Do I need macro lens for 3:1 or similar ratio?

[mob81]

Or will a 210mm f5.6 should deliver the goods as I'm planing to do with 6x9 back an occasionally 4x5.

I'm looking for 3:1 and extremely rare 2:1 mostly with medium format back "flowers under controlled environment"

Regards,
Mohammed

[mob81]

Sorry, I mean 1:3 and 1:2!!

[Brian C. Miller]

For 1:3 or 1:2, most lenses will be absolutely fine. Yes, the macro lenses are optimized for this work, but you only need one if degradation is evident. To find out, put a shiny coin, like a nickel or a dime, on a piece of black paper. Rack out your camera to maximum magnification, and photograph it with color film. Then look at the image. If you see distortion of red-blue-green not lining up, then you need a different lens. If you do a web search for macro photography, there are example photos of what I'm referencing. Another trick is to turn your lens around, and you can also use a macro diopter filter.

[Dan Fromm]

Good luck. I do much what you do, often have difficulties with wind. The subject moves between the time I've focused and composed and the time I take the shot. Your controlled environment will have to be very well controlled.

To answer y'r question, a 210/5.6 taking lens will pass light and form an image, even at 1:2. Try a couple of shots and see if you can live with the image quality. You're a better judge of what's good enough for you than anyone else.

If you don't like what y'r 210 does, an enlarging lens optimized for small enlargements should do fairly well for you. Schneider has said that for enlargements between 2x and 6x (taking at 1:2 to 1:6) a Comparon (enlarging Xenar) will do better than a Componon (enlarging Symmar) and Comparons are relatively inexpensive. I have lenses that are better closeup than my 105 and 150 Comparons but I've tried my Comparons and if I had to I could stand using them as taking lenses around 1:3 to 1:2. My little Comparons' cells are direct fits in a #0. There's a 210 Comparon, I'm not sure which shutter its cells go into.

An alternative, possibly more expensive, would be a 150 or 180 or 210 process lens. To give you an idea of what can be done, I have a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II and a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS (35 mm lens, not LF). There's no comparison. The Koni is better at 1:2, and 1:10 and at infinity at f/11, f/16 and f/22. Putting a Koni in shutter will be expensive. If you must use a 210, 210 G-Clarons' and some 210 Apo Ronars have cells that are direct fits in a #1.

Finally, if you're going to be shooting mainly 6x9, think hard about whether you need a lens as long as 210 mm. I've been quite happy shooting flowers on 6x9 with a 100.

Brian, I'm sorry that you're repeated the canard that lenses should be reversed for closeup work. Taking lenses are optimized for a large subject in front of the lens and a small negative behind the lens. Big front, small behind. When shooting above 1:1, the subject is small, the negative large. Small front, big behind. Lenses that aren't perfectly symmetrical should be reversed when shooting above 1:1, don't need to be reversed at lower magnifications. In fact, they loose if they're reversed at lower magnifications.

[Ken Lee]

To add briefly to Dan's comments: some of the real macro lenses for Large Format are plasmat designs optimized for close work. All things being equal they will have wider coverage than a process lens of equivalent length... but on 6x9 a Large Format lens will give you more coverage than you need - especially a 210mm lens. So another vote for a process or enlarger lens.

[Brian C. Miller]

Brian, I'm sorry that you're repeated the canard that lenses should be reversed for closeup work.

"Should?" Ah, no, I didn't write that. I wrote "trick." I wrote that the lens the OP wants to use needs to be tested for the purpose at hand. For my own macro photography, when I reversed a lens I don't remember that 1:anything was a possibility. The lens' magnification dictated the camera position.

[drew.saunders]

Or will a 210mm f5.6 should deliver the goods as I'm planing to do with 6x9 back an occasionally 4x5.

It will work just fine, but you might want a shorter lens so you don't have to rack your bellows out so far. For 4x5, some popular macro focal lengths are 120mm and 180mm, much shorter than similar macro lenses for smaller formats.


I'm looking for 3:1 and extremely rare 2:1 mostly with medium format back "flowers under controlled environment"

Regards,
Mohammed
Controlled environment like this?

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2758/4282675483_3f34ed9c51.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/4282675483/)

That's my indoor "rainy day" macro setup. I'm using cheap "construction felt" from the local Jo-Ann fabrics, it was something like $5/yard or less, so I bought 2 yard (so 6x6') pieces in white, grey and black. I mostly use the black now.

Here's one with a proper macro lens, a 120/4 on a Mamiya 645E:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8486/8219522830_525c59436f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/8219522830/)

And here's one with a c. 1952 Zeiss Tessar, which is very far removed from a "proper" macro lens:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4030/4286675630_749ac8a86f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/4286675630/)

If you click on either and select "view all sizes" to see the larger size, you might be able to tell that the real macro lens is sharper at the edges. The question is, what's important to you? Are you looking for the best edge-to-edge resolution and accurate color? Then you'll want a real macro or process lens. If you're shooting black and white and/or prefer that the images might be a pinch soft at the edges, then use a regular lens racked out.

