Macro Lenses...

[Michael Gaillard]

It has been recommended that I use a G-Claron 210 as a macro lens for macro work. (4 x 5)

Is that more of a stop-gap measure for people until they decide to buy a better macro lens, or is it truly extraordinary?

I was thinking about getting the Apo-Macro ROdenstock, or perhaps the Schneider Macro lens. Of course these are far more expensive.

WHat do you all think?

Thanks,
Michael

[Brian Ellis]

The 210 G Claron was designed for flat-field work (i.e. copying) and close-ups and is optimized for magnifications around 1:1. But they're also very usable as a general purpose lens for 4x5 and even 8x10. If the Rodenstock you're talking about is the Macro Sironar, it's way way more expensive than a G Claron, at least when it was new. I'd get the G Claron and see how you like it. I used the 210 for general purpose photography, not macro, and it was an excellent lens. You can always sell it for about what you paid for it later if you want to.

[Mark Sawyer]

What Brian said, but I'll add that 210mm is way long for a macro on a 4x5. At 1:1, you're at just over 16" of bellows extension. I use a 150mm and 210mm for macro and close up on my 8x10.

[Ralph Barker]

I think a lot depends on how one defines "macro" within their body of work. At magnifications at or approaching 1:1, the G-Clarons do fairly well, as do various conventional lenses. The true macro lenses tend to show their stuff at 1:1 and higher magnifications. Thus, the choice can boil down to a balance between the nature of the work and one's budget.

[ljsegil]

Minor thread hijacking (or at least diversion) here, but my question does concern macro lenses. I'm shooting 5x7 with about 630mm bellows extension (Canham). What would be the relative advantages/disadvantages of either a 120mm macro lens like the Nikkor AM vs the 210mm Nikkor AM? The latter is listed in the lens tables as the appropriate focal length macro lens for 5x7, and the 120mm does not cover the format at infinity but I imagine would at 1:1. The 210mm would, if I understand correctly (which would be a first), be limited by the bellows to about 2:1 maximum magnification with an awful lot of sail area from the fully extended bellows, while the 120mm could get beyond 4:1, and could do any magnification with a lot less bellows extension than required by the 210mm and therefore diminish problems with movement/vibration/wind/my clumsiness, and also be easier to manipulate for front movements, but would afford less working distance from the subject for any given magnification. Is this correct thinking? Would perhaps the shorter focal length lens be more prone to distortion on the 5x7 format, or might its wide angle status on 5x7 make subject isolation problematic without going to greater magnifications? Would its image be degraded relative to the 210mm by working more towards the edge of its image circle on the 5x7 format compared to the 210mm? Does the ability to use a longer focal length macro lens on the larger format confer other advantages relative to the shorter focal length lens? Might reversing a convertible lens be a substitute that could provide quality similar to a comparable focal length macro lens?
Obviously, as usual, I'm hoping for much needed help, knowledge, and advice, but that's nothing new and is the beauty of the forum for us novices (I expect to be one for about another 10-15 years, by then I'll just be an ineducable cripple). Thanks ahead of time for any and all information and guidance; consider me an empty receptacle (and that's probably overestimating my real knowledge).
LJS

[Robert Fisher]

LJ, I have just finished a project requiring 15x enlargement (Sinar P/P2/Norma, 10 feet of rail, 810 output, 210 Nikon Macro). All of this gear will be on the 'Bay shortly. If you need any help, please PM.

I am short on theory but well versed in real time application.

[Ralph Barker]

One of the trade-offs with macro lens choice is working distance (important if you are lighting the subject) versus the bellows draw needed for a given magnification. I don't know that there are any hard-and-fast guidelines here, as the balance of relative importance can vary by individual.

The 120mm APO Macro Nikkor has a comparatively small image circle - about 250mm @ f/22 when focused at 1:1. That's not too bad on 4x5, but may be limiting on 5x7 if front tilts are going to be used to control the focus plane.

