4 x 5 lens for macro use in 8 x 10

[Dick Watson]

I'm thinking of using a lens of maybe 180 or 210 mm focal length with my 8 x 10 to do macro work, > 1:1. These lenses normally won't cover the 8 x 10 format bu t it seems to me that if I use them at a longer extension for the close up work they will cover just fine since the image circle should expand to fit. The reas on for thinking of this is the expense of a normal 4 x 5 lens vs. that for 8 x 1 0. Can anyone think of a reason why this is a bad idea? I know I'm asking for s ome long exposure times but most of the work would be indoors in pretty calm and stable conditions.

[Sean Billy Bob Boy yates]

FWIW... I have used my 210 mm Osaka as a C.U. and E.C.U. lens on 8 X 10 and been happy with the results. It's a tessar design, no great shakes, just a good general purpose lens and for contact prints it's working out fine.

As I recall, there was an article in View Camera Mag about shooting 8 X 10 inexpensively some time in '93 or '94. The author relates using a 210mm also, but I think it was an Ektar or similar lens of better quality for the same general purpose. I know Weston mentions using one for some of his vegetable close-ups in his Daybooks. He even tried a 5 inch lens.

Along similar lines, I have used my 150 Rodenstock enlarging lens reversed as a close-up lens for 4 X 5 and 5 X 7. It was awkward, but I was using slow copy film stock, ASA 80 (+/-) so the hat/lens cap shutter method worked fine.

[Alan Gibson]

The downside would be that general purpose lenses are not optimised to work in this way. The drop in quality may not matter, of course.

If you need magnifications much larger than 1:1, you could even use, say, a reversed 35mm lens.

[Ron Shaw]

At 1:1, the circle of coverage should be twice the diameter of its circle at infinity, so it should work, I would think. I remember reading somewhere that the Kodak 203mm Ektar held its corrections at 1:1, and they can be found listed in shutterbug all the time. I think it covers 5x7, so 8x10 at 1:1 should be ok, coverage wise.

[Sean Donnelly]

LF lenses not specifically designed for macro work are best corrected for use with the long conjugate (distance to focus) in front of the lens. At reproduction ratios greater than 1:1, the long conjugate is behind the lens. Such lenses often work better if mounted backwards on the lensboard, so that the long conjugate is on the optimal side of the lens.

[Tony Brent]

I used to routinely use a 203 Ektar on my 8 x 10 Deardorff for life sized images of objects about the size of an apple. The results were as good as anything els e I have seen. I also gained enough coverage to use some camera movements. Go ah ead and try some exposures and see what you come up with. It worked for Edward W eston.