By the way, at $10 each, these goose-neck LED desk lamps from Ikea are perfect for table-top macro photography:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/20169658/

Drew

[Drew Wiley]

If it was for 4x5 film, I'd recommend a 210 G-Claron. Close-range corrected and very compact. But that's quite a narrow angle
of view on 6x9. The next thing shorter that comes to mind is the 180A Fujinon - another small close-range lens, then below
that the 150 G-Claron. All of these are excellent at inifinity too.

[8x10 user]

Up until about 6 months ago I was using a Nikon D2X with the latest Nikon macro lens for all of digital work. Then I upgraded to an older 22mp medium format digital system.... The shots that I am getting with just a regular Sironar Digital in macro appear to surpass the dedicated Nikon Macro lens in quality. I actually saw chromatic abberation on the shots with the Nikon, but none with the Rodenstock. Now I have a Macro digital lens on its way :D

I also tried doing some extreme macro shots with a reversed 80mm Digitar, but the images were not very good when viewed at full resolution.

[Drew Wiley]

The problem with a process lens on a field camera with a 6x9 back is balancing or supporting the extra wt, esp if it must be
fitted into a larger shutter. A true macro lens is more for photographing something like diamond rings. The tabletop-corrected
plastmats like a G-Claron or Fuji A will fill the intermediate niche better, esp if you also want something lightwt and equally
suitable for general purpose and inifinity shooting. I would vastly prefer to shoot closeups on full-sized 4x5 because focus
is so much easier than on 6x9. Everything gets fussier with a rollfilm back.

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, the 210 G Claron's cells are direct fits in a #1. I have one, older dagor type, in barrel. It weighs 180 g. You may be thinking of longer process lenses, and especially of Klimsch Apo-Ronars. Longer Klimsch Apo Ronars in particular seem overweight. Funny thing is that their 150 Apo Ronar, which just covers 4x5 at 1:3 and is fine at infinity on 6x9, is tiny, smaller and lighter than the normally mounted 150 Apo Ronar.

[Bernice Loui]

The common plasmat view camera lens will work OK for this. Do compensate for the amount of bellows draw and exposure as required.
Know stopping down past f32 is going to cost significant resolution in the resultant image. The trade off between DOF and resolution is going to be a balance between the two and what you're trying to achieve in the final image.


Moving beyond the typical plasmat:

Process lenses like APO Nikkor, G-Claron, APO Artar, APO Ronar, Kowa Graphic, and the rest will produce better results at these reproduction ratios.

What is often ignored as excellent lenses at these reproduction ratios are enlarger lenses like Componon, Rodagon and etc.. For magnifications grater than 1:1, reverse mount the enlarger lens to achieve excellent results.

Some years ago I had a collection of Zeiss Luminars (normally used on the Zeiss Ultraphot microscope) which are considered by many some of the finest macro lenses available for 4x5. A run of the mill chrome barrel Componon reversed mounted achieved better or equal results. Schneider offered a shutter mounted Componon, aka Componon-M which is their componon reverse mounted in a shutter.

There are macro specific view camera lenses made by Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor.. they cost more than the alternatives mentioned above and do not produce results that justify their added cost.


Bernice




Or will a 210mm f5.6 should deliver the goods as I'm planing to do with 6x9 back an occasionally 4x5.

I'm looking for 3:1 and extremely rare 2:1 mostly with medium format back "flowers under controlled environment"

Regards,
Mohammed

[mob81]

I have the g-claron 150mm but for my setup is a bit dim and hard to focus!

I meant by 210mm, regular 210mm like the nikkor-w not a macro 210mm! My fault as I didn't make it clear "kids are screaming today and can't even think :) )

[Bob Salomon]

The common plasmat view camera lens will work OK for this. Do compensate for the amount of bellows draw and exposure as required.
Know stopping down past f32 is going to cost significant resolution in the resultant image. The trade off between DOF and resolution is going to be a balance between the two and what you're trying to achieve in the final image.

For those flower pictures a macro lens like the 120 or 180mm Apo Macro Sironar or the older 210 or 300mm Makro Sironar will give the best results. The 120mm Apo Macro Sironar is the lens that was used for that elephant portfolio sized book on the rare orchids of the Smithsonian.
Moving beyond the typical plasmat:

Process lenses like APO Nikkor, G-Claron, APO Artar, APO Ronar, Kowa Graphic, and the rest will produce better results at these reproduction ratios.

What is often ignored as excellent lenses at these reproduction ratios are enlarger lenses like Componon, Rodagon and etc.. For magnifications grater than 1:1, reverse mount the enlarger lens to achieve excellent results.

Some years ago I had a collection of Zeiss Luminars (normally used on the Zeiss Ultraphot microscope) which are considered by many some of the finest macro lenses available for 4x5. A run of the mill chrome barrel Componon reversed mounted achieved better or equal results. Schneider offered a shutter mounted Componon, aka Componon-M which is their componon reverse mounted in a shutter.

There are macro specific view camera lenses made by Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor.. they cost more than the alternatives mentioned above and do not produce results that justify their added cost.


Bernice

[Sevo]

I'm looking for 3:1 and extremely rare 2:1 mostly with medium format back "flowers under controlled environment"


For flowers (or any other three-dimensional subject) any regular Plasmat will do. These don't show relevant amounts of CA at these modest ratios (I certainly have to go past 1:1 to get visible CA issues with my Nikkor-Ws and Symmars), but they are visibly worse than macro and process lenses where flatness of field is concerned (which obviously won't matter when lacking all flatness of subject).

