a nice wooden box with lots of other equipment. The Neupolars indeed are fine, tack sharp lenses (much better than the older uncoated Polars). They sit on dovetail mounts but are just screwed into those, so taking them off and mounting them with a thread mount adaptor is a breeze.

Thanks to Peter for the mounting tips, I haven't thought about that yet. I alwaysgo the threaded adaptor route.

Klaus

[Dan Fromm]

Klaus, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. Of course I unscrew the lenses from their MeF-2 mounts, use them in adapters for mounting in front of a shutter. But the MeF-2 mounts have the nice beamsplitter ...

Cheers,

Dan

[Peter K]

Dan,

the quick change mount for the MeF is equiped with the standard W 0,8" x 1/36" thread, so you can use also Luminar lenses up to 63mm with the beamsplitter.

Peter K

[Dan Fromm]

Peter,

I have two Reichert dovetails with beamsplitters. One for the 50/3.5 Neupolar, which is in RMS thread. The other is for the 100/6.3 Neupolar, whose mounting threads are, IIRC (lens is at home, I'm at work) 34 mm. I can't use either mount without an MeF-2 (I think that's the one)

To add to the fun, I have some other Reichert dovetails, for the 50 and 100 respectively, that don't have any provision for a beamsplitter.

Cheers,

Dan