[Drew Wiley]

Both the G-Claron and similar Fujinon A lenses are superb for closeup work. You
don't need anything fancier unless you're photographing insects or diamonds. Plus
you have the advantage that the same lenses can be used for just about everything,
even at infinity focus.

[Ron Marshall]

LJ, I have just finished a project requiring 15x enlargement (Sinar P/P2/Norma, 10 feet of rail, 810 output, 210 Nikon Macro). All of this gear will be on the 'Bay shortly. If you need any help, please PM.

I am short on theory but well versed in real time application.

That must have been a huge bellows compensation factor!

[Dan Fromm]

Larry, you've just explained why real macro lenses, e.g., Luminars, were offered in focal lengths from 16 mm to 100 mm. The higher the magnification desired, the shorter the lens used.

Mr. Fisher has shot at 15:1 with a 210, so we can see that a short lens is not absolutely necessary to get to 15:1. I'm sure he had good reasons to use a 210, but most of us find working at that magnification easier with less extension than he had to use.

FWIW, the longest Luminar (100 mm) covers 4x5 at 1:1, 5x7 at a little under 1.5:1.

Michael, if you have the 210 G-Claron, try it out to see what it can and can't do for you.

Drew, f/9 yields poor image quality at magnifications much above 2:1 and is pretty dim at those magnifications. Real macro lenses are diffraction limited wide open and, f/6.3 long ones excepted, open a couple of stops wider than f/9. They get pretty dim, but not as fast as an f/9 lens.

I hope Mr. Fisher will tell us more about what took him to 15:1, why he chose the setup he used, and how he operated it.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ken Lee]

There is close work, macro work, and flat-field or copy work. Some lenses give a flat field, and are called copy or process lenses. Some lenses are designed to perform at very close range, 1:1 and even closer for 3-d subjects, and are called macro lenses. Some lenses do nicely for close work, because their blur is pleasing. I call these nice lenses.

When we say that a lens provides X amount of coverage, the spec is given for infinity focus. By simple arithmetic, that same lens will give 2X coverage at 1:1.

At the same time, it will require 2 stops more light, or 4 times the exposure time, for the same reason: the image circle has increased to twice the diameter, or 4 times the area.

A lens whose focal length is F at infinity, will require 2F bellows extension at 1:1, so that 210mm lens requires 420mm - a lot of bellows draw - just to get to 1:1. You might consider a shorter lens, like the Rodenstock 120mm Macro Sironar. It's a supreme performer, and requires only 240mm to get you to 1:1.

I use a vintage 135mm Tessar on 5x7 for close work. At infinity, it is just OK for 4x5, but at very close distance, it gives twice its normal coverage: enough for 8x10, more than enough for 5x7. And the blur it gives, is lovely.

[Armin Seeholzer]

The problem at 1:1 with a G - Glaron is its only a f 9 lens, so at 1:1 you get a very dimm groundglass!
I did in the past use a G - Glaron 150 mm f9 but after the troubles I got with the darkness on groundglass I stoped using it an use now a APO Macro Sironar 120mm f 5.6 which makes life easier!
Hope it helps Armin

[ljsegil]

How about reversing a lens? Does that give you any greater macro capability than the native configuration (assuming it is possible to reverse the elements as it is in convertible lenses)? Works nicely with some lenses in those little formats that we won't mention out loud.
LJS

[Peter K]

It works with many LF-lenses too. With the most standard-size shutters, except size #1, front- and rear-thread are the same.

The Luminar 1:6.3/100mm has the same thread at the front and at the rear side. So it can be used optimized for 2:1 and 1:2

[Dan Fromm]

Larry, a lens can be optimized for only one pair of conjugates (distance to subject plane, distance to film plane). Most lenses for general use are optimized for a large subject far away, image it on a small negative close by. When these lenses are used for magnification greater than 1:1, i.e., with small subject close to the lens and large negative far away, their optimizations are lost if they're used facing normally. That's why most lenses made for general use have to be reversed when used at magnifications above 1:1.

