150mm sironar s or 120mm macro sironar

[macolive]

I have a 4x5 camera and I also have a 210mm lens. I can just barely double the bellows with the 210mm to get a 1:1 magnification. So I started thinking of getting a 150mm.

I was thinking of the 150 APO sironar s as it seems to be a great All around lens and pretty good at 1:1. Then I started thinking that the 210mm is a great all around lens so why not get a 120mm or a 180. macro...my worry is that the macro may be too limited in it's application (I have no idea and reviews don't seem to say much).

Any advice between a 150mm or a 120 or 180 macro?

Thanks. I know I'm going to get the standard "what do you shoot" question, so let me just say I do want to shoot still life.

[Bob Salomon]

What do you want to do? Very, very high quality macro from about 1:5 to 3:1 or general photography from infinity to 1:5?

If the former then you need a macro, Rodenstock made the Makro Sironar in 210 and 300 mm for 3:1 to 1:3. The front and rear groups had to be swapped to cover the full range. The 120 and 180mm Apo Macro Sironars covered a wider range, needed far less bellows and did not need to be swapped around.

[macolive]

Thanks Bob. My thoughts were that getting a 150 mm would be redundant as my 210mm APO sironar N would very similar (though slightly longer than the 150). However looking at some of the work here with the 150, it seems really good even at 1:1.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks Bob. My thoughts were that getting a 150 mm would be redundant as my 210mm APO sironar N would very similar (though slightly longer than the 150). However looking at some of the work here with the 150, it seems really good even at 1:1.

You really don't see what the lens can do unless you are looking at actual film. It might look "good" but it would be much better at 1:1 with a macro.

[macolive]

You really don't see what the lens can do unless you are looking at actual film. It might look "good" but it would be much better at 1:1 with a macro.
Thanks Bob! WOuld you have any thoughts between the 180mm and the 120mm macro? I'd really appreciate it.

Michael

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks Bob! WOuld you have any thoughts between the 180mm and the 120mm macro? I'd really appreciate it.

Michael

What will you shoot and how much bellows do you have? If you do not want foreshortening to be very noticeable then you want the 180. If you do not have enough bellows to get to 1:1 with the 180 then you will need the 120.

[xkaes]

Is there some reason you are only looking at Sironar? There are many other great lenses that might meet your needs. Check out a few at

www.subclub.org/fujinon/index.htm

My 4x5 macros run from a 180mm Fujinon A for close-up work (1:5-1:1), Minolta 100mm Bellows Macro (1:1-5:1), Minolta 50mm Bellows Macro (5:1-10:1), Minolta 25mm Bellows Micro (10:1-15:1), and Minolta 12.5mm Bellows Micro (15:1-20:1). The last two are really microscope lenses helped along with Leica micro lens designs. You might think that 35mm lenses would not fill a 4x5 format, but they do with enough extension -- and they don't need much. The results are phenomenal, even with very large prints. Sure, you will need one or two adapters (I have a Minolta-to-Leica adapter and a Leica-to-Copal #1 adapter) but this approach opens up a whole new world of possibilities.

So, I'd determine what focal length lens you want first, and then look to see what is out there.




I have a 4x5 camera and I also have a 210mm lens. I can just barely double the bellows with the 210mm to get a 1:1 magnification. So I started thinking of getting a 150mm.

I was thinking of the 150 APO sironar s as it seems to be a great All around lens and pretty good at 1:1. Then I started thinking that the 210mm is a great all around lens so why not get a 120mm or a 180. macro...my worry is that the macro may be too limited in it's application (I have no idea and reviews don't seem to say much).

Any advice between a 150mm or a 120 or 180 macro?

Thanks. I know I'm going to get the standard "what do you shoot" question, so let me just say I do want to shoot still life.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, xkaes, this is a large format forum.

Lenses in mounts for 35 mm (or equivalent digital) SLRs are slightly taboo. Slightly because at high enough magnifications they'll certainly cover 4x5 and larger formats, but that's not where the OP wants to work.

You may be mistaken about the 25 and 12.5 Minolta bellows lenses. I've always thought they're rebadged Photars. Were yours made in Germany or Japan?