[Drew Wiley]

Unless you are photographing individual bugs or diamond rings, I wouldn't be too fussy. What I'd be more concerning about
is whether or not you find the out-of-focus characteristics with a particular lens, rather than its ultimate sharpness relatively
close. You really have to enlarge such things quite a bit before you can tell the difference between a good general-purpose
plastmat and a close-range corrected one. Per G-Clarons specifically ... sorry, a bit of confusion. I was referring to their
taking series, plasmats already in shutter. They also made process lenses under this series, which are different, and certainly
not all plasmat.

[Dan Fromm]

Bernice, the longest Luminar is 100/6.3. A little shorter than the OP thinks he needs. Also quite expensive. AFAIK there are no lenses in the Luminar-Macro Nikkor-Photar class that are much longer. All are scarce and expensive, even now, most are for higher magnification than the OP wants. Answering a question is good, answering the question actually asked is usually better.

[Bob Salomon]

For flowers (or any other three-dimensional subject) any regular Plasmat will do. These don't show relevant amounts of CA at these modest ratios (I certainly have to go past 1:1 to get visible CA issues with my Nikkor-Ws and Symmars), but they are visibly worse than macro and process lenses where flatness of field is concerned (which obviously won't matter when lacking all flatness of subject).

Unless the center to edge perfomance and the corner to corner performance is important. Then you will see a difference.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah Bob ... I just noticed he was referring to a "controlled environment", so assume this means studio conditions where
a dedicated macro lens might be chosen. In the field I'd rather have something more verstaile, even if it meant a little less
brighter viewing. Indoors, that extra stop would help. But I've got accustomed to doing 8x10 closeups here in the redwoods
with lenses with a max aperture of f/10, so it's all relative.

[Roger Hesketh]

A Series IIIb f6 8 1/2 inch x5 copying Cooke Aviar. It is a barrel lens that is single coated. Not too heavy. That will open up quite wide to allow a nice bright screen to assist in focusing before you stop down to the taking aperture. It is gives a good working distance and is perfect for use on something like an Anniversary Speed Graphic for the kind of reproduction ratios that you are talking about. Will work well at infinity too. Nice lens to use on a 4x5 Graflex SLR. The best thing of all is that they can be bought very cheap £30-£40 presumably because few appreciate their qualities.

[Bernice Loui]

Mis-understood...

The mention of Zeiss Luminar is to point out these have become rare, sought after by collectors and perform not better than a reverse mounted enlarger lens.
Zeiss Luminar's are a tessar design optimized a specific magnification range for each focal length of Luminar.

My answer to this question had it's reply.. read the post..

*The common modern plasmant are good enough for close up in this range, they do meet the requirements of most users. Even an modern symmetrical Bigon type wide angle lens works for reproduction ratios in this range with surprising good results.

*If better performance is desired, use an APO process lens, enlarging lens or Macro specific lens (most expensive option).

*Remember to factor in bellows factor due to the reproduction ratio.

*Stopping down past f22 - f32 is going to reduce resolution due to diffraction while trading off for DOF (apparent sharpness).


Bernice


Bernice, the longest Luminar is 100/6.3. A little shorter than the OP thinks he needs. Also quite expensive. AFAIK there are no lenses in the Luminar-Macro Nikkor-Photar class that are much longer. All are scarce and expensive, even now, most are for higher magnification than the OP wants. Answering a question is good, answering the question actually asked is usually better.

[mob81]

Dear All,
As always, plenty of information and great educational posts.
I'll probably try to find a true Macro Lens (120mm Or 180mm) to use with Sinar F1 "I have plenty of rail extensions that came with the kit" and will see if the Sinar F1 standard bellow will handle 1:3 to 1:1 if needed at maximum or I'll buy one more bellow and the required items for extra reach" Only if needed.

[Dan Fromm]

Bernice, I'm sorry, but there's only one tessar type Luminar, the 25/3.5. The 16/2.5 has 5 elements in 4 groups. The others are triplets. See http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_Luminar/00_pag.htm

All are best wide open. At the magnifications all but the 100/6.3 are intended for there's no gain from stopping down, only loss. If you tested y'r Luminars stopped down you stacked the deck against them.

How did you test? I ask because I've tried out all five Luminars on USAF 1951 targets on glass, also a number of other high performance macro lenses and enlarging lenses. The only enlarging lens I tried that came close to the corresponding Luminar is a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar, which actually tested as well as a known good 100/6.3 Luminar. Against that, Klaus Schmitt (visit his site macrolenses.de) has a 4"/5.6 EPR and regards it as "nothing special." I've also shot a number of ~ 100 mm enlarging lenses (Componar, Componon, Componon-S, El-Nikkor) out informally at 1:2 or so and at 1:1 against a printed USAF 1951 target against my 4"/5.6 Wolly. It won.

Oh, yes, my test shots were with the lens wide open, one stop down, and two stop down and at a range of magnifications. Short answer, don't stop the lenses down if the magnification is much above 1:1 and use them only in their recommended range of magnifications. Resolution diminishes rapidly on stopping down.