Some lenses are perfectly symmetrical -- front cells identical to rear cells -- and these don't have to be reversed when shooting above 1:1.

What Peter K. says about the 100/6.3 Luminar is sort of true. Some of them, the one I used to have included, are double-ended. But not all are. And Zeiss literature, IIRC, recommends using the 100/6.3 Luminar mounted normally from 1:8 to 8:1.

The odd thing about the general rule -- reverse the lens above 1:1 -- is that there are quite asymmetrical lenses that don't seem to need to be reversed when magnification is above 1:1. For example, I have a 100/6.3 Neupolar that was made for, I think, Reichert's MeF2 metallograph. It is a reversed tessar type, with cemented doublet in front of the diaphragm and the pair of singlets behind; a very asymmetrical lens, but it shoots very well from 1:8 to 8:1 mounted normally. Better than a known good 100/6.3 Luminar, in fact.

Larry, not all convertible lenses' cells can be swapped around. I have four different Boyer lenses sold as convertibles and mounted in #1 shutters. As Peter K. pointed out, a cell that screws into the rear of a #1 won't fit the front, and vice versa. #1 shutters just aren't fair, they ought to have the same threads front and rear like 00, 0, 2, and 3.

Cheers,

Dan

[Peter K]

What Peter K. says about the 100/6.3 Luminar is sort of true. Some of them, the one I used to have included, are double-ended. But not all are. And Zeiss literature, IIRC, recommends using the 100/6.3 Luminar mounted normally from 1:8 to 8:1.
The Luminars, as most other lenses of this type, are optimized for an image distance of 250mm, 10". (Visual microscope magnification.) So the maximum numerical aperture from 0.08 for the Luminar 100mm will be reached together with the maximum resolution.

The Luminar 1:6.3/100mm was made as Triplet, the short one and the longer one as reversed Tessar.

Peter K

[cdholden]

If it helps the search (and wallet), I've read that Agfa Super Intergon lenses are rebadged G-Clarons. The 210 and 305 I just got are integrated with the iris/barrel. The front and rear cells do not come out, so there is no option for a shutter unless you use a Packard, hat, lens cap, etc. This combined with the lack of good press compared to the G-Claron should also make it cheaper.

[Arne Croell]

If it helps the search (and wallet), I've read that Agfa Super Intergon lenses are rebadged G-Clarons. The 210 and 305 I just got are integrated with the iris/barrel. The front and rear cells do not come out, so there is no option for a shutter unless you use a Packard, hat, lens cap, etc. This combined with the lack of good press compared to the G-Claron should also make it cheaper.

They are not rebadged G-Clarons, but they in the same lens family (symmetric plasmat construction for process cameras) as the G-Clarons. Rodenstocks Apo-Gerogon and the Docter Germinar W's are of that type, too. The Super-Intergon was made by the company Staeble near Munich, which was owned by Agfa since 1969. The same lenses were also sold as Staeble Ultragon and Eskofot Ultragon (Eskofot made process cameras).

The difference between the G-Claron and most* of the other lenses is that the G-Claron lens cells are a direct fit into a shutter, which accounts for the price difference. For the Super-Intergon lenses and its name variations as well as the Apo-Gerogon lenses machining of the lens cells and/or the shutter is necessary and is usually quite costly.

*The shorter focal lengths (150-305mm) of the Docter Geminar W are also a direct fit.

[Dan Fromm]

The Luminar 1:6.3/100mm was made as Triplet, the short one and the longer one as reversed Tessar.

Peter KPeter, I didn't know there was a Luminar longer than 100 mm. I thought the set was 16/2.5, 25/3.5, 40/4.5, 63/4.5, and 100/6.3 and that all but the 16 were triplets. And I've had all of 'em, still have 25, 40, and 63.

Were you thinking of CZJ Mikrotars, sometimes badged "Jena M?" I ask because I've had a 90/6.3 Mikrotar; this lens is a reversed tessar like the 100/6.3 Neupolar. Also a 45/4.5 Mikrotar, which is a triplet.

