macro lens recommendation 4x5

[Dan Fromm]

How about some copy camera lenses i.e. Tominons? They perform quite well on high magnifications and you could probably pick one off craigslist or similar for pretty much nothing.

Vallo, there are better lenses. The shorter the MP-4 Tominon, the better. I wouldn't use a 75 (n = 3) and the 135 is dreadful (n = 3). Sorry, never had a 105.

MP-4 Tominons' recommended magnifications, from MP-4 documentation
focal length (min magnification to cover 4x5) recommended magnifications type

135 mm 1x - 3x Tessar
105 mm 1x - 4x Tessar
75 mm (2x) 2x - 6.5x reversed Tessar
50 mm (2x) 2x - 9.8x 6 group symmetric triplet (sic)
35 mm (5x) 5x - 14x reversed Tessar
17 mm (10x) 10x - 32x 6 element 4 group

From 2:1 to at least 5:1 there's little that will beat a reversed 55 Micro Nikkor. My 55/2.8 is best at f/4, visibly loses central image quality at f/2.8 and f/5.6. In discussions of 55 MicroNikkors on the French LF forum, one poster said he'd tested an f/3.5er against and f/2.8er and that the f/3.5er (sorry, don't know which vintage or which aperture(s) he tested at) and found the f/3.5er better.

But since Barry the vague hasn't told us enough about what he's trying to accomplish its hard to tell whether any of the advice he's been given (except mine, to look up Ray Parkhurst if he's going to shoot coins).

Barry, here's another piece of advice. Before you go shopping for anything, buy a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography and, if you're going to work above 1:1, a copy of Brian Bracegirdle's book Scientific Photomacrography. Both cover the same ground, the repetition will be good for you. Bracegirdle's discussion of which lenses is strongly biased towards lenses from microscope manufacturers and microscope divisions of merchant lens makers such as Nikon and Zeiss.

Peter, macro is macro regardless of how the image is captured. Its been a while since Ray and I have communicated, but I believe he's used film. He really does understand what he's doing and Barry should find what he knows about lighting very useful. In real life Barry is a sort of cabinet maker and his products are, like coins, quite reflective.

[VPooler]

Just sayin', if our OP just wants to fiddle around with small things then some cheap copy lenses are quite a viable option - if he gets bored, he is not out big buck. But I agree the Tominons are far from perfect, although I particulary like them.

[pierre506]

Please try the classic & rare macro Nikon lenses， such as ultra-micro Nikkor， Printing Nikkor，or macro Nikkor for Nikon Multiphot.
You will get the stunning results.

[Dan Fromm]

Please try the classic & rare macro Nikon lenses， such as ultra-micro Nikkor， Printing Nikkor，or macro Nikkor for Nikon Multiphot.
You will get the stunning results.

I'm sure the OP would be happy to have such lenses, doubt he can afford any of them. Why don't you give one to him as a gift?

[pierre506]

I'm sure the OP would be happy to have such lenses, doubt he can afford any of them. Why don't you give one to him as a gift?

Dear Dan，
Good idea.
I will be considering about to lend a 65mm f4.5 Macro Nikkor lens to OP if he is a serious and good macro photographer.
Best wishes，
pierre

[JohnJ]

Stradibarrius, the link below has some excellent lens tests by Mark Goodman. They are for various types of lenses, many of which may be useful to you, but they are performed relatively consistently so comparisons are possible. They are coincidentally related to coin photography but are none the less the best lens tests of their kind, IMHO.

http://coinimaging.com/Lens_tests.html

You could find more macro related info and help at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/index.php which is not specifically relevant to large format but the macro knowledge there is excellent.

[Peter De Smidt]

Peter, macro is macro regardless of how the image is captured.

Well, sure. Except that a sensor is perfectly flat, whereas film is unlikely to be so. Digital allows easy focus stacking, whereas that's not so simple with film. The short of it is that with film using a smaller aperture than is ideal with digital might be useful, but the tests that Ray does are aimed at max quality with digital, sometimes at F4 on the lens, for instance. That's unlikely to be a useful lens aperture for 4x5 film. And once you start stopping down, diffraction will quickly start to minimize differences between lenses. Finally, the lenses Ray looks at currently generally don't cover much more than FX. Ray's favorite lens at 1:1 is a Printing Nikkor. I doubt that it covers 4x5.

All that said, I agree that if one want's to photograph coins, contacting Ray is a good idea.

[Tom Monego]

The 120 f5.6 Macro Nikon AM/ED also falls into this category. Nikon support felt it was better in the 1:1 TO 5:1 mag range than the older 120 Macro Nikkors, similar design but was in a shutter and the coating was better, plus in the 1980's I could buy a new one. This is a very sharp lens, will cover 4x5 with some movements at f22, but will not cover 4x5 at infinity. I did micro- surgical instrument photos for 4 medical textbooks with this lens.
But even a 120mm lens will be very close to the subject in the magnification range the OP wants, this will make optimal lighting difficult. Macro photography with a 4x5 requires an extremely steady base, especially if you are doing vertical alignment.

Tom

[Professional]

Thanks for this thread, i hope it will help me to decide on which macro lens to buy for my LF, i am planning to get 2-3 lenses, i am happy i have 2 so far, definitely one of those 2-3 glasses will be a macro lens.