Enlarging lens for close Ups ???

[richard w]

I want to shoot close ups of flowers with my 8x10 camera. I have a 300mm lens a nd currently my bellows ext. is 40 " and I am still not filling the frame with m y subject. Obviously I could get a shorter focal lenght lens and this would sho rten my bellows. Can an enlarging lens be used ?? I am trying to fill a 8x10 f rame and the subject (flower) is only 4x4 inches. I have several enlaging lenses and all my exposures are long ones so I do not need a shutter. Any suggestions ?? Thank you in advance !!!!!

[Sean Billy Bob Boy yates]

Yes, absolutley, a reversed enlarging lens will work just fine as a close-up lens.

This used to be a more common practice than it is today, but folks still do it in a pinch or when they can't find/afford a 50mm lens for an 8 X 10. Some even go so far as to dedicate a board to an enlarger lens and epoxy it in place. When I did it I used a 150mm Rodenstock on 4 X 5 and because the way the board was made had to mount it inside the camera, but you can work out the mechanics yourself on your end.

[Ellis Vener]

Doing a little math, I see that you are trying to do a roughly 2:1 enlargement of the flower. Sounds neat! With your current 300mm lens you'd need roughly 1200mm of bellows and camera.

A 150mm focal lens should do the trick. If you need slightly more extention try mounting the lens on a family size soupcan that you then mount to lens board.

If your 150mm is or can be mounted in a "tub" style enlarger lensboard (like for old Omega D-2 enlargers) you might be able to mount this directly to your camera with no need for a lens board on the camera

[N Dhananjay]

hi life size i.e., 1:1 would mean a bellows draw of twice the focal length. trying to fill an 8X10 frame with a 4X4 subject is something like a 2X magnification. a shorter focal length would allow you to shorten the bellows extension but then you have to contend with the broader angle of view which will give you more of the background (which may or may not be an issue since it is blurred by the shallow dof). positioning the lens and film plane becomes really critical at high magnifications and can be quite a pain. also, your lens is actually collecting a lot more light (i.e., only a small amount of the light collected is ending up on the film area). all the extra light is going to be bouncing around the place, reducing contrast and saturation. re process lenses, i don't think they will solve your bellows extension problems which is essentially one of focal length and magnification. the one advantage might be the fact that they are optimized for performance at small distances as opposed to regular lenses which are optimized for longer subject distances. another option (if you use that format) might be to use a 4X5 which would let you work at 1:1. hope this helps. dj

[Tony Brent]

An enlarging lens should work fine. You will probably be using the lens cap as your shutter (like they did way back when -- still works) I used to use my 203mm/f 7 ektar which normally lived on my 4x5 camera for doing 1:1 on the 8x10. Very sharp, it covered to full format with a bit left over for swings.

[John Hicks]

An enlarging lens will work fine. Schneider sells an adaptor ring to adapt a standard 39mm enlarging-lens screwm ount into a #1 shutter. You could also of course use tape; it's a close press-fi t.

[Dave Schneidr]

A sidebar to this thread.... Is it possible to use a flat field lens optimized for 1:1 as an enlarger lens? I have been thinking about the 150mm F9 G-Claron for sometime but cannot justify the cost. Perhaps if I could use it as enlarger lens as well I could rationalize the purchase. As an alternative, if I have a 150 mm enlarger lens to use for close ups, mounted in a shutter, would it perform at lower magnifications or even to infinity? All long range planning, my 35mm enlarger has been in storage since the kids were born, just planning ahead to my LF darkroom in a few years.

[Vishal Mathur]

I've used a 210mm G-claron and 180/9 Fuji AS for enlarging 5x7, and they both work great. As a sanity check, I made prints from a 4x5 inch negative at 16x20 size to compare a 135 componon-s vs the 210 G-claron. They were identical in sharpness, except of course the 210 was a bit sharper at the edges. In another test, the Fuji 180 and componon-s 135 were also identical in sharpness, but the Fuji had slightly more contrast. I also compared this 210 to a 90mm Apo Rodagon on a 6x6cm Ilford panF/PMK pyro negative at about a 10x10 in print size. I think anybody would have a hard time telling them apart. After going through all this it seems that the only advantage a real enlarging lens has over a G-claron or Fuji AS is wider aperature.

[Erik Ryberg]

I use a G Claron 150 mm as my 4x5 enlarging lens. It even came in a Schneider enlarger mount.

[Bob Salomon]

<I've used a 210mm G-claron and 180/9 Fuji AS for enlarging 5x7, and they both work great. As a sanity check, I made prints from a 4x5 inch negative at 16x20 size to compare a 135 componon-s vs the 210 G-claron. They were identical in sharpness, except of course the 210 was a bit sharper at the edges. In another test, the Fuji 180 and componon-s 135 were also identical in sharpness, but the Fuji had slightly more contrast. I also compared this 210 to a 90mm Apo Rodagon on a 6x6cm Ilford panF/PMK pyro negative at about a 10x10 in print size. I think anybody would have a hard time telling them apart. After going through all this it seems that the only advantage a real enlarging lens has over a G-claron or Fuji AS is wider aperature. >

You were using a glass carrier and had properly aligned your enlarger?

If not you did not get the results that your enlarging lenses are capable of.

OTOH all process lenses shorter than 600mm are optimized to perform optimally at only one aperture. F22. 600mm and longer are designed to be used at f32.

Your tests were done at f22 in a glass carrier with a properly aligned enlarger? Or were they just prints made as conditions permitted with a glassless carrier in an enlarger that had not been properly aligned?

And were your comparison prints from the same negative made on the same paper with the same developer and time?

Or were you comparing different prints from different scenes on possibly different paper and different processing?

If all else is equal a quality enlarging lens. Used within its optimization range, within it optimal aperture range, printed in a properly aligned enlarger with a glass carrier will be a far superior performer to