Is it ok to use macro lens for non-macro works?

[Dan Fromm]

As Ryan points out there is a big difference in price. Could anyone comment more on the performance issues? <large snip>

Performance issues? There's a law of nature to the effect that a lens can be optimized for only one pair of conjugates, but some design types, e.g., dialyte, lose little when used at magnifications far from the ones they are optimized for. This is why Rodenstock used to advertise that Apo Ronars were better at distance than telephoto lenses. Used to advertise, modern teles for LF are much better than the teles on the market when Rodenstock's marketers made the claim.

All that said, a modern lens optimized for closeup will perform better closeup than a modern lens optimized for distance, and vice versa. Whether the gains in image quality from using the right lens for the job is worth the cost of buying two is an individual decision that depends in part on how much the negs are to be enlarged.

Rockwell is an entertainer, not a serious person. Small formats force low magnification. At the same magnification and effective aperture, all formats have the same DoF, but larger formats capture more of the subject.

The OP wanted to know whether a 120 mm macro lens could be used for general out-and-about photography on 4x5. Short answer, no because it won't cover the format at infinity.

Whether macro work is better done with a smaller or a larger format depends on the size of the final print. My good 35 mm KM slides won't print satisfactorily at 8x10 because I shoot at too small an effective aperture. My good 2x3 E100G trannies shot at the same effective aperture will print will at 8x10 because they don't need to be enlarged as much and because the film isn't that much less sharp than KM.

But those 2x3 shots contain much more subject than the 35 mm ones. Here's an exercise for you: calculate DoF and maximum resolution possible in the plane of best focus for a shot at 1:1 and for a shot at 2.25:1. That's the difference in magnification between a 1:1 frame filler on 35 mm and the equivalent frame filler on 2x3.

Cheers,

Dan

[Armin Seeholzer]

The OP wanted to know whether a 120 mm macro lens could be used for general out-and-about photography on 4x5. Short answer, no because it won't cover the format at infinity.

My APO Macro Sironar 120mm Covers 4x5 at infinity and up to 1:5 it has a covering power of 201 mm at f8-11.
But its not so easy to focus sharp at infinity, beacuse it is far away from its normal use!
Up to 1:10 its really top!


Cheers Armin

[Bosaiya]

The problem with discussions of macro photography as I see them is that they tend to assume that everyone knows what everyone else is trying to accomplish. It's probably safe to assume "more of the same" but then you never know. People tend to start from the angle of assuming that maximum DOF is the ultimate goal and work from there, which might not be the case at all (again, it probably is, but it's good to know from the beginning).

I find it easier to work in large format due to the modular bellows-based nature of the camera system I use. Getting more magnification is never the point of difficulty and the large range of apertures, 5.6-64 on the Schneider, gives lots of options for focus. The ground glass is well-suited for viewing the composition, plane of focus, etc. without squinting. The tradeoff is size and weight, roughly that of a small Eastern European car.

I have a rekajiggered movements-based MF macro setup but it really feels like a compromise every time I use it, neither as portable as small format or as controllable as large format. Figure out what you want to get out of it, and if it's really something you want to pursue, then grab it by the throat and run with it.

[r.e.]

I find it easier to work in large format due to the modular bellows-based nature of the camera system I use.

If I can ask, what system are you using?

[emo supremo]

Silly comment that comes from talking out loud. Yeah, I didn't think so either but sometimes screwy things pop up under wierd circumstances (radar, recombinant DNA...stuff like that). When I mentioned slower (i just checked) my old MicroNikkor is 3.5 to 22 and i meant slower relative a normal 1.# Just where does all that light go to when I shoot macro?

[Dan Fromm]

Emilio, buy a copy of Lefkowitz, Lester. 1979. The Manual of Close-Up Photography. Amphoto. Garden City, NY. 272 pp. ISBN 0-8174-2456-3 (hardbound) and 0-8174-2130-0 (softbound). And then read it.

[Bosaiya]

If I can ask, what system are you using?

It's based on Sinar components. Sinar standards and then a custom rail and bellows. Lately I've been experimenting with something more portable but I just haven't had the time to see it through.

[Bosaiya]

Just where does all that light go to when I shoot macro?

To the dark side, of course.

[Jiri Vasina]

.... Just where does all that light go to when I shoot macro?

Intensity of (any) radiation (and light rays are the same) decreases with the distance squared. The lens focused at 1:1 will be twice as far from the film as if focused at infinity. And only 1/4th of the light will fall on the film. So you have to have appropriately longer exposure to amend for the loss of light.

(a quick and dirty sketch is attached. What I wanted to show, the square #1 and the square #2 are of the same size...)

[Dan Fromm]

Jiri, if we spoon feed him, how will he ever learn to feed himself?