When to switch to a macro lens?

[Dan Fromm]

Ted Harris wrote " “Normal” lenses, those designed for optimal performance at ranges of infinity to 1:10 or 1:5 also work fine as the reproduction ratio gets larger, as it approaches 1:1. Where the performance of these lenses begins to fall off is at and after you hit the actual 1:1 point."

Ted, the 50/1.4 and 105/2.5 Nikkors I used to have think you're badly mistaken. Both were terrible off their focusing mounts. The 105 was so awful that it couldn't be focused wide open at 1:1. It really depends on the lens. I know they're not LF lenses.

Cheers,

Dan

[Bob Salomon]

"Would I be correct in assuming that a process lens would have performance similar to a macro lens?"

No process lenses are designed to photograph 2 dimensional objects at close range at f22 (4x5 work)

Macro lenses are designed to photograph 3 dimensional objects like products or jewelery in Ted's example, at close range at various apertures. For 3 dimensional objects the macro lenses will easily outperform all others from about 1:3 or 1:5 to 3:1 or 5:1.

[William Mortensen]

Thanks for the replies! Still trying to sort it all out... I tried a slightly more than 1:1 (just larger than lifesize) with my 215mm f4.8 Caltar-S two weeks ago, and found it lacking resolution even at f/45. (But it was a twelve-minute exposure, vibration is also a possibility.) I have two 150mm process lenses (Eskofot Ultragon and Hexanon GR-II), but given their maximum f/9 aperture, the bellows extension, the critical focus at close distances, and my preference to work in softer, lower light, I don't like using them in the field. Same would go with the G-Claron.

Ted Harris' post lets me think I'd be safe approaching, but not quite hitting, 1:1. I may run tests with the 215mm Caltar-S, and my 12" Caltar II-N, Dagor, and Astrogon (Tessar). Should any of these have an advantage nearing 1:1?

Also, I have a 67mm Schneider auxilliary close-up lens, (a +3 diopter, I think). Would it be effective (or heresy!) to use this on a normal lf lens for 1:1 or more?

[William Mortensen]

Question to Bob Salomon, (while we've got you here!):

"process lenses are designed to photograph 2 dimensional objects at close range at f22 (4x5 work)"

So why do Apo-Ronars and other process lenses close down to f/256? It seems these would be the *last* lenses to need such a small stop, needing little depth of field for a flat subject. Especially considering the loss of resolution due to diffraction at that f/256. But it must be there for something... What?

[Bob Salomon]

Process lenses close down and open up to apertures that they are not recommended to be used at just as other taking lenses do because the apertures in shutters and NF mounts can be set at other apertures. How would you feel if the lens had a moveable aperture scale and it was only marked for one aperture? You can see how this would work with an Imagon. It comes in a shutter with no marked apertures since you set the aperture with the disks.

Process lenses and taking lenses may be in mounts with marked apertures but some of those apertures put you into diffraction. In the case of most process lens used on 45 the design aperture is f22.

[Bob Salomon]

"So why do Apo-Ronars and other process lenses close down to f/256?"

This is akin to your car speedometer going to 180 MPH while the car can't go that fast and the speed limit is 65 or lower in most places. Just because the lens is marked f256 doesn't mean that it is a useful aperture or that you get the best results there.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Bob still lives in the past with his own 3D problem. Today is every lens designed to get a flat field otherwise it would be a very worse one.
Today Linus gives you a special service for your APO Ronar if you like it. They optimise it for infinity wrote mister Dieter Wenzel from Rodenstock Germany.
But then I wrote to Rodenstock and asked then for which magnification the APO Ronars have been optimised which Rodenstock sold in a shutter and this is the asnwer I got:

"Im Gegensatz zu den früheren Apo-Ronaren für die Reprografie, welche für Maßstab 1:1 optimiert wurden,
Sind die Apo-Ronare in Verschluß auf einen Abbildungsmaßstab von ca. 1:20 optimiert.
Es ergibt keinen Sinn Ihre Apo-Ronare in Verschluß nachträglich auf unendlich zu optimieren, da
sich gegenüber dem Optimum bei 1:20 kein sichtbarer Vorteil ergibt.

Viele Grüße
Philipp Gschwendtner Linos Company "

So they stated that the APO Ronars which where used for Reprography, had been optimissed for 1:1, but the APO Ronars with a shutter have been optimised for 1:20. And he told also it makes no sence the shutterversion to optimese for infinity because it will not make a difference from 1:20 to infinity!
Every lens has the same problem to put a 3D picture into a 2D picture and every modern lens has to be a flatfield lens today!

Amen!

[Dan Fromm]

Mark, thanks very much for the additional information about what you want to accomplish.

At 1:1, nominal f/45 is effective f/90. At f/90, you can't get much better than 17 lp/mm. And, as you pointed out, with a 12 minute exposure poor motion control -- camera and subject -- can kill you. If one of your feet has been shot, you pulled the trigger.

Consider whether you can achieve the results you want with flash, and remember that you're allowed to use more than one. It is often useful to use one or two flashes for the main subject and another one for the background.

Since you're not a beginner, get the Lefkowitz book I suggested and read it. Buy the Gibson Photomacrography book too. You need a good fright; he delivers one in the course of a long discussion on what can't be accomplished.

In my experience with GRIIs -- I routinely shoot a 210/9, had a 150/9 and sold it -- they're very very good close-up, even wide open. But you must understand that at 1:1, f/9 allows you roughly 2 mm DoF. f/22, IMO the smallest aperture usable at 1:1, gives about 5 mm.

Cheers,

[Struan Gray]

The very small apertures on process lenses were used when making half-toned B+W reproductions or colour seperations using a ruled-line halftone screen. In this case every dot on the page was a tiny copy of the lens aperture, and for very fine-ruled screens you need a very small aperture opening.

[William Mortensen]

Struan- The half-tone application makes sense! I knew there had to be some practical application for that f/256. (And at 1:1, the functional f/stop is f/512...)

"Buy the Gibson Photomacrography book too. You need a good fright; he delivers one in the course of a long discussion on what can't be accomplished."

Dan- I think I'm getting frightened enough to just stay on this side of 1:1! Most of the true macro lenses seem to be f/9, which gets pretty dark for my style of shooting. I guess experience will tell me just how much I can push my lenses...