Macro lens fudging

[dh003i]

Hi all,

I'm thinking about taking a few macro shots with my 4x5. I have a monorail with 398mm effective extension (i.e., at furthest spread position, that's the distance from the front of the front standard to the front of the rear standard). I have a 90/4.5 Nikkor-SW, and am thinking of experimenting to try using this at first for a few macro shots (outdoors for now).

Depending on the subject, I'm going to give it a shot with the 90/4.5 lens, but I can tell that focusing is going to get difficult quick.

Extension : Subject Distance : Magnification Factor : Effective Aperture (max - min)
180mm : 9.5in : 1x : f/9 - f/128
270mm : 7.1in : 2x : f/13.5 - f/216
360mm : 6.3in : 3x : f/18 - f/256

It seems like that would limit the the maximum usable magnification to 2:1 (generously).

Another thought that occurs to me is to have a custom lens-board drilled (there's a local metal company that made a copal 0 for me before, maybe I can corral them to do a custom job) and mount my Minolta Rokkor 50/1.4 MD on it. This is a 35mm lens that I currently use with my Olympus E3 via a Minolta => 4/3rds adapter. I have a spare adapter, and could have that strongly affixed to a lens board with a hole.

I've figured out that this lens covers 4x5 at a 185mm effective extension (the actual extension will be less, ~141mm because of a ~44mm flange of the lens). The lens only stops down to f/16, which is a significant downside, although at these extensions, effective aperture is already much smaller.

Extension : Subject Distance : Magnification Factor : Effective Aperture (max - min)
185mm : 3.6in : 2.7x : f/5.2 - f/59
200mm : 3.5in : 3.0x : f/5.6 - f/64
250mm : 3.3in : 4.0x : f/7.0 - f/80
300mm : 3.2in : 5.0x : f/8.4 - f/96
350mm : 3.1in : 6.0x : f/9.8 - f/112
400mm : 3.0in : 7.0x : f/11.2 - f/128

A major issue of course would be not having a shutter! However, I suspect that all exposure times would be numerous seconds long -- good enough to simply uncap the lens and recap it (or drop a darkcloth over the front when the exposure is done?). Any thoughts?

I realize that of course macro lenses will do better because they're designed for their purposes; however, it seems to me that they all have f-stops similar to what my 90/4.5 has, which would make focusing at very close distances...very difficult. Likewise with macro-substitute lenses, like the Tominar 75/4.5. Also, one reason I'm thinking of this is it'd be really cheap to try out (the last time, it cost me $25 to have a copal 0 lens board made).

The exist pupil of my 50/1.4 Rokkor is 1.75in, and the front aperture is 2.25in...I wonder if any shutters could be adapted?

Thoughts?

[dh003i]

PS: Another possibility is to use a Minolta 100mm Macro auto bellows lens. It is designed like the LF lenses, in that it has no focusing helicoid, thus needs a bellows on 35mm to get to infinity. Severe case of seller's regret here, as I just sold my former 100/4 (http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/1792861/). It stops down to f/32 too. The downside of that would be, if I mount it to a similarly bored lens board, I would need to extend the bellows to 370mm to get full coverage on 4x5. Another downside is it is only f/4 instead of f/1.4. But it is a macro lens, and would presumably perform better.

For a Minolta 100/4 auto bellows lens mounted on a lens board, it to cover 4x5:

Extension : Subject Distance : Magnification Factor : Effective Aperture (max - min)
370mm : 7.2in : 2.7x : f/14.8 - f/118
400mm : 7.0in : 3.0x : f/16 - f/128

It might be able to cover a little bit more at lesser magnifications, if it has any excess coverage over 44mm on 35mm cameras (although it sells with tilt/shift bellows racks sometimes, that doesn't necessarily mean it as any excess image circle).

Of course, I could always use it at less than full coverage and just use whatever of the 4x5 is covered.

I wonder how sharp this lens would be on 4x5 at these magnification ratios?

[ic-racer]

An enlarging lens will likely work a little better than the 35mm camera lens and will be easier to fit into a shutter.

In fact KEH has a 60mm Componon in a shutter already for $160.

[dh003i]

An enlarging lens will likely work a little better than the 35mm camera lens and will be easier to fit into a shutter.

In fact KEH has a 60mm Componon in a shutter already for $160.

Even starting at those magnification ratios? 35mm lenses are generally sharper than LF lenses, right? And there are a few macro 35mm lenses that could be used (100/4 Minolta auto bellows, Olympus OM 80/4, Olympus OM 90/2, or even 50/3.5.