[macolive]

Is there some reason you are only looking at Sironar? There are many other great lenses that might meet your needs. Check out a few at

www.subclub.org/fujinon/index.htm

My 4x5 macros run from a 180mm Fujinon A for close-up work (1:5-1:1), Minolta 100mm Bellows Macro (1:1-5:1), Minolta 50mm Bellows Macro (5:1-10:1), Minolta 25mm Bellows Micro (10:1-15:1), and Minolta 12.5mm Bellows Micro (15:1-20:1). The last two are really microscope lenses helped along with Leica micro lens designs. You might think that 35mm lenses would not fill a 4x5 format, but they do with enough extension -- and they don't need much. The results are phenomenal, even with very large prints. Sure, you will need one or two adapters (I have a Minolta-to-Leica adapter and a Leica-to-Copal #1 adapter) but this approach opens up a whole new world of possibilities.

So, I'd determine what focal length lens you want first, and then look to see what is out there.

Thanks! I'll look into this info. I live in the Philippines (Asia) so it's not so easy to test lenses let alone experiment with them. So Rodenstock, Schneider, Fuji, and Nikon would be the go to lenses for me.

Having said that though, I do have a Wollensak Raptar 162mm enlarging lens but I have no idea how to fit a shutter on to it.

[xkaes]

Um, I know this is a 4x5 LF group. Perhaps you need to re-read my message. Um.



Um, xkaes, this is a large format forum.

Lenses in mounts for 35 mm (or equivalent digital) SLRs are slightly taboo. Slightly because at high enough magnifications they'll certainly cover 4x5 and larger formats, but that's not where the OP wants to work.

You may be mistaken about the 25 and 12.5 Minolta bellows lenses. I've always thought they're rebadged Photars. Were yours made in Germany or Japan?

[Dan Fromm]

Um, I know this is a 4x5 LF group. Perhaps you need to re-read my message. Um.

Thanks for the reply. Not 4x5, 4x5 and larger. And I said "slightly taboo."

You have no way of knowing it, but I very occasionally use a reversed 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS on 2x3 (medium format by this forum's rules) and have recommended it as a superior, easier to find and less expensive alternative to the 63/4.5 Luminar.

Please answer my question about your Minolta Photars. Where were they made?

[xkaes]

Thanks for the reply. Not 4x5, 4x5 and larger. And I said "slightly taboo."

You have no way of knowing it, but I very occasionally use a reversed 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS on 2x3 (medium format by this forum's rules) and have recommended it as a superior, easier to find and less expensive alternative to the 63/4.5 Luminar.

Please answer my question about your Minolta Photars. Where were they made?



Minolta's first Macro and Micro lenses were made and sold by Leica. At the time, they were sold as Leica Photars, as was the 800mm Telyt (not marked as Photar). They were marked Leica -- but might have been made by Minolta, same as the Leica/Minolta CL/CLE. At the end of their "arrangement" Minolta kept making them -- except the 800mm -- and sold them as Rokkor and Minolta lenses. The Micros only came in a RMS (Royal Microscope Society) thread so an adapter is needed. Minolta made three of these adapters. While not designed for LF cameras, they are completely usable on them with the appropriate adapters.

Their is nothing in the rules of this group that forbid me from discussing the use of microscope lenses on LF cameras. They were designed for usage on microscopes but can be used on LF cameras as well, if you open up your mind.

[Dan Fromm]

Their is nothing in the rules of this group that forbid me from discussing the use of microscope lenses on LF cameras. They were designed for usage on microscopes but can be used on LF cameras as well, if you open up your mind.

Thanks for the reply. I've always understood that Photars were Wetzlar products. Your Minolta badged Photars should be engraved "Made in Japan" or "Made in Germany." Which are they?

I'm aware that Leica sold rebadged Rokkors. They're not germane to this discussion.

Of course there's no ban on talking about high magnification macro lenses, many of which are in RMS thread, in the forum. I have Luminars and Neupolars and even a 25/2.8 Summar in RMS thread, have mentioned them here and use them. You and I aren't the only people in this forum who have, use and talk about these lenses.

But what you've brought to this discussion has nothing to do with the OP's objectives.

[xkaes]

I don't have any of the early "Minolta" / Leica / Photar lenses. All I have are ones marked "Made in Japan". As I recall, the early Microscope lens from Leica was marked 12mm. The later Minolta version was marked 12.5mm.

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks for the reply. I'll have to adjust my beliefs.