On Arne's point that most process lenses' cells won't go into shutters without machining, some (but not all) Apo Ronars' cells will. Beware the 150/9 Klimsch Apo Ronar, a tiny lens whose cells will not go into any known shutter.

Cheers,

Dan

[Peter K]

Peter, I didn't know there was a Luminar longer than 100 mm. I thought the set was 16/2.5, 25/3.5, 40/4.5, 63/4.5, and 100/6.3 and that all but the 16 were triplets. And I've had all of 'em, still have 25, 40, and 63.
Dan,

not the focal- but the barrel-lenght.

The Luminar 100mm Triplet has a shorter barrel as the Tessar-type. Both were made by Zeiss-Opton for the Ultraphot II etc at Göttingen.

The Mikrotar from 1:1.6/10mm up to 1:6.3/120mm was made by Carl Zeiss Jena up to 1945. And Winkel made the Mikroluminar from 1:3.8/10mm up to 1:5/100mm up to 1950.

Cheers

Peter K

[JW Dewdney]

Don't get TOO hung up on gear. The likelihood that your technique will influence the final outcome FAR more than the lens you use is pretty great. I've gotten quite acceptable (understatement) results from a beat up 50 year old convertible symmar I picked up for $100 that I've used for some fairly critical work.

[Peter K]

Nothing against the Symmar, it's a great lens. But if you take the same close-up image also with a good macro-lens in the same focal-lenght you can see the difference. Specially for some fairly critical work.

[Dan Fromm]

Dan,

not the focal- but the barrel-lenght.

The Luminar 100mm Triplet has a shorter barrel as the Tessar-type. Both were made by Zeiss-Opton for the Ultraphot II etc at Göttingen.

The Mikrotar from 1:1.6/10mm up to 1:6.3/120mm was made by Carl Zeiss Jena up to 1945. And Winkel made the Mikroluminar from 1:3.8/10mm up to 1:5/100mm up to 1950.

Cheers

Peter KPeter, I'm sorry but I don't agree with you.

One of my neighbors, Charlie Barringer (Google him), has among other marvels small piles of Luminars, Mikrotars, and Zeiss (Oberkochen, Jena pre-1945, Jena 1945 and later) documentation. Some of his Mikrotars, including several 90/6.3s exactly like the one I used to have, have serial numbers considerably later than 1945. Charlie, Marc James Small (Google him too), and I once compared notes on Mikrotars. CZJ made them into the 1950s and sold them against Zeiss-Winkel- and Zeiss-badged Luminars.

Please provide references to a tessar type 100/6.3 Luminar.

Cheers,

Dan

[Arne Croell]

On Arne's point that most process lenses' cells won't go into shutters without machining, some (but not all) Apo Ronars' cells will. Beware the 150/9 Klimsch Apo Ronar, a tiny lens whose cells will not go into any known shutter.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan, I was only referring to plasmat-type process lenses.

Arne

[Peter K]

Please provide references to a tessar type 100/6.3 Luminar.
Michel, Kurt: Die Mikrophotographie. Wien, Springer 1967 fig. 103 on page 152.

Michel was the successor of August Köhler, he has developed e. g. the "Ultraphot" in Jena, later the "Photo-Microscope" and the "Ultraphot II" in Oberkochen and at last the "Axiomat" also called "Michel-Tower".

In his many books one can find many informations about macro-lenses, specially in the book mentioned before and in the supplementary volume of "Handbuch der wissenschaftlichen und angewandten Photographie", Wien, Springer 1943. Also aviable as reprint in Ann Arbor Michigan 1946.

An other reference is the brochure "Optik für Mikroskopie" Carl Zeiss Oberkochen ca. 1971.

Sorry I'm no lens collector, but I've work with both the Luminars 100mm Triplet and Tessar. And with the shorter focal-lenghts too.

