Macro Telephoto Lenses?

[8x10 user]

Sorry, I'm fighting off a cold. The amount should be 200%. I was looking at some work from an older commercial photographer and most of the images were sharp until louped. He stopped down so far for DOF that the images were only useful for small print, but at that size they were amazing.

The el nikkor 300 would be perfect if you want to take photos of something around .025x8x10 in with a camera that uses film that is the size of big print.

It all really depends on your magnification ratio. Reversed enlarger lenses at good for very high magnifications. For 1:1 a macro or process should do fine. Fujinon A's should be good for close up (1:1) and is the C a dialyte or tessar? Either one shouldn't be bad. If you run out of bellows then use a shorter lens. If you want to take a photo of something that is about the size of an 35mm film frame with your 8x10 then use a lens that was designed to enlarge 35mm... If the subject is about the size of medium format then use a medium format lens enlarging lens. Infact it doesn't even have to be any enlarging lens. You can reverse an taking lens to reverse its optimization ratio. A 180mm Apo Sironar S in reverse might work well.

[Kodachrome25]

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.

I'm just curious but why would you rule out medium format when there are some stellar macro optics for it? I have both a 120mm Rodenstock Macro Sironar for 4x5 and a Hasselblad 120mm Macro for that system and the latter is just so easy to work with, incredible image quality at large sizes.

I use both setups for independent reasons but love the results equally.

[StoneNYC]

I'm just curious but why would you rule out medium format when there are some stellar macro optics for it? I have both a 120mm Rodenstock Macro Sironar for 4x5 and a Hasselblad 120mm Macro for that system and the latter is just so easy to work with, incredible image quality at large sizes.

I use both setups for independent reasons but love the results equally.

Hey Dan, I think when he said "tiny format" he was talking about anything below 4 x 5 which would include medium format.

[Dan Fromm]

I'm just curious but why would you rule out medium format when there are some stellar macro optics for it? I have both a 120mm Rodenstock Macro Sironar for 4x5 and a Hasselblad 120mm Macro for that system and the latter is just so easy to work with, incredible image quality at large sizes.

I use both setups for independent reasons but love the results equally.

Fair question. I didn't rule out MF, on this forum tiny format includes everything under 4x5.

Most of my macro work has been done with mobile subjects. Flowers, insects, live fish in aquaria, reptiles, ... Re the flowers, if they're not nailed down the slightest breeze will move the plane of best focus. For this work an SLR with a lens that stops itself down to taking aperture when the exposure is taken is ideal. With these subjects getting good results with a press or view camera is very much hit or miss, mainly miss. Static subjects are another matter entirely.

[Kodachrome25]

I didn't rule out MF, on this forum tiny format includes everything under 4x5.

Lol, so now medium format is tiny now eh?
I just don't understand this group sometimes....

[IanG]

Lol, so now medium format is tiny now eh?
I just don't understand this group sometimes....

It's not this group, at one time books on Miniature cameras included 120 cameras, TLRs as well as folders. Medium formats were considered to be quarter plate, half plate, whole (full) plate etc and their metric equivalents, (and the US 7x5). 10x8 was the border line and large formats were 15x12 upwards (14x11 in the US).

Ian

[Drew Wiley]

I'd far rather do macro with a 4x5 monorail than any kind of "subminiature" medium format system (heh, heh) or 35mm camera. You get a lot more control, plus
a much richer chrome or neg to print from. I even do it with 8x10. Around here it's constantly windy most of the year, but you just get used to timing the gusts.

[StoneNYC]

It's not this group, at one time books on Miniature cameras included 120 cameras, TLRs as well as folders. Medium formats were considered to be quarter plate, half plate, whole (full) plate etc and their metric equivalents, (and the US 7x5). 10x8 was the border line and large formats were 15x12 upwards (14x11 in the US).

Ian

I know another member (who lived through it) has mentioned that 4x5 was considered medium format when he started and 5x7 was the intro/borderline large format size. It's interesting to hear that at some point 8x10 was even borderline lol.

[Kodachrome25]

Strangest group on the photo planet, this one....

[Andy Eads]

Telephoto designs are intended to reduce the overall length of the lens relative to the effective focal length. The trade off is reduced coverage which most of us would not tolerate. The only telephotos for large format that I recall were Wollensaks for 4x5 press cameras.

Perspective is a function of angle of view which is a function of effective focal length and format size. Thus, short focal lengths at high magnifications do not produce wide angle perspective like wide angle lenses do at low magnifications.

Lenses designed for macro work will do the best job though other factors may reduce sharpness. The OP mentioned body parts which tend to move with respiration, circulation and other stimuli.