Does a Schneider 180mm Macro have enough resolution if used with 120 films?

[Tom Monego]

I did a lot of work photographing microsurgical instruments on LF. I had 35 but couldn't get the DOF I needed, movements did help a lot. I used a 120 APO-Macro Nikor first on a Linhof Technica, most successfully on a Calumet/Cambo. Most were shot at f16 or f22, I used both 4x5 and 2 1/4x 2 3/4 with 120 film in a Linhof Super Rollex back. Tried a Horseman back but it didn't keep film flat enough. Because of the stainless on the instruments I would polarize the light. Mag was generally 1:1 or 2:1. resolution was excellent, once for a trade show I had a print done 2.5 x 6ft. It was so good the owner of the lab delivered it to my studio asking if they could use it as a display. The accuracy was also my downfall, photographed one prototype and showed a manufacturing defect, the owner decided then to have artists draw the instruments. Was a good gig while it lasted.

Tom

[John Powers]

Several years ago I moved up in format from a Mamiya RZ67 to a Linhof Technikardan 45. I had not yet purchased a Jobo cpp-2 to process 4x5 negatives so I decided to use a Super Rollex 6x7 RF back. I did a series of twenty metallic spirals printed 9.5” x13” to fit a set of previously used mats and overmats. My lens was a 180mm Rodenstock Apo-Macro Sironar f5.6 MC f5.6-64 with Copal #1 shutter. I used f45 thinking this would give me the most depth of field with the movements. I am taking photography courses in my retirement and this series led to my first solo show. The professors teaching thought the resolution good enough to merit a show for the whole art school.

A thought to consider about composition is the size of the film relative to the size of the ground glass. It was a surprise to me at the time, and thus possibly useful for the OP. Though you will be focusing on a 4x5 screen you will need to determine what is covered by the RF format. Once I did this, I marked the corners of the 6x7 image on the screen grid with a Sharpy marker. All composition was based on this.

I have moved on to larger formats and am just about to sell this camera and kit of lenses. PM me if you might be interested in the 180mm macro.

John

[Lynn Jones]

No matter what you have heard, lenses since WWII are all sharp enough for all format sizes. The exception is that telephotos were not very good until high dispersion glasses or extra high dispersions glasses, those rated in Abbe numbers. These changes started to take place in the early to mid 1970's. In fact I've used lots of non telephoto lenses from well before WWII which I found to be excellent.

Some so-called phototechnical writers used to give us some hogwash about resolution for different formats but when you tested the various lenses, there was an incredible similarity from lens type to lens type. High quality Tessars, Gaussians, Artars, post WWII Plasmats, 100 degree super wides, etc. tended to have similar type qualities until refraction reared it ugly head. I won't give the names of the manufacturers who were known to have a bit less quality, especially some tessar types, some of us have been in the business for several decades and have had some unhappy experiences even with famous makers.

If anything, have suspicion regarding lenses for 35mm, some of them have been questionable.

Most camera lenses have been optimized at infinity unless they have been called macro, graphic arts, or super wide angle, or some other clue to these different criteria.

Sorry to be so wordy,

Lynn

[neoro]

thanks all for the great advice.
After setting some time off of my busy schedule, I have taken some test shots on a Chamonix 4x5 + Rodenstock 120mm Apo

HEre's the results shot on a 6x9 back. (will process the 4x5 when I'm back next week from a trip)