In the early years after the war the trade between Jena and Oberkochen resp. Göttingen was possible. So the one or other lens from Jena was re-labeled in the west. But from the early fifties Winkel made the Luminars. The barrel of early Luminars where made from stainless steel. Some times ago Klaus Schmitt has found one of this early luminars, possible it is in his database (http://www.macrolenses.de/ml_detail.php?lang).

Cheers

Peter K

[Dan Fromm]

Peter, thanks for the references. I'll look for them.

Klaus has what he calls a Winkel-Zeiss Luminar in stainless steel or, more likely, chrome over brass, in his database.

Not that it is relevant to anything, but my 25/3.5 Luminar is engraved Zeiss-Winkel and is in chrome over brass, not stainless. All of the other Zeiss-Winkel Luminars I've seen in mine's serial number range (218xxx) are in black enamel over brass. None of the Zeiss-Winkel Luminars I've seen have been engraved "Luminar." Before many people were aware that many Luminars are not engraved Luminar, these lenses sold for reasonable prices. No more, alas.

Cheers,

Dan

[RJ-]

Dan,

Your recommendation to me of the obscure cult classic ~ the Boyer Apo-Saphir 300mm ~ really lives up to its reputation. I find myself amazed at its rendition for macro/process and landscape work, also being the most compact 300mm lens probably ever made. Having discovered it, I've relinquished the modern Tessar equivalents altogether.


Brief summary: Apo-Sapphir 300mm f10.0 (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate/web/brief-field-report-boyer-apo-saphir-300mm-f10-paris-france)

Kind regards,

RJ


Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate/web)

[ljsegil]

Dan,
Question to you (and all, of course)--if I understood you correctly, in one of your earlier posts you mentioned that the macro lenses are already diffraction limited when wide open. Are you referring to the more conventional LF macros like the Nikkor AMs or Macro-Sironars, or to the microscope type lens designs, or all types? If that is so, it would seem like a poor trade off to stop down a macro lens to achieve depth of field, and leave one with primarily movements rather than aperture to achieve desired focus (of course, the bug always jumps when you trip the shutter anyway). Have I misunderstood your earlier statement?
Others have also commented that a conventional lens like say the Fuji A 240mm can perform very well up to 1:1 and perhaps beyond. Does a purpose built macro lens, say again the 210mm Nikkor AM or Macro-Sironar, have much of an advantage at these sorts of magnifications? Does it take higher levels of magnification for the macro lens to outperform a Tessar or Process lens?
Thanks for all your wisdom and patience,
Larry

[Dan Fromm]

Dan,

Your recommendation to me of the obscure cult classic ~ the Boyer Apo-Saphir 300mm ~ really lives up to its reputation. I find myself amazed at its rendition for macro/process and landscape work, also being the most compact 300mm lens probably ever made. Having discovered it, I've relinquished the modern Tessar equivalents altogether.


Brief summary: Apo-Sapphir 300mm f10.0 (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate/web/brief-field-report-boyer-apo-saphir-300mm-f10-paris-france)

Kind regards,

RJ


Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate/web)RJ, thanks for the kind words.

I'm astonished that you got a 300/10 Apo Saphir to cover 8x10. Boyer claimed the lens covered 48 degrees, so a 300 would cover 267 mm. And their coverage claims are usually optimistic.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

Dan,
Question to you (and all, of course)--if I understood you correctly, in one of your earlier posts you mentioned that the macro lenses are already diffraction limited when wide open. Are you referring to the more conventional LF macros like the Nikkor AMs or Macro-Sironars, or to the microscope type lens designs, or all types? If that is so, it would seem like a poor trade off to stop down a macro lens to achieve depth of field, and leave one with primarily movements rather than aperture to achieve desired focus (of course, the bug always jumps when you trip the shutter anyway). Have I misunderstood your earlier statement?
Others have also commented that a conventional lens like say the Fuji A 240mm can perform very well up to 1:1 and perhaps beyond. Does a purpose built macro lens, say again the 210mm Nikkor AM or Macro-Sironar, have much of an advantage at these sorts of magnifications? Does it take higher levels of magnification for the macro lens to outperform a Tessar or Process lens?
Thanks for all your wisdom and patience,
LarryLarry, I was referring to Luminars, Macro Nikkors, and Photars, the 100/6.3 Neupolar (not the 50/3.5), and a few others. Special purpose lenses for photomacrography made by microscope manufacturers (or microscope divisions). Most intended to be used at magnifications above 1:1.

