Macro Glass for 8x10

[Christopher Barrett]

I've been using my 305 G-Claron for my flower series and was wondering if I should look at any other lenses. I'm considering a 210, either the NIKKOR-AM ED or the Rodenstock Macro-Sironan-N or maybe the Rodie 300. The nice thing about a 300 is being able to have some subject distance at 1:1. Any experience with these over the G-Claron? The extra speed would be nice for composing.

Thanks!
Chris

[Luis-F-S]

So if the 305 works for you, why try to re-invent the wheel? The G-Claron is already a macro / process lens. L

[Steve Goldstein]

Unlike your 305mm G-Claron (Copal 1), the 210mm Macro-Sironar-N is in a #3 shutter, its size and weight might be a consideration. On the other hand, it's also f/5.6 so will be a little brighter on the groundglass.

[Christopher Barrett]

Yeah, it's largely the brighter groundglass image that would make life a bit easier for me.

[xkaes]

And don't forget about the numerous enlarging lenses. They make great macro lenses. I've used several from 25mm to 150mm on my 4x5.

And there are also many macro and micro lenses from smaller formats that could be of a help. Because of the long bellows extension these will cover the larger sheet film sizes. I've used Minolta Bellows Micro 12.5mm f2 and 25mm f2.5 (they are basically microscope lenses), as well as Minolta Bellows Macro 50mm f3.5 and 100mm f4 lenses on my 4x5. Nikon, and perhaps other made longer Bellows lens. Superb results and bright, groundglass image -- even though they were designed for 35mm.

But don't beleive me! Check out: http://www.subclub.org/weir.pdf

[Dan Fromm]

But Joe, the OP wants to work around 1:1. I don't think that macro lenses for 35 mm cameras will cover 8x10 at 1:1. Rebadged short Photars certainly won't come close to covering 8x10 at that magnification.

[Luis-F-S]

Yeah, it's largely the brighter groundglass image that would make life a bit easier for me.

Light bulbs are cheaper and the OP's already using a lens that was designed for 1:1! Now if he just wants justification for buying another lens, by all means go for it!

[xkaes]

But Joe, the OP wants to work around 1:1. I don't think that macro lenses for 35 mm cameras will cover 8x10 at 1:1. Rebadged short Photars certainly won't come close to covering 8x10 at that magnification.

You're correct. My use was at much higher magnifications, but longer focal length enlarging lenses should fill the bill -- and do double duty.

[alkman]

I have used a Schneider 120mm Makro Symmar for close up work around 2:1 or so. I assume the 180mm/5.6 version of the same lens would render an equally sharp image. The specs for the lens show it would cover 8x10 at 1:1 with some movements, and it comes in a copal 1 shutter making it fairly lightweight.

[Ken Lee]

I previously owned a 210mm Macro Sironar, which reverses for magnification greater than 1:1. I tested it against my 240mm Fujinon A at around 1:1 and found that the Fujinon was a little sharper. My tests were at typical shooting apertures, not stopped way down past the diffraction limit.

The difference may have been attributable to sample variation, but because my Macro Sironar was mounted in a Sinar shutter, I eventually sold it when I sold the shutter. I kept the Fujinon which is mounted in a comparatively tiny shutter.

That being said, while less bellows draw is always welcome (especially with 8x10 where bellows draw gets really long), 240mm is rather short for 8x10 close work: it will give some foreshortening. 210mm on 8x10 is even shorter, so we can expect even more foreshortening.

An APO Nikkor, APO Ronar or coated Artar should do quite well at close distance. Available in a wide variety of focal lengths, they're optimized for close work: because they only open to f/9 they are small and light and optically at the top of the heap, especially the newer designs which have better coating.