For a less comprehensive semi-formal test in which the Luminar wins, see http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/enlargerlensespm.htm

Oh, and by the way, I also found that the fixed aperture 25/2.8 Summar supplied with the YELUU projection microscope attachment for some Prado projectors and the 25/1.9 Cine Ektar II, reversed and at f/2.8, are very competitive with the 25/3.5 Luminar (three examples). A 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS reversed and at f/4 is almost as good as a 63/4.5 Luminar wide open and is a very cost-effective alternative; the Luminar's big advantage is that it is slimmer.

The consensus in books on photomacrography (see, e.g., Brian Bracegirdle's Scientific Photomacrography) is that Luminars, Macro Nikkor and Photars are the best lenses for photomacrography. I'd add some CZJ Mikrotars (40/4.5, a triplet and 90/6.3, a reversed tessar) and Reichert's 100/6.3 Neupolar (also a reversed tessar) to that group.

Thing is, wonderful as these lenses are, none is appropriate for the OP's application. They're all too short and only the ~ 100 mm ones will cover 4x5 at the magnifications he wants to use. At the magnifications he wants, most if not all standard plasmats are worse than process lenses or the right enlarging lens. I directed him to an enlarging lens that's inexpensive and optimized, according to its maker, for the range of magnifications he wants. Most enlarging lenses are optimized for lower magnifications (= greater enlargement).

[IanG]

What about a 203mm f7.7 Ektar these are good sharp lenses at those close distances and also for normal work, excellent value for money as well. Personally I'd suggest a UK made Mount 370 type, come in Epsilon, Prontor SVS or late Compur all #0 shutters (depends on the age) or a late US version in a Compur 1.

Ian

[Ole Tjugen]

...
Thing is, wonderful as these lenses are, none is appropriate for the OP's application. They're all too short and only the ~ 100 mm ones will cover 4x5 at the magnifications he wants to use. At the magnifications he wants, most if not all standard plasmats are worse than process lenses or the right enlarging lens. I directed him to an enlarging lens that's inexpensive and optimized, according to its maker, for the range of magnifications he wants. Most enlarging lenses are optimized for lower magnifications (= greater enlargement).

Not quite. The old Schneider Symmar convertible lenses were optimised for 1:3 instead of 1:10 or 1:infinity. That was done as a compromise, in an attempt to make a lens that would work equally well at 1:1 as at infinity. Result is that they are great close-up lenses but slightly less than optimal for landscape and 1:1.

[Mark Sawyer]

I think the OP should try his enlarging lens on the camera, or just turn his regular camera lens around...

[Bruce Pottorff]

I have a never-used Nikkor-AM ED 120 5.6 for $400. Let me know.

[Dan Fromm]

Not quite. The old Schneider Symmar convertible lenses were optimised for 1:3 instead of 1:10 or 1:infinity. That was done as a compromise, in an attempt to make a lens that would work equally well at 1:1 as at infinity. Result is that they are great close-up lenses but slightly less than optimal for landscape and 1:1.

Interesting. Why do you believe this? That Schneider would optimize their best normal lens of the time for a lower magnification than the enlarging version of the same lens seems odd.

I went looking for convertible Symmar (plasmat type, not dagor type) brochures at http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm to check and got a rude surprise. Schneider's site has changed and I couldn't find the archive of old brochures there. If this is real and not my fault, what a blow!

I did find two convertible Symmar brochures that I'd downloaded years ago in my own files. My German is abysmal, so again the fault may be mine, but I couldn't find any reference to optimizations there.

Cheers,

Dan

[Oren Grad]

I went looking for convertible Symmar (plasmat type, not dagor type) brochures at http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm to check and got a rude surprise. Schneider's site has changed and I couldn't find the archive of old brochures there. If this is real and not my fault, what a blow!

Dan - by coincidence, a few moments ago I was trying to look up some different archive information at the Schneider site and made the same unhappy discovery.

BUT: feed the URL to the Wayback Machine at archive.org and you can still retrieve it. All hail Brewster Kahle!

[Ken Lee]

In the world of smaller formats, we read from time to time that some macro lenses are better all-around performers than their standard counterparts (even at infinity). Is that a fluke, a reflection of better quality control, or what ?

In a similar vein: if my Sinar-branded 210mm Macro Sironar is as sharp at infinity as my 240mm Fujinon A and 200mm Nikkor M, is that a fluke or a testament to Sinar's having "hand-picked" certain specimens, or what ?

[Dan Fromm]

Ken, its a question of design, its not true for all macro lenses for 35 mm, and it may be somewhat of a myth. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744296/sizes/o/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744224/sizes/o/

Here are Modern Photography's results for the 55/2.8 MicroNikkor, which isn't in the links above:

55/2.8 11/80 (@1:49)2.8 69 49 52 30
4 69 55 54 48
5.6 78 55 58 55
8 69 62 58 57
11 69 62 54 55
16 62 49 48 48
22 49 44 38 40
32 40 35 24 36

(@1:2) 2.8 48 36
4 64 48
5.6 64 54
8 64 54
11 54 48
16 48 48
22 42 42
32 38 36

The first column is aperture, the second two resolution in lp/mm center and edge, the last two contrast center and edge. These are good, probably no better than a decent f/1.7 - f/2 standard lens for 35 mm would give.