The disadvantage of those -- and the componon you mention, which is f/5.6 -- is simply the difficulty of focusing at large magnification ratios. (this doesn't apply to he Oly OM 90/2 so much). This is why I'm thinking about trying to use the 50/1.4 (maybe even reverse mounted? I think it'd then effectively only be 50/2, because of the diameter of the rear aperture), because focusing would be easier.

I get that macro lenses will do better than non-macro lenses used in the macro-range (and to a lesser extent reverse-mounted non-macro lenses used in the macro range) among lenses designed for the same format. But we're comparing 35mm lenses and 4x5 lenses here, and 35mm lenses deliver significantly better resolution to begin with, right?

[Dan Fromm]

Using a 50/1.4 lens for a 35 mm camera as a macro lens is stupid unless the magnification is enormous and the lens is reversed. Even then its not a good idea. This because 50/1.4 lenses for 35 mm cameras aren't that good.

Macro lenses made for 35 mm cameras are another story. I occasionally use a reversed 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS on 2x3. Superb lens. Reversing it, getting timed exposures, and using it with flash are easy. I paid SKGrimes to make a ring threaded M52x0.75 (fits the Nikkor's filter thread) on one side and M40x0.75 (fits the front of a #1 shutter) on the other. No need to screw around with hats ... This lens is best at f/4, gets worse as it is stopped down beyond f/4.

I gather that you're concerned about focusing with a small effective aperture. Try it before you give up on it.

If you're going to shoot above 1:1 you should reverse the lens you use unless it is a very nearly (or, sometimes, exactly) symmetrical process lens. In general, reversing a lens designed for working at normal distances when using it above 1:1 preserves its corrections. Using it above 1:1 facing normally just throws them away.

Before you do anything really stupid or expensive, buy a book. Lester Lefkowitz' The Manual of Closeup Photography. And read it. Available from sellers who can be found through any number of services, including but not limited to abebooks.com, alibris.com, and amazon.com.

The idea that lenses made for LF are inherently worse than lenses made for smaller formats has to be stamped out. Don't tell me that it stands to reason, test. Focal length for focal length, there's not much difference. But, other things equal, a short lens can be better than a long one.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

[dh003i]

Using a 50/1.4 lens for a 35 mm camera as a macro lens is stupid unless the magnification is enormous and the lens is reversed. Even then its not a good idea. This because 50/1.4 lenses for 35 mm cameras aren't that good.

Macro lenses made for 35 mm cameras are another story. I occasionally use a reversed 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS on 2x3. Superb lens. Reversing it, getting timed exposures, and using it with flash are easy. I paid SKGrimes to make a ring threaded M52x0.75 (fits the Nikkor's filter thread) on one side and M40x0.75 (fits the front of a #1 shutter) on the other. No need to screw around with hats ... This lens is best at f/4, gets worse as it is stopped down beyond f/4.

I gather that you're concerned about focusing with a small effective aperture. Try it before you give up on it.

If you're going to shoot above 1:1 you should reverse the lens you use unless it is a very nearly (or, sometimes, exactly) symmetrical process lens. In general, reversing a lens designed for working at normal distances when using it above 1:1 preserves its corrections. Using it above 1:1 facing normally just throws them away.

Before you do anything really stupid or expensive, buy a book. Lester Lefkowitz' The Manual of Closeup Photography. And read it. Available from sellers who can be found through any number of services, including but not limited to abebooks.com, alibris.com, and amazon.com.

The idea that lenses made for LF are inherently worse than lenses made for smaller formats has to be stamped out. Don't tell me that it stands to reason, test. Focal length for focal length, there's not much difference. But, other things equal, a short lens can be better than a long one.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

I just ordered a copy of the book. A few questions for you. You're using a MicroNikkor reversed. That's not a bellows lens, so I presume that it effectively gives you "more extension" than would be indicated by the separation of the bellows, right? Also, when reversing the lens, does the effective f-stop decrease due to the smaller rear aperture? (and how do you compensate for this when doing exposure calculations?).

Thanks.

[Tom Monego]

When I did a long series of macro with my 4x5, I started experimenting with a 90 f8 SA, this lens was (still is) great at infinity but wasn't with bellows extension, just mushy. I bought a 120 f5.6 Apo-Nikor Macro in shutter for the work and never looked back, a great lens at macro and so-so at infinity. An enlarging lens or a 35 mm bellows lenses sound like a less expensive idea. I had a contract I had to do so when my first thought didn't work I decided to get the right tool, I needed 1:1 - 3:1 magnification. I could just barely get the latter on my Calumet/Cambo. If you don't mind spending the $ the 120 Nikor is terrific.
I did try to go with higher mag with some Canon bellows lenses a 20mm and a 35mm, ran into the problem that I didn't have a stand the could hold the camera steady enough for the very high mag 10:1 - 20:1.