Conventional macro lenses like Nikkor AMs or Macro-Sironars generally benefit from stopping down, but aren't used at such high magnifications.

When I was testing high performance macro lenses (Luminars and the like) I eventually got around to trying out my 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS reversed. It turns out to be diffraction limited from f/4 down at magnifications above ~ 2:1; right up there with the 63/4.5 Luminar that I need not have bought. Same goes for the 25/1.9 Cine Ektar reversed at f/2.8 from around 10:1 up; as good as the 25/3.5 Luminar that I need not have bought.

But and however, remember that because many aberrations get worse off axis it is often the case that although the central couple of mm of the field may be diffraction limited at full aperture sharpness in the outer zones can improve a bit a few stops down. As I keep saying, the only way to know for sure what a lens can do is to ask it.

Remember too that increasing magnification reduces effective aperture. So the higher the magnification is, the more important diffraction's effects are.

There are two ways of learning what can and can't be done. One is systematic experimentation. The other is reading a book and, perhaps, doing some calculations. I don't know which works better for you.

If trial and error is it, get some lenses and the appropriate target and burn some film. If books/calculations are it, buy:

Gibson, H. Lou. Close-Up Photography and Photomacrography. 1970. Publication N-16. Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY. 98+95+6 pp. The two sections were published separately as Kodak Publications N-12A and N-12B respectively. Republished in 1977 with changes and without the 6 page analytic supplement, which was published separately as Kodak Publication N-15. 1977 edition is ISBN 0-87985-206-2.

and

Lefkowitz, Lester. 1979. The Manual of Close-Up Photography. Amphoto. Garden City, NY. 272 pp. ISBN 0-8174-2456-3 (hardbound) and 0-8174-2130-0 (softbound).

Gibson's example shots should curl your hair. He's very strong on what can't be done. Lefkowitz gives the magic formulas very clearly. With them you can build a little spreadsheet and work out how bad things can get. Short answer, very, very rapidly.

About magnification and all that, at all magnifications a good f/3.5 or f/4.5 lens will be sharper wide open than a good f/9 (that's most process lenses) lens wide open. At high magnifications apertures as small as f/9 are generally useless. There's nothing wrong with triplets or tessars that are designed to work at high magnification. Peter K and I have been wrangling about whether some 100/6.3 Luminars are tessar types, but we agree that all 40/4.5, 63/4.5 and some 100/6.3 Luminars are triplets. My old 45/4.5 Mikrotar was a triplet. All are super, all are worse one stop down than wide open.

Cheers, buy the books or take some trial shots,

Dan

I hope Richard will rejoin the discussion, regret that Ted Harris isn't here to share his experiences with us.

[8x10 user]

I've use the 210mm AMED for shots that a near 1:1 on 8x10. For slightly larger or smaller ratios I have an macro Sironar N which is a convertible lens that is either optimized at 1:3 or 3:1. For objects that are slightly larger then the film format I have an Apo-Macro-Sironar which is optimized for objets about twice the size of the film format. For extreme enlargement ratios I got a short little enlargement lens that can be used in reverse. I know I have probably have more lenses then I need but I got some fantastic deals on some of them and I want to keep them all until I have a chance to do a ton of real comparison tests.

210mm does seem a little long for 4x5 to me. Of course with a longer lens you will get a more compact perspective and less distortion. Then downside is that you will need longer bellows and you made need to stop the lens down more for depth of field issues (longer focal length= shorter depth of field).

I would expect macro lenses to preform somewhat better then process lens for macro purposes. I guess it really depends on what suits your needs the best and what is in your budget. BTW what reproduction ratios are you planning on using the lens for? Are you planing on moving to larger formats in the near future?

