Macro versus Process Lenses ?

[mdm]

First attachment made with a 240mm Ronar, second made with a 135mm Sironar S. Unfortunately I do not own a macro sironar to use in the comparison. They both look good to me, the Ronar may have higher resolution, I can't think of a more three dimensional subject. Both shot at f16 at either 1/8th or 1/15th of a second. Same camera position. Outdoors so movement could be a factor but I shot a holder for each lens and have used the best exposure. Equal but minimal sharpening applied on resize to both. I dont see any reason to get a macro lens because I would be surprised if it could make much of an improvement on either. The jpegs really do not do justice to the original files but I don't have time to put up a crop.

David

[Bob Salomon]

First attachment made with a 240mm Ronar, second made with a 135mm Sironar S. Unfortunately I do not own a macro sironar to use in the comparison. They both look good to me, the Ronar may have higher resolution, I can't think of a more three dimensional subject. Both shot at f16 at either 1/8th or 1/15th of a second. Same camera position. Outdoors so movement could be a factor but I shot a holder for each lens and have used the best exposure. Equal but minimal sharpening applied on resize to both. I dont see any reason to get a macro lens because I would be surprised if it could make much of an improvement on either. The jpegs really do not do justice to the original files but I don't have time to put up a crop.

David

One major difference between a macro lens and the lenses that you used is detail in the corners as well as the edges. Your shots only illustrate a subject in the center. In addition the Apo Ronar performs optimally at f22 only, not f16. And since neither is done with a macro lens you have not compared the results to a macro. Only a process lens to a lens corrected for 1:10.

[mdm]

That is true. However my Ronar is tack sharp wide open, I do not doubt that it performs to specifcation at f22. Perhaps it is vulnerable to minor distortion away from f22, I do not know because I am not reproducing maps. I would love to have a 120mm macro sironar but first I must do justice to what I already have.

It is probably true that a macro sironar renders a small scene in a more pleasing way than a sironar s, the ronar and the sironar s render a scene very differently, a heliar or a tessar would differ again. Probably, the difference would show most for a colour photograph, and if I made my living photographing precious jewls with subtle colours and shiny metals, and I needed to catch the eye of the most discriminating readers of glossy catalouges, I would have a macro sironar. I am just an overworked dairy farmer and I use a camera to escape for an hour or two, here and there, which is all the time I can afford.

David

[mdm]

Having made some A3+ prints now, it is clear (from a very unscientific comparison) that the Ronar produced a nicer result overall than the Sironar S. This is a multicoated Ronar in shutter. Not surprising really, considering that it was operating closer to its comfort range than the Sironar S was. I believe that a Macro Sironar would have done a better job again because it would have been doing exactly what it was designed for. How much better?

Close to 1:1 a multi coated process lens is clearly better than a normal lens, even a very good normal lens. I will be using the Ronar for my flowers from now on and putting the Sironar S onto a field camera where it belongs. Those 240mm Ronars floating around for very little are the bargain of the century.

It is very hard to take a good picture of a dandelion, try again David.

[Ken Lee]

Daffodils, March 2010
Sinar P, 210mm Macro Sinaron DB
5x7 HP5+, Pyrocat HD

[mdm]

That is beautiful. The fringes of the inner bells certainly are wonderfully dimensional. I can't tell from here that this one is any better than your other flowers made with other lens's. Do you have an opinion yet, Ken?

David

[mdm]

Here is a f9 process lens shot wide open, wider than f9, on fp4+ developed in pyrocat, 8min in BTZS tubes I think.

Second one was with a Sironar S, also wide open and fp4+ in pyrocat but may have been 36 minutes with 4 agitation cycles in 1:1:150, not shure though.

There is a lot of vey fine detail in both of theese although it is not easily aparent in the jpegs. I still have not seen anything that can justify spending $$$ on a macro lens.

[Ken Lee]

That is beautiful. The fringes of the inner bells certainly are wonderfully dimensional. I can't tell from here that this one is any better than your other flowers made with other lens's. Do you have an opinion yet, Ken?

David

My objective opinion: I will make the same image with 2 or more different lenses. I have a 240 APO Nikkor, and a 240 Fujinon. We'll see what the difference is on film.

My subjective opinion: Bob Salomon has tirelessly and patiently pointed out that Macro lenses are designed differently from Process lenses, that manufacturers have taken the time and made the effort for genuine and tangible reasons. As soon as I looked through the ground glass, I could see a difference in overall image fidelity: clarity, sharpness, and color. Black and white doesn't tell the whole story.

Some of this may be due to the lens opening to f/5.6 instead of f/9, but it strikes me as more than that. The lens gives a certain look that I get from my Rodenstock APO-Sironar S 150 at normal distances. It's hard to describe, other than that it looks alive - like what we see with the naked eye.

Here's another one with the same lens, film, etc.