Tom

[ic-racer]

Even starting at those magnification ratios?

Without getting into any complicated math, I just imagine the distances between the negative and lens and paper when enlarging. If a macro setup uses similar distances, the enlarging lense will be just as good or identical to a macro lens (assuming its a good enlarging lens to begin with). If you need to reverse the lens or not depends on your setup. Just put the front of the lens toward the long distance.

The main advangage of the enlarging lens is if you have them laying there is nothing additional to buy to try it out.. If you have to buy a new lens, then thats another story.

[Dan Fromm]

I just ordered a copy of the book. A few questions for you. You're using a MicroNikkor reversed. That's not a bellows lens, so I presume that it effectively gives you "more extension" than would be indicated by the separation of the bellows, right? Also, when reversing the lens, does the effective f-stop decrease due to the smaller rear aperture? (and how do you compensate for this when doing exposure calculations?).

Thanks.Yep, front-mounting adds the shutter's thickness, the adapter adds a couple of mm, and then there's the lens' integral hood and the front cell.

MicroNikkors are sort of symmetrical (being sort of symmetrical is much easier than being sort of pregnant) and their nodes are close to the diaphragm. So to find extension, measure from the diaphragm to the film plane.

Effective aperture = aperture set * (1 + m) where m is magnification, ignoring the correction for pupillary magnification. M = (extension/focal length) - 1. All this is true regardless of the lens' orientation. But note that the pupillary magnification correction depends on orientation. Its all in Lefkowitz.

How do I compensate? Mental arithmetic aided by a tape measure. This also works for flash when I don't use my wonder-working miraculous close-up flash rig what gives the right exposure for a fixed aperture (set) from roughly 1:4 to 2:1 and when I don't use a less miraculous precalibrated flash rig.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

IC, I don't completely agree with you about enlarging lenses as taking lenses for closeup (magnification up to 1:1) and macro (above 1:1).

Some are very very good. I just love my 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar, and by test it is about as good in the range 1:8 - 4:1 as a known good 100/6.3 Luminar. It is very nearly symmetrical -- the two cells' focal lengths are very close -- and doesn't need to be reversed above 1:1.

Others are not so good, e.g., the 80/5.6 Minolta I used to have.

That said, if one has an enlarging lens ready to hand and doesn't own a macro lens, by all means the enlarging lens should be tried out. If it yields good enough results, wonderful. If not, time to go shopping.

[dh003i]

The Micro Nikkor f/2.8 55mm's seem to be in abundant supply on eBay, often selling for around $100-$150 (a few even for ~$90 after shipping). So I suppose I should give serious consideration to these lenses?

How much did it cost to get the adapter for the shutters made? I wonder if it can be adapted to a polaroid shutter like this one (http://cgi.ebay.com/Polaroid-MP-4-MP4-shutter-lens-cable-release-Tominon-/190400710384?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item2c54c446f0) (that comes with a lens).

[Dan Fromm]

The Micro Nikkor f/2.8 55mm's seem to be in abundant supply on eBay, often selling for around $100-$150 (a few even for ~$90 after shipping). So I suppose I should give serious consideration to these lenses?

How much did it cost to get the adapter for the shutters made? I wonder if it can be adapted to a polaroid shutter like this one (http://cgi.ebay.com/Polaroid-MP-4-MP4-shutter-lens-cable-release-Tominon-/190400710384?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item2c54c446f0) (that comes with a lens).Um, er, ah, I think you should take a cold shower.

If you have anything ready to hand that you can use for dry shooting at the magnifications you'd like to work at, try doing that. This because working much above 1:1 is painful. Certainly possible, but not easy and not always worth the trouble. So its better to find out whether investing in doing it is worth the cost before spending much money.

Now, about 55/2.8 MicroNikkors. They're outstanding. If you want to work at the magnifications possible with one on 4x5 (basically, 4:1 and up) and can get the extension needed one would do very well at a much lower cost than, say, a 63/4.5 Luminar. But you really need a good reason to shoot at 4:1 or higher.

