Do I need macro lens for 3:1 or similar ratio?

[Dan Fromm]

The 210 Rodenstock Macro was designed with swapping in mind. Others were/are not.

Other lenses can be reversed, but your mileage may vary as they say.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it has been pointed out in other threads that if a typical lens is corrected for 1:20, then in reversed configuration it would be corrected for 20x magnification - which we're unlikely to use. Newer macro designs are corrected for 1:1 and don't need to be reversed. Some process lenses are symmetrical to begin with, and may not benefit at all from reversal.

Ken, did you mean 120 Apo-Macro-Symmar? I'm not sure there's a 210.

Absolutely by god perfectly symmetrical lenses are, by design, optimized for 1:1. The class includes some process dialytes and some process heliar types, possibly others. These lenses can be used in the same orientation (front facing the subject) at all magnifications.

Optimization for 1:1 doesn't imply symmetry. There are process tessar types optimized for 1:1. These lenses aren't symmetrical, should be used facing normally below 1:1, reversed above.

[Bernice Loui]

See Reply with *

Bernice

This has been a great thread to find. In May the wildflowers start blooming. There are several small varieties, less than 1", that I've never gotten photos that I was happy with. I have been using Nikon DSLR with a 55mm AIS Micro. One of the reasons I decided to try LF was to see if I could get better photos of these flowers.

*Making images of wildflowers or other items of 1" or smaller out doors is a serious challenge in many ways. Any slight movement in the wild flower from a tiny breeze will result in movement during exposure resulting a blur. This is one of the major challenges of doing this kind of work out outdoors.

*There is also the challenge of lighting small subjects like this.

*Might try making a portable wind block tent with diffuser material to assist in lighting and blocking any breeze or wind from moving the item being imaged.


Here's my list at present:

Diffraction: I know that at a certain f-stop diffraction becomes a factor in loss of sharpness. Is this magnified as the bellows are extended for macro shots? If so is there a way to calculate it?

*Diffraction occurs at every aperture, it becomes significant when the limits of diffraction approaches the limits of the imaging media along with the performance of the lens used. Example, if the lens is capable of resolving about 70 LPM at f22 and the film or digital imager use is capable of 200 LPM, the overall LPM of the system will not exceed 70 LPM but slightly lower than 70 LPM.

*There is a trade-off between DOF -vs- diffraction limits and imager performance. Know that this problem increases with increasing size of the imager be it film or digital. This is where smaller formats or imagers do better than larger ones. The ideal format size or digital imager used depends on the magnifications involved, the greater the magnification the greater the problems.

*As a rule of thumb, f45 would be the smallest aperature I'm willing to use and it is very un-common for me to go past f32 as once past f22 resolution drops off below 70 LPM for the lens. At 10X magnification this results in 7 LPM in the print at the very best under absolute ideal conditions. Typically it is difficult a achieve greater than this in LF image making.

*Know there is only one plane that is truly in focus and the rest is apparently in focus or appears to be in focus.

When you talk about using enlarging lens, how do you go about attaching one to a shutter? At least I assume you have to use a shutter somewhere in the mix. I have a couple of old enlarger lens I could experiment with.

*Possible to get a single shutter and have a set of adapter rings made to allow various barrel optics to be used with that shutter.

I have 400 mm of bellows available to work with. Generally, will I be able to get a higher magnification with a wide angle, normal, or longer lens with this amount of bellows? At similar magnification which will tend towards better sharpness? Which will have more depth of field?

*This depends on the lenses available to use. Experimenting with them and getting to know the personality of each lens under various conditions is key to this. DOF is pretty much fixed based on format size and focal length -vs- f-stop.


Does magnification in these ranges affect color? Does it affect contrast?

*Yes, again, it is highly lens dependent.

I thought (wished) that I would have had time to answer these questions my self through experimentation, but life happens. And spring will be here sooner than I am ready for.
Thanks
Bryan

[Kodachrome25]

Semi-old thread revival:

I have a few projects in the works that will be in controlled environments, so I have just picked up a clean Nikkor AM 120mm 5.6 ED Macro to pair with either my 135mm 5.6 Apo Sironar S or 180mm 5.6 Apo Symmar S in doing these close up projects. Am I correct in figuring that my non-macros will be good down to 1:4 and then my 120 Macro will be good from 1:3 to 1:1 and possibly 2:1 in a pinch?

I used my 180 Apo Symmar at around F22 at 1:2 awhile back and it was only ok...and it is a super sharp lens otherwise, hence my wanting something better for that range in getting the AM 120 ED. I remember in another thread that Bob from HP Marketing said that the 135 Apo Sironar S was best suited to 1:10 in order to work well in a range of 1:5 to infinity, hence the questions...

What's the range of opinions on this?

[Bob Salomon]

Semi-old thread revival:

I have a few projects in the works that will be in controlled environments, so I have just picked up a clean Nikkor AM 120mm 5.6 ED Macro to pair with either my 135mm 5.6 Apo Sironar S or 180mm 5.6 Apo Symmar S in doing these close up projects. Am I correct in figuring that my non-macros will be good down to 1:4 and then my 120 Macro will be good from 1:3 to 1:1 and possibly 2:1 in a pinch?

I used my 180 Apo Symmar at around F22 at 1:2 awhile back and it was only ok...and it is a super sharp lens otherwise, hence my wanting something better for that range in getting the AM 120 ED. I remember in another thread that Bob from HP Marketing said that the 135 Apo Sironar S was best suited to 1:10 in order to work well in a range of 1:5 to infinity, hence the questions...

What's the range of opinions on this?

The Apo Sironar S is optimized at 1:10 so it will be fine down to 1:5. If I remember correctly the Apo Symmar is corrected to 1:20 so it will be fine down to 1:10.

[AtlantaTerry]

I do much what you do, often have difficulties with wind.

Then consider a 4x5 RB Auto Graflex. For those who don't know what that is, think about a
Mamiya RB-67 but blown up to a 4x5 size camera. Some had a bellows with extra-length extension.

[Dan Fromm]

Then consider a 4x5 RB Auto Graflex. For those who don't know what that is, think about a
Mamiya RB-67 but blown up to a 4x5 size camera. Some had a bellows with extra-length extension.

Terry, what does the camera I use have to do with subject movement caused by wind?

[Kodachrome25]

The Apo Sironar S is optimized at 1:10 so it will be fine down to 1:5. If I remember correctly the Apo Symmar is corrected to 1:20 so it will be fine down to 1:10.

Ok, so here is what is probably a dumb question: Assuming that no matter what the lens is in use, 1:1 is 4x5 inches on 4x5 film. So if a lens is optimized for 1:20, that is like 80x100 inches or roughly 6.6 x 8.3 feet. I get that these are more scientifically bound metrics that have more wiggle room in real life. Because at 3-4 stops down from wide open, all my lenses are outstanding in sharpness at infinity which is probably why they are soft-ish at 1:3-1:2.

More thinking out loud as I get a better understanding of my lenses and their limits....