Some macro lenses for 35mm aren't that wonderful, for example the 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS, of which I've had two examples. They performed consistently with MP's test:

200/4 5/81 (@1:49) 4 44 39 38 21
5.6 44 39 42 22
8 44 39 48 26
11 49 44 49 29
16 49 44 46 27
22 44 44 40 25
32 39 35 30 23

I've shot mine against a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II at f/9, f/11, and f/16 at 1:2 (the MicroNikkor's close focusing limit), 10' and 30'. The GR II's much better. So, I understand, is the current 200/4 autofocus MicroNikkor.

Re design, slow normal lenses are almost always better than fast ones. I was a little surprised that the test in the links reported on the 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. If you look, you'll find that neither MP nor Popular Photography ever published a test of it. I once asked Norman Rothschild why not. He told me that it didn't meet the minimum standard at all apertures at infinity and that neither magazine published negative reviews to avoid losing advertising revenue. I've had a 55/3.5, my wife still has one. The 55/2.8 has a floating element that improves corrections (coma, I've read) at distance and is better.

[Ken Lee]

Thank you very much for all of that !

I recently purchased and subsequently returned one of those 55mm f.3.5 Macro Nikkors. I had high hopes for it but fortunately, it arrived with a stuck focusing ring and I had a valid excuse to return it. I was surprised to find out that it was no better at any distance than my ordinary 50mm: now you've put that puzzle to rest too.

[hiend61]

Or will a 210mm f5.6 should deliver the goods as I'm planing to do with 6x9 back an occasionally 4x5.

I'm looking for 3:1 and extremely rare 2:1 mostly with medium format back "flowers under controlled environment"

Regards,
Mohammed

A modern plasmat will do the job, but for better results, try an Apo Ronar 150 or 240 (If bellows extension is not a problem for you) and be happy.

[hiend61]

Thank you very much for all of that !

I recently purchased and subsequently returned one of those 55mm f.3.5 Macro Nikkors. I had high hopes for it but fortunately, it arrived with a stuck focusing ring and I had a valid excuse to return it. I was surprised to find out that it was no better at any distance than my ordinary 50mm: now you've put that puzzle to rest too.

For many years I used Micro Nikkor 55/3,5 for macro and copy work and I was extremely happy with it, but for infinity it was not in the same league than a standard Nikkor 50. I changed 55/3,5 for the newer Micro Nikkor 55/2,8 and the improvement at infinity was so significant that I used it as an uneversal lens. For macro and copy work 55/2,8 was just a hair worse than 55/3,5. It´s one of greatest Nikkor ever. I prefer it to my Leica Macro Elmarit 60/2,8. If you want some fun, put a Nikon bayonet mout in (you can get one from an inexpensive extension tube) in a Sinar recessed board and the 55/2,8 on it. This lens will cover 6x7 at 1:1. If you have a Sinar Zoom roll film holder, you can use it in 4,5x6, 6x6 and 6x7 with no movements of course.

[Larry Gebhardt]

To continue this tangent away from large format I have tried out the Nikkor 55/f3.5 and the 55/f2.8 for digitizing 35mm negatives and slides with my D800. At 1:1 the 55/f2.8 is the superior lens out to the corners. The f/3.5 is sharp in the center, but the grain goes to mush near the corners with my copy. But the Rodenstock Rodagon 80mm f/4 seems to outdo both of them for this one purpose.

[Bob Salomon]

To continue this tangent away from large format I have tried out the Nikkor 55/f3.5 and the 55/f2.8 for digitizing 35mm negatives and slides with my D800. At 1:1 the 55/f2.8 is the superior lens out to the corners. The f/3.5 is sharp in the center, but the grain goes to mush near the corners with my copy. But the Rodenstock Rodagon 80mm f/4 seems to outdo both of them for this one purpose.

The lens that is made specifically to do this job is the Rodenstock 75mm 4.0 Apo Rodagon-D. It looks just like an enlarging lens but isn't one. It is a duplicating lens.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Bob, thanks for that bit of information. Do you have any idea how much better it would be at 1:1 than the enlarger lens I'm now using (which is very good at 1:1)?

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, thanks for that bit of information. Do you have any idea how much better it would be at 1:1 than the enlarger lens I'm now using (which is very good at 1:1)?

Significant difference compared to your enlarging lens reversed mounted. If your lens is not reversed mounted the difference would be even greater.

The 75 4.0 Apo Rodagon-D is a lens designed specifically for duplicating at 1:1 and a bit less or more. It is corrected for just that purpose. Your enlarging lens was designed to take a small original and to magnify it between 4 and 15x. There is simply no comparison if you are trying to come as close to the original as possible.

Conversely the Apo Rodagon D series (75mm 4.0, 75mm 4.5 and 120mm 5.6) make terrible enlargements.

Because these are duplicating lenses they also have different features then an enlarging lens. So they don't have the illuminated aperure ring and they do not have the light port on the rear surface of the lens.