Funny you should mention the MP-4 Copal Press #1 shutter. They're made for front-mounting and aren't good for anything else so are usually not very expensive. I have a couple of 'em. The only thing wrong with them is the slow fastest speed, 1/125. I'm more comfortable shooting closeup flash with a cock-and-shoot #1, top speed 1/400. With ISO 100 film its easier to overpower ambient and shoot at a not-too-small aperture at 1/400th.

The 135 Tominon in the one you gave an URL for is not a very good lens. The 50/4.5 Tominons are quite respectable. Not up to my MicroNikkor or Luminar but very cost effective. The 35/4.5 Tominon is even better. But remember, neither will cover 4x5 at low magnification.

Cost of the reversed MicroNikkor-to-#1 adapter I mentioned? I honestly don't remember. Probably have the invoice filed "in a safe place." IIRC, less than $60.

Hint: coupla years ago I found a 105/4.5 Comparon in Copal Press #0. Its ok, will cover 4x5 at 1:1, wasn't very expensive. Has to be reversed above 1:1, but since it will go in a #0 front and rear cells are threaded the same.

For many of us the better is the enemy of the good. For me, the good enough is often the enemy of the better.

[dh003i]

Um, er, ah, I think you should take a cold shower.

If you have anything ready to hand that you can use for dry shooting at the magnifications you'd like to work at, try doing that. This because working much above 1:1 is painful. Certainly possible, but not easy and not always worth the trouble. So its better to find out whether investing in doing it is worth the cost before spending much money.

Well, the only thing I have on hand that can get macro is my 90/4.5 and 135/3.5 Xenotar. Neither are symmetrical, I think, so both would need to be reversed. Is reversing the lens as simple as unscrewing the front and rear standards from the shutter and switching them?

The only other thing I have on hand (aside from Olympus 4/3rds lenses, which would need incredible extension to cover 4x5) is the Minolta Rokkor 50/1.4. The Rokkor Files website (http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s2.htm) actually says it is an excellent piece of optics, so maybe your judgement of all f/1.4's as being poor was a little quick? (I actually had a Minolta Rokkor-PG MC 58/1.2, a pretty renowned portrait lens, which I sold to keep the f/1.4...sharper, lighter, and also great bokeh).

So those are my only options for experimenting on-hand. Experimenting with the Rokkor 50/1.4 would require getting a board custom-made so I could reverse mount it (although the benefit of this would presumably be that then I would reverse mount a lot of different 35mm lenses to it, or a lot of different Minolta lenses to it, depending on what I use).


Now, about 55/2.8 MicroNikkors. They're outstanding. If you want to work at the magnifications possible with one on 4x5 (basically, 4:1 and up) and can get the extension needed one would do very well at a much lower cost than, say, a 63/4.5 Luminar. But you really need a good reason to shoot at 4:1 or higher.

Sure, getting 1" subjects to occupy most of the frame? Some of my macro work: flowers (http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/1560876/), dandylion things (http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/1747790/), a leaf in the foreground (http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/1691487/) occupying half of the frame with a minifalls behind it, more flowers (http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/1680816/). Except for the dandylion things, these are all probably well below 1:1 on my 4/3rds E3 sensor (~18mm diagonal); however, I think all of the flowers and the leaf shots would be ~1:1 on 4x5, and the dandylion thing was maybe half an inch long? (whatever the radius of a dandylion puff head is?) -- so that'd be approaching 8:1 on 4x5?

But first I'll have to try the more conventional flower shot, I guess by the simplest way -- reversing one of my lenses -- if that is just as easy as unscrewing and flipping the front and rear elements.

[Pete Watkins]

Tominons in Copal Polaroid shutters are cheap and nice when they turn up.
Pete.

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. Your camera has nearly 400 mm extension. You want to go to 1:1 on 4x5. You want decent image quality.

Prescription: 135 mm - 150 mm process or enlarging lens. One possibility is a 150/5.6 Comparon. Needs 300 mm extension to get to 1:1, isn't too bad a lens. Fits in #0.

You want to fill the 4x5 frame with a dandelion in seed. This is a recipe for fuzz. Or, if you prefer the word blur, blur. Cold shower time.

Prescription: 50/4.5 Tominon or, perhaps, 35/4.5 Tominon. Understand that working distance will be fairly short, but you'll need at least 4:1 and haven't got that much extension available.

You want to shoot now.

Prescription, cold shower and wait for your copy of Lefkowitz to arrive.

[dh003i]

Hmm. Your camera has nearly 400 mm extension. You want to go to 1:1 on 4x5. You want decent image quality.

