Macro Telephoto Lenses?

[Tin Can]

Hmm. 60" extension at 1:1. Hmm. Long, long arms. Are you by any chance of the Orangutan persuasion?

Re the 47", of course you need one when you need no less than 94" working distance (measured from ~ 10 mm in front of the diaphragm). Since you never know when you'll need that much working distance, you need a 47" Apo Artar. Good luck with your search.

I need a 1210/12.5 Apo-Nikkor, but not badly enough to pay the going rate for one.

Descendant.

[StoneNYC]

you're taking what you've heard or learned from shooting 35mm and applying it to sheet film and macro work. What Ed said. I've seen some excellent macro work shot on 8x10 with a 55mm micro nikkor.

Here's bubble wrap (large 1" bubbles) on 8x10 film. Shot with the 120 nikkor.

Thanks Vinny,

The content I'm shooting, well, I can't post it here, but there's a flattering aspect to body parts that isn't the same for bubble wrap, that said, I see your point and hear you now. I get that with macro and bellows you're effectively using more of the center of the lens and losing the edges and therefore not getting things quite as wide, BUT I still can't get my head around it entirely, but I'm trying

I think I need to test, the shots with a non-macro were OK but not GREAT, and I think I just need to do more tests with what I have, I really can't afford to go buying a macro lens for the small amount of work I'll be doing with it, or at least I can't rationalize it.

But that still doesn't answer my main question which I guess I didn't phrase properly. WHY doesn't a telephoto macro lens exist? Wouldn't it make sense to have to use less bellows extension with such finite close detail? Less vibration from extended bellows, more easy to focus, etc etc.

So is there an optics reason? Or am I just smarter than lens designers to "figure out" what to me seems like an obvious advantage. (I know I'm not smarter I'm being sarcastic, but it seems pretty logical to me that this should exist).

Thanks.

[Bill Burk]

You could always use plywood to make box sections to extend your macro capability. Like Andreas Feininger did.

[Dan Fromm]

So is there an optics reason? Or am I just smarter than lens designers to "figure out" what to me seems like an obvious advantage. (I know I'm not smarter I'm being sarcastic, but it seems pretty logical to me that this should exist).

Well, there are no telephoto lenses corrected for closeup for tiny format except a couple of mirror lenses sold as ultra-long working distance microscopes. Low coverage and very expensive. There's a hint.

Another hint is that until very recently tele lenses in general were relatively poorly corrected.

Have you done the arithmetic? Remember that extension from the infinity position given magnification is (1 + m) * f. If you're going to shoot at 2:1 you still need 2f extension from the infinity position.

A tele lens will buy you less extension to the infinity position than an equivalent non-tele, but not as much as you think. I just looked at the 2002 Nikon LF lenses brochure. Their teles' flange-to-film distances at infinity range from 0.7f (500 mm) to 0.63f (1200 mm). They save no more than 0.37f relative to a lens of normal construction. I think that's less than you want.

I've told you once that the general rule is that the higher the magnification, the shorter the focal length used. There are good practical reasons for this, including short arms.

If you want to do macro work with relatively short extension either use a short lens on a 4x5 or larger camera or use a tiny format camera. There are short focal length macro lenses for 4x5 and larger cameras. They've been around for over a century. The best come from microscope manufacturers, not from Nikon's LF division, Schneider or Rodenstock.

Y'know, if you're dumb there's not much you can do about it. But you can try to reduce your ignorance.

[cowanw]

The telephoto part only saves on the initial infinity focus bellows length.
Further bellows extension to Macro is measured relative to the true focal length, not the infinity focus bellows length.
This will result in loss of light and either even less depth of field, or prolonged shutters speeds (she may twitch), or you will need enough light to fry her parts.

Take a 360 tele with a Flange focal distance of 261 mm plus 360mm to get you 1:1 a total of 621 mm bellows
A regular 360 requires 720 mm of bellows, just 100mm more. Going to 2:1 the relative difference in bellows length is even less.

A 180 mm lens requires just 360 mm of bellows at 1:1 with a 2 stop exposure advantage.
Edit I took too long to type and Dan said it first, but note the extension is not related to the flange focal length vis a vis telephotos.

[StoneNYC]

Thanks Dan and cowanw,

Dans said it before but in the math way, cowanw said it on the first two sentences that was summed up more simply, both ate valuable and together they clear up my misunderstanding.

Thanks everyone. I think I get it. Hope it helped someone else too.

[Greg]

Why not use the nikkor 120mm ed macro? I used mine on 8x10.)

I assume you are using the 120mm f/5.6 Macro Nikkor. If you like the results you are getting from this optic, you would absolutely love the the results you'd be getting from the 12cm Macro-NIKKOR f/6.3. I use one on a Multiphot to shoot 4x5. If I need to stop down a lot, I use a 120mm f/4.5 Leitz Summar which seems to exhibit less diffraction than the Nikkor at the same smaller apertures. Years ago met a photographer in Vermont who used the 120mm f/5.6 Macro Nikkor to do macro B&W work with his 11x14 in the field!!! He had only praise for the optic. Just thought I'd add in my 2 cents
Greg

[8x10 user]

Let me see if I have anything to add.

Schneider marketed the 800mm Apo Tele Xenar to also be good in studio applications such as table top studio photographer. For instances when a longer more compact perspective is desired.

Macro is kind of a funny thing. The whole aperture selection versus depth of field versus focal length (format size) is more an issue with less returns for larger format sizes than infinity work. With a smaller format you have a less intense magnification ratio and you can use a shorter FL without it effecting the perspective as much. You are going to get more DOF using a 120 or 210 at 1:1 than a 300mm or 600mm. Many of the macro photographs that are shot on 8x10 are done have such issues in diffraction that then are only good for a 200 enlargement tops. Like Dan said many of the people who do high magnification macro work us shorter FL lenses for the higher magnification ratios. Reversed enlarger lenses are common for macro work, and the "printing" nikkor is said to be one of the top lenses out there for this kind of work. Some of the best macro work is focus stacked from many images.

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. Focus stacking didn't become practical until digital photography became practical. So far not particularly useful for LF work.

[StoneNYC]

... (Snip) Many of the macro photographs that are shot on 8x10 are done have such issues in diffraction that then are only good for a 200 enlargement tops. Like Dan said many of the people who do high magnification macro work us shorter FL lenses for the higher magnification ratios. Reversed enlarger lenses are common for macro work, and the "printing" nikkor is said to be one of the top lenses out there for this kind of work. Some of the best macro work is focus stacked from many images.

What does 200 enlargement mean?

Using my 300mm EL-Nikkor will be really fun reversed...

And like it's been said, focused stacked isn't something I'm doing for printing.

But seriously I don't know if you mean 200%? As in an 8x10 made to be 16x20? Or something else? Probably looking at 20x24 prints, so you're saying a 6x7 negative on 120 would be sharper and more defined at 20x24 than an 8x10 of the same image?