Enlarger lens for macro use

[Thierry Schreiner]

Hi to all,

A very tricky question, please.

These days, I am doing more an more photographs in the 1/1 range.


I am puzzled by the following question.

What is the best way to go in terms of image performance.

- a regular lens (Symmar, Sironar, Nikkor W etc.),

- a specific macro lens (Nikkor AM, Macro Sironar etc.),

- a G-Claron type of lens,

or do any of you have good experience in using an enlarger lens as taking lens, and if, do you use it in regular mode or in reversed mode?

Please do share your experience with me and help me getting out of this dilemma.

Thank you in advance and best regards from France

Thierry

[Thierry Schreiner]

Hi,

One more question.

What is the best focal length for use in 8x10 and 5x7 macro at 1/1 ?

Thank you

Thierry

[Dan Fromm]

Thierry, a good enlarger lens can work well as a macro lens.

I have two that I use on 2x3 (not your format, but still ... ): 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar and 105/4.5 Comparon. I've tried 100/5.6 Componon-S, 105/5.6 Componon, and 105/5.6 El Nikkor (old style) too. The Enlarging Pro Raptar is the best of the lot from 1:8 to 4:1, but the Comparon is very usable at the magnifications at which I usually shoot. 1:4 to 1:1. According to Schneider, the Comparon does better in that range than Componon and Componon-S; the Componons are optimized for greater enlargement when printing/lower magnification when taking.

There is a 150/5.6 Comparon that ought to cover 8x10 at 1:1 and higher magnifications. Its cells will go, IIRC, into a #0 shutter. I have one, haven't used it yet. It was too cheap to pass by even though I didn't really need it.

About quality. My best ~100 mm macro lens with useful coverage is a 100/6.3 Neupolar. IMO, better than a known good 100/6.3 Luminar I borrowed from a friend. The 4"/5.6 Wolly is nearly as good.

When thinking about coverage, remember that coverage at 1:1 is twice coverage at infinity.

The rule is that lenses, except specialized macro lenses like Luminars and Macro Nikkors that are made for use at magnifications above 1:1, are optimized for large subject in front, small image behind. When you shoot above 1:1, you'll have relatively small subject in front, relatively large image behind. In that situation, the lens must be reversed to preserve its optimizations. That said, when you get a lens ask it how badly it needs to be reversed. I make this suggestion because both my 100/6.3 Neupolar (a reversed Tessar, cemented doublet in front, very asymmetrical) and 4"/5.6 Wolly (plasmat, nearly symmetrical) do very well from 1:8 to 4:1 facing normally.

Macro lenses like the Nikkor AM you mentioned are optimized for shooting somewhat below 1:1, so must also be reversed if used above 1:1. These lenses are considerably more expensive than used enlarging lenses, have the advantages of being in shutter and of being known quantities. Not all enlarging lenses are good.

Process lenses like the G-Claron you mentioned also work well closeup and because they are so nearly symmetrical don't really require reversal above 1:1. Relatively inexpensive these days, many (not all) have cells that will go directly into standard shutters. I've tried only one G-Claron seriously for close up work, a 150/9 plasmat type, and have run three 240/9 dagor type G-Clarons through acceptance testing. On the whole, I prefer the equivalent Apo Ronars and Apo Saphirs that I've used but I don't mean to denigrate G-Clarons.

Best focal length? It depends on how much extension you can manage and how much working distance (front of lens to subject) you need. Shooting at 1:1 requires 2f extension, gives working distance around 2f as well. The only answer to this question that's right for you is yours. None of us has your preferences or works subject to your constraints.

I can't suggest too strongly that you buy a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography and read it before you spend any money on equipment. Working closeup with LF gear in field conditions can be very difficult and unrewarding. In the studio its still hard.

Y'r question reminds me of one of the reasons I miss the late Ted Harris. He did exactly what you want to do, could have given you solid advice.

Cheers,

Dan

[Thierry Schreiner]

Dan,

Thank's a lot for your advice. Really appreciate the time you took.

Best regards

Thierry

[Glenn Thoreson]

Don't overlook the Tominon lenses made for the Polaroid MP-4. Very good lenses, and cheap. They make very respectable enlarging lenses, too. I got a full set of brand new ones from The Stanley Group (the tool people) for 20 bucks or so.

[Dan Fromm]

Glenn, you're right that the MP-4 Tominons are sort of fit for what Thierry wants to do. I didn't suggest them because IMO the longest (the 135/4.5) is just middling and probably won't cover 8x10 at magnifications below 1:1. They were really made for higher magnifications, except the 135, and for 4x5.

Cheers,

Dan

[Pete_6109]

I was experimenting with enlarger lenses recently to see if I could do some macro shots with a Speed Graphic and to save the costs and time involved with developing film this is what I did.... I took the mounting ring off a damaged Minolta Maxxum lens and mounted it to a piece of wood that fits the back of my mini Speed Graphic. Then I mounted my Sony A100 body to my home made adapter. I used a 135mm Wollensak Enlarging Raptor and these shots are some examples of the results I got. Not stellar, but it was fun shooting. The problem I had was that when I tried shooting landscapes I couldn't focus to infinity with the 135mm lens. The lens was too far from the "film" plane even with the bellows collapsed all the way. I was only able to focus to infinity when I switched my digital body and adapter over to my 4x5 view camera and used a 215mm lens, but then it was like looking through a telescope.