Prescription: 135 mm - 150 mm process or enlarging lens. One possibility is a 150/5.6 Comparon. Needs 300 mm extension to get to 1:1, isn't too bad a lens. Fits in #0.

You want to fill the 4x5 frame with a dandelion in seed. This is a recipe for fuzz. Or, if you prefer the word blur, blur. Cold shower time.

Prescription: 50/4.5 Tominon or, perhaps, 35/4.5 Tominon. Understand that working distance will be fairly short, but you'll need at least 4:1 and haven't got that much extension available.

You want to shoot now.

Prescription, cold shower and wait for your copy of Lefkowitz to arrive.

LOL, well you did suggest to use what I had on hand first (which admittedly is...umm, one lens that can be reversed?).

PS: Yea, dandelion seed was the word I was looking for. That sounds a lot better than "dandelion thing".

[dh003i]

I just got the book today, it seems like a great book. Thanks for the recommendation.

[dh003i]

I was looking more into the book -- phenomenal book! It exceeds my expectations, and has very little "fluff". Perhaps even better in its realm than "The Camera".

[dh003i]

I just got the Micro-Nikkor55/2.8 yesterday. This lens is incredible. $84 including shipping. An incredible buy (although I read there can be issues with aperture blades & oil these lenses can have). It is what 20 year old? I'm not sure, but it could out-resolve the Olympus Zuiko Digital 50/2, which is reputed to be one of the sharpest lenses ever. Makes me think about selling it, in fact. I'll have to do some systematic comparisons.

Some shots:
Mailbox (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6619242/_6103864.JPG) -- I love the detail here
Leaf (shallow depth of field) (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6619242/_6103821.JPG)
Leaf (very shallow depth of field) (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6619242/_6103826.JPG) -- err, I mean, "good bokeh".

For comparison, a shot taken with my Minolta Rokkor MD 50/1.4 (on a bellows, not reverse mounted). I think it did respectably. I don't remember what he f/stop was.

My Olympus ZD Lens up close (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6619242/_5313684.JPG)

Gotta get a reverse mounting ring for the 50/1.4 so I can do a more systematic comparison of that too.

Thanks for the lens recommendation!

I can't wait to get this setup on a 4x5 board. I bought a reversing adapter for it to mount to Four-Thirds bodies, like my Oly E3. I'd to have it so that I can snap it into the Oly adapter reverse mounted. Is there a way to do this and still have the shutter?

[David Aimone]

I have an extra Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5

Being new at this, what is the process for using this type of lens with my 4x5 (shutter, mounting, etc.)?

Thanks!

[Dan Fromm]

Have the adapter I mentioned above (male M52x0.75 at one end, to fit the lens' filter threads; male M40x.0.75 at the other, to screw into the front of a #1 shutter); procure a #1 shutter; put shutter on board; attach lens to adapter, focus lens to infinity; screw lens + adapter into shutter; attach to camera; focus, compose, determine exposure, shoot.

Buy the damned book!

[dh003i]

Dan,

I wonder if there would be any way to modify that chain so that you could screw-click in the lens, like when you screw it onto a camera body? This would be great for field use, to switch using the lens on 4x5 vs. DSLR.

[dh003i]

a very sloppy comparison on my Oly E3, because I just did it now, could be focusing error, different magnification ratio. But its pretty clear that the Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 is approximately in the same ballpark as the Olympus 50/2 ZD on the 4/3rds sensor. Very impressive!

Olympus Zuiko Digital 50/2 @ f/5.6
41763

Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 @ f/4.0
41764

[Dan Fromm]

Dan,

I wonder if there would be any way to modify that chain so that you could screw-click in the lens, like when you screw it onto a camera body? This would be great for field use, to switch using the lens on 4x5 vs. DSLR.Um, you want to reverse the lens. The front is threaded to accept a filter, the rear has a Nikon F male bayonet.

I'm on vacation, can't look at my inventory to find the Nikon number for it, but they did, if I'm not mistaken, make an adapter that's male F mount at one end and male M52x.75 at the other. I even think I have one, but again could be mistaken.

If you got one, you could cobble up a female F-mount to male M40x0.75 adapter.

But that's not what you want. You want an E-2 ring (opens lens when cable release attached to it is pressed) or a BR-4 ring (stops lens when cable release attached to it is pressed) for ease in focusing.

What you want to do is inherently slow working. No need to spend money to gain a few seconds. And if I haven't been clear, at the magnifications you want to work at f/4. Smaller will give worse results.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

[dh003i]

Um, you want to reverse the lens. The front is threaded to accept a filter, the rear has a Nikon F male bayonet.

