Macro work? I'm confused?

[saverio]

Ok, let me preface with describing my work as fashion/beauty working between 1to1 max magnification to full figure and beyond. I am very interested in moving in from 1to1 to greater magnifications. That being said, I just purchased a beautiful Marco Sinaron 210 5.6 (on DB board) for use on my Sinar Norma 4x5. So, I mounted the lens on the Sinar at full extension btwn 16 and 18 inches and focused on a Leica camera and was able to achieve focus at near 1to1 magnification with the 1/3x...1x element facing forward. Great. Then, for a basis of comparison, I mounted my 210 Symmar-S 5.6 without moving the camera or focus. Guess what? I achieved nearly the same results as the Marco Sinaron. Am I missing something? Then I reversed the elements on The Macro Sinaron to the element 1x..3x facing forward, again, with roughly the same results??? I'm sure there is a very simple answer to all this and hope I won't feel too uninformed when I get the answer. Thanks in advance for the help.

[Ken Lee]

"I achieved nearly the same results"

How are you comparing: what do you mean by "nearly" ? Are you shooting color or b&w ? Are you looking directly at the film with a loupe, or indirectly after scanning or enlargement ?

Best results are usually obtained in the center of the image circle: Have you compared lenses and element orientations while using more considerable view camera adjustments, looking more to the extremes of coverage ?

Also we know that depth of field gets pretty thin at high magnification and vibration can be a factor. Have you ruled those out ?

[Bob Salomon]

With both the 210 and 300 Makro Sironar the results at 1:1 do not change when you reverse the lens groups. As you can see on the pictograms on the lens groups. The standard configuration is for 1:3 to 1:1 and when you reverse them then you are corrected for 1:1 to 3:1.

As for comparing with your regular lens: are you comparing results on the gg or in a print or transparency? That Leica was probably in the center of your field. Did you chheck fine detail at the edges and corners in your comparison? Do you have fine detail across the entire image area so you can check for roll off across the field?
You were shooting at 16 or 22 for this comparison? 22 is optimal aperture on both lenses.

[saverio]

When I say results, I mean just viewing image on GG without movements. I guess I'm looking for greater ability for close focusing with same bellows extension, sort of the reverse of using a telephoto design lens and thus using less bellows extension for longer focal length. I guess now my basic question is why use a Macro lens?

[Bob Salomon]

When I say results, I mean just viewing image on GG without movements. I guess I'm looking for greater ability for close focusing with same bellows extension, sort of the reverse of using a telephoto design lens and thus using less bellows extension for longer focal length. I guess now my basic question is why use a Macro lens?

Because you will get superior results between 1:3 and 3:1 with your lens compared to a lens corrected for 1:10 or 1:20 such as a general purpose lens. At the same time between 1:10 and infinity that general purpose lens will outperform the macro lens.

The amount of bellows needed is dependent on the focal length of the lens and its flange focal length. Not its design purpose.

[Leigh]

Perhaps you're expecting too much.

A 210mm lens focuses at infinity when its rear node is 210mm from the film.
It focuses at 1:1 when its rear node is 420mm from the film. Period. No exceptions.
Those values do not depend in any way on the design of the lens.

So-called "macro" lenses are optimized for close work, meaning aberrations are minimum for magnifications around 1:1.
These are not huge changes, but quite subtle. Any lens can be used at infinity, or at 1:1.
The performance may be different depending on the intended usage, but it's not a huge difference.

- Leigh

[saverio]

Thank you all. I now understand and it makes perfect sense. I look forward to playing in the macro realm. I will post results when available.

[Ken Lee]

Even if the ground glass on your camera was extremely smooth, your comparison would be similar to judging contact prints with the naked eye. With no enlargement, almost any lens will do a fine job in the center of the image circle, delivering more resolution than the naked eye can detect.

It would be more informative to make a comparison shot of the identical scene with 2 lenses, and then evaluate the film directly with a loupe.

[saverio]

Thank you Ken, that's exactly what I'm going to do.

[Drew Bedo]

I understand that this thread is about excellence in 1:1 macro imaging with high-end gear designed and dedicated to close-up photography.

With that said: I have had good results with several every-day lenses at extension, fitted with "close-up accessory lenses" (Plus Diopters). If the main subject is roughly centered and surrounded by negative space (insect or flower), any sub-optimal characteristics of the optical system do not show up on the negative. Either the edges of the composition are black or the surrounding Bokke obscures the lower quality.

Several remarks above touched on this. Technically excellent macro at 1:1 is seen at the edges.

Maybe the testing and comparison should be done with subjects or target(s) that extend uniformly to the edges of the GG.

[Bob Salomon]

.....

Maybe the testing and comparison with subjects or at extend uniformly es of the GG (newspaper?)

Unless your goal is photographing jewelry, flowers, etc that have three dimensions rather then two. For newpapers a process lens would probably perfor, best at f22.

A rough brick wall or stone wall that fills the frame would be better for a macro lens test to show 3 dimensional performance.

[Drew Bedo]

Thanks Bob, you are right on every count.

The subject or test target may be anything that is appropriate for the purpose . My point is that the critical differences between good macro and excellent macro often is most evident at the edges and corners of the negative. To make a critical comparison, the negative must have image details there.

[Doremus Scudder]

For the OP:

If you want more magnification at the same bellows extension, you need a shorter focal-length lens. I do a lot of close-up work with a 135mm.

FWIW, LF is not really the most suitable format for real macro work. DoF gets really shallow real fast. You do have image controls though, and cropping or using smaller film (i.e., roll-film backs) will often be gratifying.

Best,

Doremus