The 75mm 4.0 Apo Rodagon-D is opptimized for 0.8 to 1,2X magnification for film formats up to 6x6cm. The 75mm 4.5 Apo Rodagon-D is optimized for 1.2 t0 2.5X for film sizes to 6x7cm. The 120mm Apo Rodagon-D is optimized for 0.5 to 3X for 4x5 film.
Since these lenses are optimized for 1:1 work optimal performance is between 5.6 to 8.0. Beyond 8.0 you would degrade the image from diffraction.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Significant difference compared to your enlarging lens reversed mounted. If your lens is not reversed mounted the difference would be even greater.


I picked up a 75mm f/4 Rodagon D for my DSLR just to see how much better it was (I was not reversing the enlarging lens). It's shocking how much better it is, especially in the corners. Grain is crisp across the whole frame.

What would be the correct lens to reduce a 4x5 negative down to the DSLR frame 1"x1.5" (.3X)? It would be nice to have a quick way to proof 4x5 film, and the D800 should actually come close to the resolution of my Epson scanner. It would also be a lot easier, assuming I can build a decent holder for it. Would you reverse the 120mm Rodagon D, or go with a 4x5 macro lens like the APO-Macro-Sironar?

[Bob Salomon]

I picked up a 75mm f/4 Rodagon D for my DSLR just to see how much better it was (I was not reversing the enlarging lens). It's shocking how much better it is, especially in the corners. Grain is crisp across the whole frame.

What would be the correct lens to reduce a 4x5 negative down to the DSLR frame 1"x1.5" (.3X)? It would be nice to have a quick way to proof 4x5 film, and the D800 should actually come close to the resolution of my Epson scanner. It would also be a lot easier, assuming I can build a decent holder for it. Would you reverse the 120mm Rodagon D, or go with a 4x5 macro lens like the APO-Macro-Sironar?

The 120 Apo Rodagon-D.

Glad you liked the 75mm.

[photonsoup]

This has been a great thread to find. In May the wildflowers start blooming. There are several small varieties, less than 1", that I've never gotten photos that I was happy with. I have been using Nikon DSLR with a 55mm AIS Micro. One of the reasons I decided to try LF was to see if I could get better photos of these flowers.

Last year I had just got my 1st LF camera, a Cambo, and epoxied mount from an old lens to a lensboard. With my D300 mounted and in liveview I was amazed at the micro effect. This year I want to be ready to use 4x5 film. I still have lots of questions and lots of learning so I know what questions I should be asking.

Here's my list at present:

Light loss: I've learned the hard way that when your bellows is extended twice the focal length of the lens, the f-stop scale is no longer correct. Is this a linear function? focal length/iris diameter=f-stop? So if using 150mm lens @f8, iris D=18.75mm. If bellows is extended to 350mm, then 350/18.75=f18.67 when scale on shutter reads 8? If this is incorrect, what?

Diffraction: I know that at a certain f-stop diffraction becomes a factor in loss of sharpness. Is this magnified as the bellows are extended for macro shots? If so is there a way to calculate it?

When you talk about using enlarging lens, how do you go about attaching one to a shutter? At least I assume you have to use a shutter somewhere in the mix. I have a couple of old enlarger lens I could experiment with.

I have 400 mm of bellows available to work with. Generally, will I be able to get a higher magnification with a wide angle, normal, or longer lens with this amount of bellows? At similar magnification which will tend towards better sharpness? Which will have more depth of field?

Does magnification in these ranges affect color? Does it affect contrast?

I thought (wished) that I would have had time to answer these questions my self through experimentation, but life happens. And spring will be here sooner than I am ready for.
Thanks
Bryan

[Ken Lee]

Light loss: I've learned the hard way that when your bellows is extended twice the focal length of the lens, the f-stop scale is no longer correct. Is this a linear function? focal length/iris diameter=f-stop? So if using 150mm lens @f8, iris D=18.75mm. If bellows is extended to 350mm, then 350/18.75=f18.67 when scale on shutter reads 8? If this is incorrect, what?
I have 400 mm of bellows available to work with. Generally, will I be able to get a higher magnification with a wide angle, normal, or longer lens with this amount of bellows? At similar magnification which will tend towards better sharpness? Which will have more depth of field?

You might find this page helpful: Bellows Forumulae (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/bellows.php).

If you have an iPhone you may find this app extremely convenient: Reciprocity Timer (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/reciprocity-timer/id459691262?mt=8). It calculates compensation for bellows draw, reciprocity and filters all at the same time. Here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?36782-Show-off-your-camera!&p=983978&viewfull=1#post983978) is a recent example made with the app.

With a shorter lens you need less bellows draw and it will have greater depth of field compared to a longer lens at the same aperture (double the focal length requires stopping down 2 stops for the same depth of field). However - the shorter the lens, the greater the change in perspective, also known as fore-shortening. See this article on perspective distortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29). There's no right or wrong: we choose our equipment to deliver a certain look.

Ob Bob's recommendation I got a real macro lens and have never looked back. The 210mm Macro Sironar N has a clever design: the front and rear cells can be swapped. The usual arrangement works down to 1:1, and when reversed it works from 1:1 to 3:1. I have also found it to be a great performer at infinity. I also had a 120mm Macro Sironar for a short time, and while the length was too short for my taste, it was absurdly sharp and smooth, even at infinity.