Yea, I have a reversing adapter to clicks into Olympus Four-Thirds female mounts. The reason I want to do it that way is so I can use multiple lenses on the same lens-board and also switch between using it with my Oly E-3 and 4x5.


I'm on vacation, can't look at my inventory to find the Nikon number for it, but they did, if I'm not mistaken, make an adapter that's male F mount at one end and male M52x.75 at the other. I even think I have one, but again could be mistaken.

If you got one, you could cobble up a female F-mount to male M40x0.75 adapter.

But that's not what you want. You want an E-2 ring (opens lens when cable release attached to it is pressed) or a BR-4 ring (stops lens when cable release attached to it is pressed) for ease in focusing.

Thanks, I'll look for the E-2 and BR-4 rings.


What you want to do is inherently slow working. No need to spend money to gain a few seconds. And if I haven't been clear, at the magnifications you want to work at f/4. Smaller will give worse results.

Thanks for the note that f/4 is the best f-stop (although wouldn't it effectively be far less than that?), but wouldn't the same sqrt(375D) rule of thumb (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html) produce the best tradeoff between defocus & diffraction for macro work as it does for landscape work? i.e., focus to last point you want in focus, then to the first point, measure the difference in mm (D), and use that focus-spread to determine effective f-stop? (although of course I realize if you're stopping down too much, you lose the advantage of shooting with 4x5 other than tonality & grain, so maybe your point is, why shoot 4x5 macro if there's hardly any sharpness advantage over DSLRs, given the f-stop you use?)


Good luck, have fun,

Dan

Thanks :-)

[Dan Fromm]

You're right, it is f/4 set, not f/4 effective.

At the magnifications needed for the lens to cover 4x5, depth of field is nil. There is no focus spread. In these conditions, stopping down will reduce DoF, not increase it, because of diffraction.

When your copy of Lefkowitz arrives, read it.

[dh003i]

You're right, it is f/4 set, not f/4 effective.

At the magnifications needed for the lens to cover 4x5, depth of field is nil. There is no focus spread. In these conditions, stopping down will reduce DoF, not increase it, because of diffraction.

When your copy of Lefkowitz arrives, read it.

I'm reading through it now. The way you explained it, now I think I understand. I don't think you're right to say "will reduce DoF"; more to say "will really degrade image quality". DoF is defined as similar sharpness as the plane of focus, right? So the issue would be, the f-stops needed to get something 3D in similar focus through its depth would incredible amounts of diffraction.

(So basically, the issue is that at these high magnifications, you just can't have something 3D sharp throughout, so your subjects either need to be planar, or you need to accept having most of them out of focus, or you need to use the scanning light photography (http://www.public.asu.edu/~kazilek/pages/slp.htm\) technique, which I'm investigating now).

[Dan Fromm]

Buy a copy of Kodak Publication N-16 Closeup Photography and Photomacrography by H. Lou Gibson. N-16 is Kodak Publications N-12a and N-12b bound together, N-12b is the photomacrography section. In the photomacrography section Gibson has sample shots that show DoF decreasing on stopping down. What's going on is that on stopping down eventually the diffraction blur circle gets larger than the circle of confusion used in calculating DoF. At highish magnifications eventually means "right now."

A lot of Gibson is about what can't be done. It is the most frightening photographic technique book I've ever read.

[dh003i]

Buy a copy of Kodak Publication N-16 Closeup Photography and Photomacrography by H. Lou Gibson. N-16 is Kodak Publications N-12a and N-12b bound together, N-12b is the photomacrography section. In the photomacrography section Gibson has sample shots that show DoF decreasing on stopping down. What's going on is that on stopping down eventually the diffraction blur circle gets larger than the circle of confusion used in calculating DoF. At highish magnifications eventually means "right now."

A lot of Gibson is about what can't be done. It is the most frightening photographic technique book I've ever read.

Yea, physics sucks, that's why I'm interested in SLP. Thanks for the suggestion of the Gibson publication.

[dh003i]

Dan,

I'm also getting the Tokina AT-X 90/2.5 for Canon FD mount, do you know if there is a similar ring to the E-2 or BR-4 ring for Canon FD lenses reverse mounted?

PS: Just bought the Kodak Pub N-16. I live on Rochester, NY, so have access to the George Eastman House library, which has that pub, but it isn't circulating, so I want a copy to read at home.

[Dan Fromm]

I'm not acquainted with the Canon FD system. When I bought into Nikon, Canon seemed an also-ran.