All the best,
Ed

[ljsegil]

Thanks for everyone's input, I've certainly learned quite a bit. I do shoot 5x7 and 8x10, as well as 4x5. I don't expect (at least not currently) that I will be trying for magnifications much larger than 2:1 or perhaps 3:1, most of my work so far has been about 1:1. I have been able to experiment a bit with the Nikkor AM lenses and have the impression that they produce a little more sharpness, particularly towards the edges of the image, than the conventional lenses I have tried. I look forward to more experimentation utilizing some of the ideas I have gleaned from this discussion and will try to find some of the literature recommended.
Again, many thanks.
Larry

[john collins]

I have a Rodenstock 180 APO Macro Sironar in like new condition for $950. If you're interested, please PM me.

Thanks,
John

[Mark Sawyer]

Just a general thought that the process lenses I've used for close-up/macro work (Konica GRII, Ultragon, Cooke Series V) have all performed admirably. Considering the cost differential between official lf macro lenses and process lenses, I'm happy with the process lenses.

I've also heard of people being quite happy with enlarging lenses, sometimes reversed, for macro/close-up work.

Between the bellows extension and the small working aperture (due to limited depth of field a such distances), exposure times will be long enough that shutters might be a waste of money for most photographers.

[Scott Rosenberg]

i found that some process-type lenses will do allright (fuji a, rodenstock apo ronar) in the absence of a dedicated macro lens. however, if you're going to do be doing a lot of this type of work, a true macro lens is tough to beat.

i can attest to the 180 rodie... it's spectacular. that said, if i'm not going TOO small, my 300 Ronar does a fine job.

-scott

[Dan Fromm]

Just a general thought that the process lenses I've used for close-up/macro work (Konica GRII, Ultragon, Cooke Series V) have all performed admirably. Considering the cost differential between official lf macro lenses and process lenses, I'm happy with the process lenses.

I've also heard of people being quite happy with enlarging lenses, sometimes reversed, for macro/close-up work.

Between the bellows extension and the small working aperture (due to limited depth of field a such distances), exposure times will be long enough that shutters might be a waste of money for most photographers.Second the motion on the GRII at magnifications that aren't too high. Ages ago I got curious about how good my 210 GRII was, so I shot it against my 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS at 1:2 and ~ 10m. Short answer, at f/11, f/16, and f/22 the GRII is markedly better. And of course it has more coverage.

As for enlarging lenses, I have a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar that matches a known good 100/6.3 Luminar at f/11, f/16, and f/22 from 1:8 to 1:1 (all of those apertures are usable at those magnifications) at wide open from 1:1 to 4:1. All these shots with both lenses mounted normally. I believe that the EPR is symmetrical (or very nearly symmetrical) 6/4 plasmat type.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

...
As for enlarging lenses, I have a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar that matches a known good 100/6.3 Luminar at f/11, f/16, and f/22 from 1:8 to 1:1 (all of those apertures are usable at those magnifications) at wide open from 1:1 to 4:1. ...


Great joke Dan, good for a deep laugh!! Guess that must be a pretty crappy Luminar then...

[Bjorn Nilsson]

Dan,
...
Others have also commented that a conventional lens like say the Fuji A 240mm can perform very well up to and beyond 1:1 and perhaps beyond. Does a purpose built macro lens, say again the 210mm Nikkor AM or Macro-Sironar, have much of an advantage at these sorts of magnifications? Does it take higher levels of magnification for the macro lens to outperform a Tessar or Process lens?
Thanks for all your wisdom and patience,
Larry

The Fuji A series lenses are indeed process type lenses, which have become very popular for normal use as they are very sharp and also very compact. (I use a Fuji A240 and I love mine.) So, being a process lens, it's at its best at close distances. Still a dedicated Macro lens will probably be a tad better around 1:1, while most process type lenses are optimized for say 1:5 to 1:10 or so.

//Björn