Rodenstock APO-Macro-Sironar 180mm f/5.6? Nimrod Question Alert

[Salmo22]

I have an opportunity to acquire a Rodenstock APO-Macro-Sironar 180mm f/5.6 (orange stripe) lens. It is in mint condition and priced very modestly. I already have a Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 210 mm f/5.6 and Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 150 mm f/5.6 in my arsenal so I wouldn't necessarily be seeking a "regular" 180mm lens for my 4x5. However, I ultimately want to do some flora photography and that intention creates an interest in the APO-Macro-Sironar 180/5.6 for "table top" type work. I'm returning to large format after a hiatus of nearly 40 years and I have no experience with macro LF lenses.

With that background, my nimrod questions are presented as follows:

• Will this type of macro lens require more or less bellows than would be required if I was using the standard Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 180mm f/5.6 (red stripe) lens in a 1:1 setting?
• In other words, what is the advantage to this type of macro lens?

Your replies and comments are sincerely appreciated.

Jeff D Welker

[Bob Salomon]

Same bellows extension and exposure correction.
The Apo Sironar S is corrected for optimal performance at ratios from infinity to 1:5.

The Apo Macro Sironar is corrected for 1:3 to 3:1 and will deliver superior performance at those ratios. But is terrible at infinity or ratios down to 1:5.

[Salmo22]

Same bellows extension and exposure correction.
The Apo Sironar S is corrected for optimal performance at ratios from infinity to 1:5.

The Apo Macro Sironar is corrected for 1:3 to 3:1 and will deliver superior performance at those ratios. But is terrible at infinity or ratios down to 1:5.

Thank you Bob for your reply.

Nimrod question #3:

• What method is used to calculate the length of bellows needed for a 4x5 to maximize the Rodenstock APO-Macro-Sironar 180mm f/5.6 lens for table top or flora photography?

If I purchase this lens, I suspect I'll need to order a longer bellows for this type of work.

Thanks again;

Jeff D Welker

[Christopher Barrett]

If you plan on shooting 1:1, your bellows extension will be twice the focal length, or 360mm. Obviously it get's longer with greater magnifications. I like the Reciprocity Timer app for figuring bellows factors as well as reciprocity failure compensation. On 4x5, I kind of doubt you'll reach 1:1 unless you plan on extreme closeups... so I'm guessing your existing bellows will get the job done. If you can get the magnification you want right now with your 210, then you'll be fine on the 180.

-CB

[Arne Croell]

Thank you Bob for your reply.

Nimrod question #3:

• What method is used to calculate the length of bellows needed for a 4x5 to maximize the Rodenstock APO-Macro-Sironar 180mm f/5.6 lens for table top or flora photography?

If I purchase this lens, I suspect I'll need to order a longer bellows for this type of work.

Thanks again;

Jeff D Welker

The basic equation for calculating the distance b between the film plane and the rear nodal point of the lens, which is approximately your bellows extension, is:

b=f·(1+m)

where f is you focal length and m is your magnification, i.e. for an image that is half life size, m=1:2=0.5. So for 1:2 you get 270mm extension, for 1:1 twice the focal length as mentioned by Christopher, for 2:1 it is 3x the focal length, i.e. 540mm in your case, etc.

As an aside, the distance a between the object and the front nodal plane is

a=f·(1+1/m)

[Salmo22]

If you plan on shooting 1:1, your bellows extension will be twice the focal length, or 360mm. Obviously it get's longer with greater magnifications. I like the Reciprocity Timer app for figuring bellows factors as well as reciprocity failure compensation. On 4x5, I kind of doubt you'll reach 1:1 unless you plan on extreme closeups... so I'm guessing your existing bellows will get the job done. If you can get the magnification you want right now with your 210, then you'll be fine on the 180.

-CB

The basic equation for calculating the distance b between the film plane and the rear nodal point of the lens, which is approximately your bellows extension, is:

b=f·(1+m)

where f is you focal length and m is your magnification, i.e. for an image that is half life size, m=1:2=0.5. So for 1:2 you get 270mm extension, for 1:1 twice the focal length as mentioned by Christopher, for 2:1 it is 3x the focal length, i.e. 540mm in your case, etc.

As an aside, the distance a between the object and the front nodal plane is

a=f·(1+1/m)

Chris & Arne:

Thanks much for your wise counsel. This is just the type of information I'm looking for.

One last question; will this Rodenstock APO-Macro-Sironar 180mm f/5.6 lens I'm considering do a better job in the 1:1 range than my Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 210mm f/5.6 lens? In other words, will it produce superior results?

[Bob Salomon]

Chris & Arne:

Thanks much for your wise counsel. This is just the type of information I'm looking for.

One last question; will this Rodenstock APO-Macro-Sironar 180mm f/5.6 lens I'm considering do a better job in the 1:1 range than my Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 210mm f/5.6 lens? In other words, will it produce superior results?

Significantly better then your S. Why ask the question twice? The macro, within its range, will easily outperform a non Apo within the range of a general purpose 1:10 or 1:2 corrected lens.

[Salmo22]

Significantly better then your S. Why ask the question twice? The macro, within its range, will easily outperform a non Apo within the range of a general purpose 1:10 or 1:2 corrected lens.

Thank you Bob for the double confirmation. I asked twice because this is new territory for me and I want to be sure I'm making an informed decision. BTW, I assume when you say "non Apo within the range..." you meant "non macro within the range...". Please correct me if I'm wrong. I want to make sure I understand.

[Bob Salomon]

Thank you Bob for the double confirmation. I asked twice because this is new territory for me and I want to be sure I'm making an informed decision. BTW, I assume when you say "non Apo within the range..." you meant "non macro within the range...". Please correct me if I'm wrong. I want to make sure I understand.

Non macro.