[rdenney]

I'm not acquainted with the Canon FD system. When I bought into Nikon, Canon seemed an also-ran.

Ooh. I remember that...snootiness...from the days when I used an "also-ran" F-1. I still get it from my wife--until she has to hand me her D300 to get me to press the right buttons. I've never had to hand her my 5D. All is right with the world.

The cure for those feelings of inferiority in those days was to switch to medium format and then look down my nose at all 35mm users. Then, I had to endure snootiness from Hasselblad owners, but since I didn't know any of those at the time, it was no big deal.

Once I got old enough to afford whatever I wanted, I also passed the point where I cared what others thought. I then bought Ukrainian crap just to annoy the Hasselblad elite, heh.

(I do, however, adapt a couple of remarkable old Nikkors to my Canon, including a 105/2.5 and a 180/2.8, both of which really are classics.)

Back to point: My favorite macro lens down to 1:1 is the Tamron SP 90/2.5, which is an Adaptall lens that can be adapted to either the Canon FD mount or to the Nikon F mount (whatever that is). I adapt mine to the Canon EF mount and it works perfectly. An oldie but a goodie. Probably would have to reverse it for much larger magnifications, and to use it on large format, but with a 49mm thread that's no big deal.

But much greater magnification than 1:1? That moves into a whole other category of fiddliness.

Rick "who starting twisting the tails of Nikon snobs in 1972 with the purchase of an F-1" Denney

[Dan Fromm]

Rick, in 1970 when I bought into Nikon the F-1 hadn't been introduced. The FTb was tinnier than my humble Nikkormat FTn and the Canon lenses I handled then seemed more lightly made, with less attention to excluding dust, than comparable Nikon lenses. Fine optics, I'm sure, but the mechanics didn't seem up to Nikkors'.

Where I lived at the time -- the US Army in Germany -- all models of Nikon and Canon were uncommon; the GI's 35 mm SLR of choice was the Spotmatic.

Snob? Me? Damn right! That's why I use 2x3 Graphics.

Snobs? I caught a lot of hell from one of the violinists in the quartet I then played in for getting anything Japonese instead of a Leica. He insisted that if I truly needed an SLR I should have got a Leicaflex, could have made do with a Visoflex on a Leica RF. Ignorant bigot!

Getting back on topic, I doubt that any 50-60 mm or 90-105 mm macro lens from a major maker (OEM and aftermarket alike) is less than very good. But for 4x5 none has the coverage needed below around 3:1. If one wants coverage at lower magnifications, a macro lens designed to cover is needed. I've had a dog (previous owners' abuse, I think, not initial quality) of a 100/6.3 Luminar, still have a wonderful 100/6.3 Neupolar. Real macro lenses for 4x5 but not as useful as longer more modern macro lenses from, e.g., Nikon and Rodenstock.

Cheers,

Dan

[Rick A]

Hi all,

I'm thinking about taking a few macro shots with my 4x5. I have a monorail with 398mm effective extension (i.e., at furthest spread position, that's the distance from the front of the front standard to the front of the rear standard). I have a 90/4.5 Nikkor-SW, and am thinking of experimenting to try using this at first for a few macro shots (outdoors for now).

Depending on the subject, I'm going to give it a shot with the 90/4.5 lens, but I can tell that focusing is going to get difficult quick.

Extension : Subject Distance : Magnification Factor : Effective Aperture (max - min)
180mm : 9.5in : 1x : f/9 - f/128
270mm : 7.1in : 2x : f/13.5 - f/216
360mm : 6.3in : 3x : f/18 - f/256

It seems like that would limit the the maximum usable magnification to 2:1 (generously).

Another thought that occurs to me is to have a custom lens-board drilled (there's a local metal company that made a copal 0 for me before, maybe I can corral them to do a custom job) and mount my Minolta Rokkor 50/1.4 MD on it. This is a 35mm lens that I currently use with my Olympus E3 via a Minolta => 4/3rds adapter. I have a spare adapter, and could have that strongly affixed to a lens board with a hole.

I've figured out that this lens covers 4x5 at a 185mm effective extension (the actual extension will be less, ~141mm because of a ~44mm flange of the lens). The lens only stops down to f/16, which is a significant downside, although at these extensions, effective aperture is already much smaller.

