4x5 Macro Camera/Lens Advice?

[Bosaiya]

Um, Bosaiya, surely it helps to have a lens that performs well at the desired magnification -- not all do -- and to point it in the right direction.

Cheers,

Dan

Of course, but "performs well" is also subjective. There's a lot of hype on the internet about must-have gear, and no lack of manufacturers willing to help people part with their money. Could be a simple enlarging lens will do the trick.

[Bob Salomon]

If he can't focus close enough with a 115mm lens, I rather doubt that a 120mm lens will help (unless it is a telephoto design).

However, I would expect a horseman monorail to have at least 230mm of rail (could be wrong there, though), so I think the poster may just need to muck about some.

The 115mm lens that he is using is actually the 115mm Grandagon-N wide angle lens with a flange focal length of 121mm. At 1:1 he would need 142mm of extension.

The 120mm Apo Macro Sironar has a flange focal length of 235.6mm at 1:1 so the 120mm macro actually does use less extension and would be just shy of 1:1 on his camera but an extension lens board like Wista's would get him there.

In addition a wide angle large format lens is simply not a quality performer at close ranges compared to a standard formulation lens or a macro lens.

[Dan Fromm]

Of course, but "performs well" is also subjective. There's a lot of hype on the internet about must-have gear, and no lack of manufacturers willing to help people part with their money. Could be a simple enlarging lens will do the trick.

Fair comment.

But I've tried out a fair number of lenses sold for use at magnifications above 1:1 and some of them were not all that good. Others, unheralded or panned by experts on usenet, turned out to be much better than good enough. Thinking of panned on usenet, have you ever tried a 24/2.8 fixed aperture Summar as was sold for the YELUU projection microscope attachment for some Prado projectors? The lens has a higher NA than the 25/3.5 Luminar; mine shoots better above 10:1 than any of the 25 Luminars I've tried.

As for enlarging lenses, some do better as macro lenses than others. I have a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar that I'm convinced, after testing, is better than a 100/6.3 Luminar in the range 1:8 to 4:1. Also a 138/4.5 Graphic Raptar that I believe is a rebadged Enlarging Raptar and that's poor.

Unfortunately the only way to know whether a lens is good enough to use is to ask it. This is true of used lenses, also of new ones.

All of which is interesting and fun to discuss but doesn't help the OP very much.

So, poor suffering OP, here's a suggestion that doesn't involve spending lots of money. Buy yourself a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography. ISBN 0-8174-2456-3 (hardbound) and 0-8174-2130-0 (softbound).

Study it and teach yourself how to think about shooting close up. Then worry about which equipment, new or used, to buy. First of all learn the ideas ...

Cheers,

Dan

[Paul Kierstead]

The 115mm lens that he is using is actually the 115mm Grandagon-N wide angle lens with a flange focal length of 121mm. At 1:1 he would need 142mm of extension.

The 120mm Apo Macro Sironar has a flange focal length of 235.6mm at 1:1 so the 120mm macro actually does use less extension and would be just shy of 1:1 on his camera but an extension lens board like Wista's would get him there.

In addition a wide angle large format lens is simply not a quality performer at close ranges compared to a standard formulation lens or a macro lens.

I don't have any quarrel whatsoever on your assertion of image quality; however the OP was having problems focusing, not with poor image quality, and spending a big bundle to get 6mm or so less extension sure isn't gonna solve that problem. Even a lensboard extension will buy only a little better then 1:1. Clearly the answer is either a shorter lens (probably a poor idea simple from a usage point of view, too damn close) or a longer rail/rail extension, which would be needed if he does switch lenses in any case. Once he has that, he is in a position to evaluate lens quality.

So, OP, get a longer rail or rail extension.

[Bosaiya]

Unfortunately the only way to know whether a lens is good enough to use is to ask it. This is true of used lenses, also of new ones.

That's the real take-home message right there, especially when you start getting into specialized areas.

[Bob Salomon]

That's the real take-home message right there, especially when you start getting into specialized areas.

Or borrow or rent one. Then it is your experience.

[Bosaiya]

Or borrow or rent one. Then it is your experience.

Where's the fun in that? Besides, how else are you going to amass a large drawer full of lenses with which to impress your non-photographer friends?



In all seriousness I do think that's what both Dan and I were getting at - there's more than one way to skin the cat.

[Dan Fromm]

Bosaiya, my non-photographer friends aren't impressed by my gear. They look at it, see antiques and improvisation, and snicker. So do the characters who take lotsa shots with their cell phones.

In all seriousness, yes there are many many ways to get the shot, even close up. And there are ways that work well enough that fit most budgets.

For me, the hard part wasn't finding gear, some of it at very low prices (those days seem to be gone, but ...). It was understanding technique and applying what I learned. This is why I suggested the OP buy a copy of Lefkowitz. Bulletin boards like this can be great fun, but they're not places to get a good education.

Cheers,

Dan

[Darryl Baird]

Hi all,
I am working in Alternative Processes and am looking for a 4x5 camera that will allow macro shots (at 1:1) of still lifes I am taking in the studio. Right now I have a Horseman monorail with a SinaronW F:115, 1:6,8 but I still cannot get close enough to have the entire subject in focus! Any thoughts on a camera/lens to look for would be greatly appreciated--thanks in advance!

I read all the posts here, but can't help but think the OP's question might reveal another problem... "entire subject in focus" jumped out at me and begs the questions -- "Are you asking about depth of field or sharpness?"
Speaking from experience, the depth of field is damned shallow at 1:1 no matter which lens is used. I've been working in 2:1 to 3:1 ratios lately and my enemy is diffraction from trying to get more depth through smaller apertures. I can't exceed f/16-f/22 and still keep decent resolution/sharpness.

shot attached done with g-claron 240mm, 4x5 film, with about 36-38 inches of bellows