[Dan Fromm]

Bryan, you asked questions that want a book-length answer. Buy a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography and study it closely. You'll learn more from it than from short answers here.

About putting an enlarging lens on or in shutter. What to do depends on the lens. If the lens' cells are direct fits in a shutter, there you are. If they aren't, you'll have to have an adapter made. I get mine, when needed, from www.skgrimes.com. There are other machineships, but I prefer skgrimes. They're capable, experienced, creative and understand the problems.

[C_Remington]

Sorry, I mean 1:3 and 1:2!!

How do you know which is which??? Why does 1:3 mean macro and 3:1 doesn't?

[Ken Lee]

How do you know which is which??? Why does 1:3 mean macro and 3:1 doesn't?

If the film is 4x5 inches, a 1:3 image will record a 12x15 inch subject and reduce it to 4x5 inches.

If the film is 4x5 inches, a 3:1 image will record a subject that is 1.3 x 1.6 inches in size and magnify it to 4x5 inches.

[Dan Fromm]

How do you know which is which??? Why does 1:3 mean macro and 3:1 doesn't?

See post 43 in this thread. Buy the book, study the book.

There are conventions, but they're often ignored.

Image size:object size. As Ken explained, 1:3 means image 1/3d the size of the subject. 3:1 means image 3 times the size of the subject. 1:1 means that image and subject are the same size.

Closeup and macro are used interchangeably by 35 mm small chip digital photographers to refer to magnifications from "not that much" to 1:1. I think this reflects the fact that most macro lenses for 35 mm SLRs and small chip digicams go to 1:1, and no higher, on their own mounts.

In the larger world, closeup photography includes magnifications from "not that much" to 1:1. Photomacrography -- macro, for short -- starts at 1:1, includes all higher magnifications. Most of the people who post here ignore the distinction.

[photonsoup]

Bryan, you asked questions that want a book-length answer. Buy a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography and study it closely. You'll learn more from it than from short answers here.

Thanks Dan, Amazon has several used copies of the book. mine will be here Wednesday.

[photonsoup]

You might find this page helpful: Bellows Forumulae (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/bellows.php).

Thanks Ken, great page, that helps a lot.

Android phone, couldn't your app

Doubt if I'll have funds for a macro lens this year. I'll have to make do with what I have. Am I correct in understanding that I can swap cells in any lens?

[Ken Lee]

Am I correct in understanding that I can swap cells in any lens?

The 210 Rodenstock Macro was designed with swapping in mind. Others were/are not.

Other lenses can be reversed, but your mileage may vary as they say.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it has been pointed out in other threads that if a typical lens is corrected for 1:20, then in reversed configuration it would be corrected for 20x magnification - which we're unlikely to use. Newer macro designs are corrected for 1:1 and don't need to be reversed. Some process lenses are symmetrical to begin with, and may not benefit at all from reversal.

[Dan Fromm]

Doubt if I'll have funds for a macro lens this year. I'll have to make do with what I have. Am I correct in understanding that I can swap cells in any lens?

No. Cells made to fit a #1 shutter can't be swapped front to rear because Compur/Copal #1 shutters are asymmetrical. The front of the tube is threaded M40x0.75, the rear is threaded M36x0.75. #00 and #0 shutters are symmetrical. I'm not sure about US-made shutters (Ilex, Rapax, Supermatic, ...)

[Dan Fromm]

The 210 Rodenstock Macro was designed with swapping in mind. Others were/are not.

Other lenses can be reversed, but your mileage may vary as they say.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it has been pointed out in other threads that if a typical lens is corrected for 1:20, then in reversed configuration it would be corrected for 20x magnification - which we're unlikely to use. Newer macro designs are corrected for 1:1 and don't need to be reversed. Some process lenses are symmetrical to begin with, and may not benefit at all from reversal.

Ken, did you mean 120 Apo-Macro-Symmar? I'm not sure there's a 210.

Absolutely by god perfectly symmetrical lenses are, by design, optimized for 1:1. The class includes some process dialytes and some process heliar types, possibly others. These lenses can be used in the same orientation (front facing the subject) at all magnifications.

Optimization for 1:1 doesn't imply symmetry. There are process tessar types optimized for 1:1. These lenses aren't symmetrical, should be used facing normally below 1:1, reversed above.

[Bernice Loui]

See Reply with *

Bernice



This has been a great thread to find. In May the wildflowers start blooming. There are several small varieties, less than 1", that I've never gotten photos that I was happy with. I have been using Nikon DSLR with a 55mm AIS Micro. One of the reasons I decided to try LF was to see if I could get better photos of these flowers.

*Making images of wildflowers or other items of 1" or smaller out doors is a serious challenge in many ways. Any slight movement in the wild flower from a tiny breeze will result in movement during exposure resulting a blur. This is one of the major challenges of doing this kind of work out outdoors.

*There is also the challenge of lighting small subjects like this.

*Might try making a portable wind block tent with diffuser material to assist in lighting and blocking any breeze or wind from moving the item being imaged.


Here's my list at present:

Diffraction: I know that at a certain f-stop diffraction becomes a factor in loss of sharpness. Is this magnified as the bellows are extended for macro shots? If so is there a way to calculate it?