Extension : Subject Distance : Magnification Factor : Effective Aperture (max - min)
185mm : 3.6in : 2.7x : f/5.2 - f/59
200mm : 3.5in : 3.0x : f/5.6 - f/64
250mm : 3.3in : 4.0x : f/7.0 - f/80
300mm : 3.2in : 5.0x : f/8.4 - f/96
350mm : 3.1in : 6.0x : f/9.8 - f/112
400mm : 3.0in : 7.0x : f/11.2 - f/128

A major issue of course would be not having a shutter! However, I suspect that all exposure times would be numerous seconds long -- good enough to simply uncap the lens and recap it (or drop a darkcloth over the front when the exposure is done?). Any thoughts?

I realize that of course macro lenses will do better because they're designed for their purposes; however, it seems to me that they all have f-stops similar to what my 90/4.5 has, which would make focusing at very close distances...very difficult. Likewise with macro-substitute lenses, like the Tominar 75/4.5. Also, one reason I'm thinking of this is it'd be really cheap to try out (the last time, it cost me $25 to have a copal 0 lens board made).

The exist pupil of my 50/1.4 Rokkor is 1.75in, and the front aperture is 2.25in...I wonder if any shutters could be adapted?

Thoughts?


I recommend you obtain a copy of "The Manual of Close-Up Photography" by Lester Lefkowitz. It will supply you with all the ins and outs of macro, micro and close up work including a copious amount of charts and listings of pertinent info. He also covers how to set up and even make all the accessories you might need.

[rdenney]

Rick, in 1970 when I bought into Nikon the F-1 hadn't been introduced.

That's your own fault for being so old.:)

In Germany, you could have really annoyed your violinist friend and gone over to East Berlin and bought a Praktica. That would have even annoyed your Spotmatic friends, especially if you start accusing Pentax of "stealing" the M42 lens mount from Pentacon. Much potential for enjoyment.

Rick "figuring he's twisted Dan's tail just about far enough" Denney

[Dan Fromm]

Rick, I did twist the fiddler's tail a little. Mumbled things about the Regula Reflex 2000. East German crap would not have done at all, too flaky, as were Spotmatics. I know that the whole world just adores Spotmatics but I found stop-down metering uncomfortable and recall vividly an excursion to Rome during which most of the Spotmatics present jammed.

What pushed me towards Nikon was my little brother. He was and still is a Nikonist, suggested that after I came home we could have an equipment pool. I don't regret going Nikon, am not sorry I didn't go Topcon or Konica or any of the other mount systems that have vanished. In this respect LF has it all over 35 mm. Few dedicated mounts systems.

rainphot, please read the thread from the top. The OP's already been told to buy a copy of Lefkowitz and says he's done so.

[dh003i]

I found a Canon FD aperture ring!

Canon FD Macro Auto Ring (cable release stop down)
(just bought it on eBay (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370400654919&_trksid=p2759.l1259)).

[dh003i]

Um, you want to reverse the lens. The front is threaded to accept a filter, the rear has a Nikon F male bayonet.

I'm on vacation, can't look at my inventory to find the Nikon number for it, but they did, if I'm not mistaken, make an adapter that's male F mount at one end and male M52x.75 at the other. I even think I have one, but again could be mistaken.

If you got one, you could cobble up a female F-mount to male M40x0.75 adapter.

But that's not what you want. You want an E-2 ring (opens lens when cable release attached to it is pressed) or a BR-4 ring (stops lens when cable release attached to it is pressed) for ease in focusing.

What you want to do is inherently slow working. No need to spend money to gain a few seconds. And if I haven't been clear, at the magnifications you want to work at f/4. Smaller will give worse results.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

I just got the Nikon E-2 ring in the mail today. I didn't realize that you couldn't screw in your own cable release for it, so as it is, it is almost useless. I'd have to hold in the built-in cable release button while focusing (so much for keeping things steady). I'm gonna try taping a shutter release cable to be perpendicular to the button, so maybe I can use the shutter cable locking mechanism to work with. If not, I'll have to sell it and get a BR-4, for which you can screw in a cable release.

[Dan Fromm]

The E-2 takes the Leica/Nikon style cable release adapter. Has female threads at the front to screw over the shutter release, female threads at the rear to accept a cable release.

For what you want to do, the E-2 may be a better proposition than the BR-4. To use the BR-4, you'll need a dual cable release; one to stop the lens down, the other to fire the shutter.

[dh003i]

The E-2 takes the Leica/Nikon style cable release adapter. Has female threads at the front to screw over the shutter release, female threads at the rear to accept a cable release.

For what you want to do, the E-2 may be a better proposition than the BR-4. To use the BR-4, you'll need a dual cable release; one to stop the lens down, the other to fire the shutter.

Thanks a lot! Just purchased a pair of adapters. :-)