Macro Telephoto Lenses?

[StoneNYC]

With the the need for serious bellows extension doing real macro work, 1:1 or closer, it occurred to me to wonder about a telephoto macro lens. Do they exist?

None of the modern macro lenses I know about are telephoto to my knowledge but it seems like something that would make sense but I don't know if there's a technical reason why this wouldn't work?

[Dan Fromm]

Short answer, ain't no such thing.

The general rule with LF closeup work is "the higher the magnification, the shorter the lens." And yes, there are situations where there's no escaping using a long lens with lots of extension.

[vinny]

Why not use the nikkor 120mm ed macro? I used mine on 8x10. If you're shooting macro on anything larger, you need your head checked

[Tin Can]

Short answer, ain't no such thing.

The general rule with LF closeup work is "the higher the magnification, the shorter the lens." And yes, there are situations where there's no escaping using a long lens with lots of extension.

Would that be why Deardorff built the Studio 11x14 and offered up to 47" Artar for corrective photography, which I interpret as tilt and shift product Macro for high rez Depression era Sears catalogs?

A huge IC for huge corrections.

[StoneNYC]

Short answer, ain't no such thing.

The general rule with LF closeup work is "the higher the magnification, the shorter the lens." And yes, there are situations where there's no escaping using a long lens with lots of extension.

I'm still trying to understand that rule, especially for 8 x 10, because it would expand the viewpoint versus compressing viewpoint wouldn't it?

A 120 on 8x10 would look strange and "wide" vs a 210 on 8x10 (still seems like to me, on medium format I shoot 180mm for macro work) which an equivalent 450ish on 8x10 would require an extreme amount of bellows extension, so to me it would make sense to create a telephoto designed macro optic.

I guess I'm just not normal, I'm photographing body parts and don't want things to look wide that should not look wide. I want things compressed to be more flattering.

[EdSawyer]

Angle of view changes dramatically at close up magnifications. The 120 is in no way a wide angle up close.

[vinny]

I'm still trying to understand that rule, especially for 8 x 10, because it would expand the viewpoint versus compressing viewpoint wouldn't it?

A 120 on 8x10 would look strange and "wide" vs a 210 on 8x10 (still seems like to me, on medium format I shoot 180mm for macro work) which an equivalent 450ish on 8x10 would require an extreme amount of bellows extension, so to me it would make sense to create a telephoto designed macro optic.

I guess I'm just not normal, I'm photographing body parts and don't want things to look wide that should not look wide. I want things compressed to be more flattering.

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.

[Dan Fromm]

Would that be why Deardorff built the Studio 11x14 and offered up to 47" Artar for corrective photography, which I interpret as tilt and shift product Macro for high rez Depression era Sears catalogs?

A huge IC for huge corrections.

Front movements with a 47" lens at 1:1? My, you have long arms.

[Tin Can]

Front movements with a 47" lens at 1:1? My, you have long arms.

Trying it now with shorty Artar of only 30".

I wrote DD offered up to 47" which I don't need. Do I?

[Dan Fromm]

Trying it now with shorty Artar of only 30".

I wrote DD offered up to 47" which I don't need. Do I?

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.