Which lens to use for macro work?

[Mark Sawyer]

I'd like to do some macro-work on my 8x10, but don't have the luxury of a Luminar. The subjects will come out from almost-actual-size to up to 3x actual size on the film. Could anyone tell me if any of these lenses would be appropriate? (I'm listing some that I know won't cover 8x10 at infinity as the bellows will be out enough to increase coverage.) Also, will there likely be a focus shift or similar problem at these magnifications? Is there a rule-of-thumb for when to turn the lens backwards? (I've read past threads on this, but none quite give me the info I need.) Thanks!

Likely suspects for a macro lens are:

80mm f/2.8 Zeiss Biometar

90mm f/6.8 Angulon

121mm f/8 Super Angulon

135mm f/5.6 Componon enlarging lens

150mm Rodenstock Rodagon enlarging lens

150mm f/9 Eskofot Ultragon

159mm Wollensak EWA

210mm f/6.8 Goerz Dagor

215 f/4.8 Acuton

Note: I tried a 3xlife-size two-day (!) exposure with the 121mm Super Angulon @ f/64 which came out rather fuzzy, although the image had looked sharp on the ground glass @ f/8. The camera was on a big studio majestic tripod with two additional tripods under each end for support, so I doubt motion was a factor. Any thoughts on what went wrong?

[Gem Singer]

Hi Mark,

You didn't include the Nikon AM 210 f5.6 ED Macro on your list. It's a relatively expensive lens, but it's maximized for the type of photography you are attempting .

[Jon Shiu]

Film can slip or warp during long exposures.

[Ernest Purdum]

For 3X magnification, you need a minimum of four focal lengths bellows extension, so you need to be careful that your lens is not too long for your bellows. The 210mm Dagor you mention would need over 33" extension. On the other hand, to get close to 1:1 ratio, you only need close to two focal lengths extension. Assuming you are using 4X5 film, most lenses of 75mm or more would cover satisfactorily. My suggestion would be a 75 or 105mm lens and shutter from the Polaroid MP-4 system. These are still available very cheaply on eBay, although the prices do seem to be increasing rapidly.



Only lenses which are not entirely symmetrical need to be reversed. You turn the lens around when the bellows extension exceeds the distance from the lens to the subject. Another way of putting it is that you reverse when the image on your groundglass is larger than the subject.



If you go back to the home page and look at the index of articles, you'll find more information on this subject.

[Ernest Purdum]

Regarding your fuzzy result, maybe it was subject movement or floor vibration. I once was attempting to make extreme macro photographs, and was startled to find that I could tell on the groundglass every time a truck came by.



The problem might have been optical, though. I have never tried a Super Angulon at f64 in the macro range, but I wouldn't necessarily expect good results.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

For a 2x to 3x magnification range a reversed 135 or 150 mm enlarger lens should be OK. Those lenses cover 4"x5" used in a an enlarger, so reversed and used as a macro lens they will certainly cover 8"x10" @2x and 12"x15" @3x. At 1:1 a 150 enlarging lens is not at its best but will certainly cover more than 4"x5". This is to be tested.

The total distance beween lens and film will be : ( M+1) x f , where M is the magnification ratio. So @3X with a 150mm lens you'll need 4x150 = 600 mm (2 feet).

But for 1:1 you could consider a lens covering 8"x10" at 1:1 ratio. For this I would suggest a classical apo-repro lens like the apo ronar. An apo ronar covers 48° according to the manufacturer's specs (a bit conservative certainly) i.e. in diameter 90% of its focal length in infinity-focus.
The image circle is roughly doubled @1:1. So very probably a 210 or 240 4-element symmetrical repro lens will suit your needs. @1:1 distance between lens and film with a 240 will be 480 mm.

[Joerg Krusche]

Hi,

take the Eskofot Ultragon, this lens is optimized for 1:3 to 3:1 range, no need to reverse due to symmetrical design.

Best regards

Joerg

[Bob Salomon]

Best reults would come from a macro lens.

The 150mm and the 180mm Apo Macro Sironar both more then cover 810 at 1:1 and deliver spectacular results of 3-dimensional originals at ratios of 1:5 to 5:1.

[Mark Sawyer]

Thanks, guys! I think I'll play with the Eskofot-Ultragon, as Jorge suggested. It sounds like it's optimized for just what I want to do. Thanks, Jorge! I'll eventually post the results, but it may be a week or two...

Vibration and subject or camera movement were *not* a factor with the 121mm SA. (Trust me on this one.) Could have been film movement or warpage, as Jon suggested, or maybe the SA just doesn't function as a macro at small f/stops, as Ernest thought. There was enough depth to the subject that if it was focus shift, something else would have come into focus, but the whole image was out-of-focus.

If you have the patience (and a stable studio floor and tripod), it's a somehow satisfyingly different approach pulling the darkslide on Tuesday afternoon and putting it back in Thursday night...

[Jim Galli]

Mark, my vote would be for the Ultragon also, then the Componon. So if the exposure took 2 days what was the fstop? Beyond about f128 diffraction will begin to make your exposure look like a pinhole pic. Ansel tried to explain that to Eddy Weston but he didn't listen. With the bellows draw for a 3X life size that eskofot will be at f64 wide open. Reciprocity is ok, but diffraction will get you.