Macro Lens for Sinar F

[Oren Grad]

So the Nikkor AM ED 120mm lens as an example, will natively magnify at 1:1

What do you mean by "natively magnify"?

But this...

...thusly never understood the need for a dedicated macro lens, besides the lenses being optimized to be sharper at closer magnifications?

...is indeed precisely the point - what magnification or magnification range a lens is optimized for.

For example, from Rodenstock's product literature:

"The image quality of lenses designed for larger distances or even optimized for infinity drops visibly at close range for scales of around 1:1. Compared with the performance of a modern top lens at medium to long distances, there are noticeable shortcomings from around 1:3 onwards. This is precisely where the special Macro-Sironar-N comes into its own...."

On the other hand, some process lenses are designed to handle very different magnifications relatively gracefully:

"Though ideally corrected for 1:1 reproduction, the four-element Apo-Ronar maintains its image quality even at high reductions (distance range) or magnifications."

[Mark Sampson]

It's worth noting that as recently as the early 1990s, Schneider kept the Apo-Artar (a 'process' lens) in their catalogue and advertised it as "the best lens for photographing jewelry". If nothing else, that statement reminds us that these lenses were designed for a demanding professional clientele.
My own limited experience with LF macro work would suggest that Schneider's 150/9 G-Claron does very well, up close on 4x5.

[Oren Grad]

Schneider describes the G-Claron as "A symmetrical, six-element large format taking lens particularly corrected for 1:1 linear magnification. The lens can be used for angles of view up to 64 degrees within the scale of 1:5 to 5:1, and greater."

Many here have used G-Clarons as general-purpose lenses including for distant subjects at small magnifications.

[Mark J]

The Apo Ronar ( and Apo Artar ) fares better across Infinity to 1:1 because its field angle is lower. The trade-offs aren't as harsh in this case, as with 70 - 72° lenses.

I have looked at the performance of G-Clarons at infinity and while they do look pretty sharp when stopped-down, I'm not sure how easy they would be to focus at f/5.6 in dim light, the field performance there is quite poor.

[Tin Can]

I resisted buying a Nikkor AM ED 120mm lens

Waste of money

[ic-racer]

You can get just about any magnification with just about any LF lens. A macro lens can image a flat field better; do you need that with those flowers?

[xkaes]

Macro lenses have flat fields, but they also have better resolution, less aberration, at high magnifications.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have three 150mm F9 Rodenstock Apo-Ronars, two of them were $30 each, no retaining rings. The third one came in perfect matched Compur shutter. All three of these are SUPERB for closeup 4x5 photography, on my Plaubel 4x5 reflex Makiflex, my 6.5x9cm Plaubel Peco Juniors (the one in shutter), and also on my 4x5 Sinar Norma cameras, where I utilize the Norma Automatic Shutters. I call these lenses "tiny gems" because they are just so perfect for macro, and were cheapo in price, which is an added bonus.

More Norma TLR Matched Lens Pairs by Nokton48, on Flickr

I have a matched pair of 150mm F9 Apo Ronars, they are in the upper left. This is a matched pair to go on my 4x5 and 5x7 Norma TLR cameras. Notice how tiny they are. The taking lens has the "Mickey Mouse" aperture control mechanism for fast shooting speed. It mates with the Norma Automatic Shutters.

Zeiss also made "Luminar" lenses for large format, another good option. I see them in different focal lengths mounted on tubus Linhof Technika boards. The tubus could be removed and mounted onto whatever board you have. I played with a Luminar once at Midwest Photo, it was $500 or so, but WOW it was sweet to look through.

[Mark J]

You can get just about any magnification with just about any LF lens. A macro lens can image a flat field better; do you need that with those flowers?

A standard lens might be fine on this subject, but the image errors at a non-designed mag are not just field curvature - you also get coma and astigmatism in the field. This will alter the sharpness at wider apertures and the bokeh rendition. Maybe it's not in a bad way, I don't know. However if I was shooting regularly at less than 1:5 , I think I'd get a G-Claron. I agree with Tin Can that the AM-Nikkor's or macro-Symmar HM type lenses are a bit overkill, probably best reserved for copying artwork or similar stringent jobs, at wider apertures.

[xkaes]

A standard lens might be fine on this subject....

I agree -- see Post #17. "Might" is the key word. On 4x5" film, that shot of the rose (above) is at least 1X and on larger formats it's even higher. But in photography, "fine" is difficult to de-fine.