Macro Lens for Sinar F

[ic-racer]

The flower in the OP looks fine, so, indeed the 'standard' lens is perfectly fine in that setting.

Now, if the OP wanted to make a 4x5 internegative or interpositive of that print, then I think everyone would agree a macro or process or enlarging lens would give the better results than the [Symmar?] 210.

[StudioKroes]

I resisted buying a Nikkor AM ED 120mm lens

Waste of money

Why?

Is there a lens you would recommend over the Nikkor?

[StudioKroes]

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.

The issue I ran into was having to go out 12-16” in bellows to fill the frame, depending on the size of the flower.

I only shoot single stems with strobes, so it’s mostly a studio setting but occasionally, I’ll use natural light as well. I felt the bellows were too restrictive, hence my research into shorter focal lengths / macro specific lenses that will allow me to fill the frame of smaller flowers without the large bellows extension.

Any lens recommendations?

[SimonMaddock]

I'm not huge on macro, but I do have the Nikkor AM ED 120 and I have made non-scientific comparisons with my 150mm lenses. My personal take-aways are that the Nikkor is a little sharper one-two stops down than the Apo-Sironar-S 150. The Apo-Gerogon 150 have been the sharpest. Stopped down to get some DOF they are all pretty similar tbh.

The reason I still have the AM ED 120 is that the bokeh and general rendering is quite a bit nicer than any of the alternatives in my camera bag. If I want crisp and graphical I'd reach for the Apo-Gerogon, If I want to shoot a flower in a meadow I'd reach for the Nikkor.

I'd love to throw in a dialyt into the mix but I don't have one in a similar focal length.

[xkaes]

My Fujinon A 180mm f9 only gets me to 1X on my 4x5 camera (360mm of extension). If I want a greater magnification, I use a shorter focal length macro -- in my case a Minolta 100mm f4 Auto Bellows lens. It's made for 35mm but with 140mm of extension it covers 4x5" at about 0.5X -- and can go up to about 2.5X. At that point, I switch to a Minolta 50mm f3.5 Auto Bellows lens with about 140mm of extension. Wash and repeat.

It's easier to shorten the focal length than to add extension, but regardless of your choice -- more extension or shorter FL lens (or both) -- the lens should be designed for high magnification.

[John Layton]

For larger than 1:1 on 4x5, a reversed 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor P (old version) works great...as I used for this photo I made years and years ago before the last ice age...watch movement floating by surface tension on water which I'd sprinkled with aluminum powder:

[Mark J]

The issue I ran into was having to go out 12-16” in bellows to fill the frame, depending on the size of the flower.

Some good comment above, but can you just remind me of your format, and an estimate of the mag you're getting - sounds like around 1:1 or is it bigger ( more mag ? )
Maybe I can think of something else.

[Mark J]

There's a 150mm G-Claron, it's slow, but should be good for 1:1 and almost up to 2x with your bellows.... not expensive.

[Dan Fromm]

There's a 150mm G-Claron, it's slow, but should be good for 1:1 and almost up to 2x with your bellows.... not expensive.

Cells are direct fits in #0 shutters.

[Greg]

I highly recommend the Nikon Macro-Nikkor Multiphot 12cm f/6.3 lens which was made for use on the Nikon Multiphot. Back in the 1980s and 1990s it was my go to lens for shooting 4x5 Chromes.