*Diffraction occurs at every aperture, it becomes significant when the limits of diffraction approaches the limits of the imaging media along with the performance of the lens used. Example, if the lens is capable of resolving about 70 LPM at f22 and the film or digital imager use is capable of 200 LPM, the overall LPM of the system will not exceed 70 LPM but slightly lower than 70 LPM.

*There is a trade-off between DOF -vs- diffraction limits and imager performance. Know that this problem increases with increasing size of the imager be it film or digital. This is where smaller formats or imagers do better than larger ones. The ideal format size or digital imager used depends on the magnifications involved, the greater the magnification the greater the problems.

*As a rule of thumb, f45 would be the smallest aperature I'm willing to use and it is very un-common for me to go past f32 as once past f22 resolution drops off below 70 LPM for the lens. At 10X magnification this results in 7 LPM in the print at the very best under absolute ideal conditions. Typically it is difficult a achieve greater than this in LF image making.

*Know there is only one plane that is truly in focus and the rest is apparently in focus or appears to be in focus.

When you talk about using enlarging lens, how do you go about attaching one to a shutter? At least I assume you have to use a shutter somewhere in the mix. I have a couple of old enlarger lens I could experiment with.

*Possible to get a single shutter and have a set of adapter rings made to allow various barrel optics to be used with that shutter.

I have 400 mm of bellows available to work with. Generally, will I be able to get a higher magnification with a wide angle, normal, or longer lens with this amount of bellows? At similar magnification which will tend towards better sharpness? Which will have more depth of field?

*This depends on the lenses available to use. Experimenting with them and getting to know the personality of each lens under various conditions is key to this. DOF is pretty much fixed based on format size and focal length -vs- f-stop.


Does magnification in these ranges affect color? Does it affect contrast?

*Yes, again, it is highly lens dependent.

I thought (wished) that I would have had time to answer these questions my self through experimentation, but life happens. And spring will be here sooner than I am ready for.
Thanks
Bryan

[Kodachrome25]

Semi-old thread revival:

I have a few projects in the works that will be in controlled environments, so I have just picked up a clean Nikkor AM 120mm 5.6 ED Macro to pair with either my 135mm 5.6 Apo Sironar S or 180mm 5.6 Apo Symmar S in doing these close up projects. Am I correct in figuring that my non-macros will be good down to 1:4 and then my 120 Macro will be good from 1:3 to 1:1 and possibly 2:1 in a pinch?

I used my 180 Apo Symmar at around F22 at 1:2 awhile back and it was only ok...and it is a super sharp lens otherwise, hence my wanting something better for that range in getting the AM 120 ED. I remember in another thread that Bob from HP Marketing said that the 135 Apo Sironar S was best suited to 1:10 in order to work well in a range of 1:5 to infinity, hence the questions...

What's the range of opinions on this?

[Bob Salomon]

Semi-old thread revival:

I have a few projects in the works that will be in controlled environments, so I have just picked up a clean Nikkor AM 120mm 5.6 ED Macro to pair with either my 135mm 5.6 Apo Sironar S or 180mm 5.6 Apo Symmar S in doing these close up projects. Am I correct in figuring that my non-macros will be good down to 1:4 and then my 120 Macro will be good from 1:3 to 1:1 and possibly 2:1 in a pinch?

I used my 180 Apo Symmar at around F22 at 1:2 awhile back and it was only ok...and it is a super sharp lens otherwise, hence my wanting something better for that range in getting the AM 120 ED. I remember in another thread that Bob from HP Marketing said that the 135 Apo Sironar S was best suited to 1:10 in order to work well in a range of 1:5 to infinity, hence the questions...

What's the range of opinions on this?
The Apo Sironar S is optimized at 1:10 so it will be fine down to 1:5. If I remember correctly the Apo Symmar is corrected to 1:20 so it will be fine down to 1:10.

[AtlantaTerry]

I do much what you do, often have difficulties with wind.

Then consider a 4x5 RB Auto Graflex. For those who don't know what that is, think about a
Mamiya RB-67 but blown up to a 4x5 size camera. Some had a bellows with extra-length extension.

[Dan Fromm]

Then consider a 4x5 RB Auto Graflex. For those who don't know what that is, think about a
Mamiya RB-67 but blown up to a 4x5 size camera. Some had a bellows with extra-length extension.

Terry, what does the camera I use have to do with subject movement caused by wind?

[Kodachrome25]

The Apo Sironar S is optimized at 1:10 so it will be fine down to 1:5. If I remember correctly the Apo Symmar is corrected to 1:20 so it will be fine down to 1:10.

Ok, so here is what is probably a dumb question: Assuming that no matter what the lens is in use, 1:1 is 4x5 inches on 4x5 film. So if a lens is optimized for 1:20, that is like 80x100 inches or roughly 6.6 x 8.3 feet. I get that these are more scientifically bound metrics that have more wiggle room in real life. Because at 3-4 stops down from wide open, all my lenses are outstanding in sharpness at infinity which is probably why they are soft-ish at 1:3-1:2.

More thinking out loud as I get a better understanding of my lenses and their limits....