Hello,
What is a good close focus lens for 4x5 ?
I am finding the Sinaron S 5.6 180mm MC is not that great for close focusing work.
Hello,
What is a good close focus lens for 4x5 ?
I am finding the Sinaron S 5.6 180mm MC is not that great for close focusing work.
I am now reading that this focusing limit is only a limit of the bellows.
Hmm, I'll have to do more testing...
A lot depends on what type of 4x5 you have and what the bellows extension is on it and how small can your bellows collapse :
I have a Field type 4x5 the smallest it will take is a 90mm W.A lens and the larges is 240mm That's it for my field camera
Maybe one of the other folks here will chime and explain how to figure it out for your Camera
Lauren MacIntosh
Whats in back of you is the past and whats in front of you is the future now in the middle you have choices to make for yourself:
If you want to do macro in the usual 1:1 area (as in, the object is the same size as the projected image on the ground glass), the lens must be racked out to 2x the focal length. So for example, if you have a camera with 240mm of bellows, you need about a 120mm lens to get to 1:1. If you want to go past that, for really small objects that become bigger than "lifesize" on the ground glass, you need even more.
Does that help? What's wrong with the 180, that it isn't sharp or that you can't get a close enough? It seems like with a 10" extension rail you'd be fine...
I use a 150mm G-Claron myself for macro stuff. I don't do it much to really have a dedicated "macro" lens, I just enjoy it, but the Clarons are a good, cheaper alternative (I got mine for $75 in shutter but I think I got a steal).
120 or 180mm Apo Macro Sironar for analog work and the 120 Apo Macro Digital if you are doing digital work.
The lens that you are using is not corrected for close-up work. The above three lenses are not optimized for work beyond 1:5.
Not exactly correct, but close for lenses of moderate focal length.
The actual distance from the film to the lensboard for 1:1 with a lens of any focal length
= the flange focal length plus the optical focal length.
The flange focal length can differ substantially from the optical focal length,
particularly for lenses shorter or longer than "normal".
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
Leigh wrote:
Leigh, if you meant to say "retrofocus or telephoto lenses" you're fine. Otherwise I think you shed darkness, not light.The flange focal length can differ substantially from the optical focal length, particularly for lenses shorter or longer than "normal".
The rule is, lens' rear node to film plane distance is f*(1 + m) where f is the lens' focal length and m is magnification. This is true regardless of focal length and the lens' design. At infinity, m = 0 and the rear node is f from the film plane. At 1:1, m = 1 and the rear node is 2f from the film plane.
The one difficulty with reducing the handy magic formula to practice is knowing where the lens' rear node is relative to the diaphragm. Some modern wide angle lenses have the rear node a moderate distance in front of the diaphragm. See, e.g., https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs...xl_56_47_3.pdf Others don't, see, e.g., http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/fo...ssic_68_90.pdf . It really depends on the lens so generalizations are dangerous.
The more-or-less symmetrical lenses we use, as well as some asymmetrical ones, e.g., Tessar types, all have the rear node very close to the diaphragm.
Have you tried putting your enlarging lenses on your Sinar? Optimized for close up, and you probably have a range of focal lengths already... Do a search and you'll find lots of info:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-taking-lenses
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ace-macro-lens
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
Dan,
If all lenses "have the rear node very close to the diaphragm" there would be no reason to publish a Flange Focal Length
spec on the datasheet, now would there???
But all lens datasheets from all manufacturers carry that spec.
My statement that the film-to-lensboard distance at 1:1 = FFL + OFL is absolutely correct for photographic lenses
of all types. No need to conjure up special cases where your generalities work.
While the difference between FFL and OFL may be much larger numerically for longer lenses,
the difference at the short end can be substantial also.
For example, the FFL for the 65mm Fujinon SWD is 73.4mm, which is 18% longer than the optical focal length.
- Leigh
Last edited by Leigh; 18-Mar-2012 at 14:56.
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
Bookmarks